Its a sweeping statement to say companies just write puppy on a bag to make more money
I've never said that, in fact I said the opposite. This was my words:-
Quote:
When you look at dogs in "Puppy" at shows now, and compare them with the dogs in Puppy in the 60's and 70's, before puppy food was invented, there is no comparison. The pups are so much bigger and mature than in the old days.
So yes, there does seem to be a difference in the foods. My arguments is, is it for the better? And I dont think it is. But as to price, whether the difference warrants the extra price is a different matter. Most people on here were not alive before puppy foods became available, but a few of us were, and we question their benefits.
Nothing to do with puppy foods, but I well remember the first complete food to become available in this country, Purina. The problem was that until that time everyone had fed various forms of wet food, whether out of tins such as Chum and Kennomeat or whether tripe or the like. These foods were by their very nature something line 80% water. Our dogs drank very little because so much of their needs came directly from the food. Then came Purina, if my memory serves me correct something like 10% moisture and people did not realise just how much extra water their dogs needed. Purina got a very bad name, unjustifiably yes, but for some time it disappeared from the shelves, to return sometime later along with a whole range of other manufacturers complete foods. Purina suffered from being the first. Not their fault, but there is is.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
