Finally, a sensible post.Originally Posted by TFX
Yeah Limey, and Fat Bill once put out a keep that called for using Corn Flakes. He probably won more shows that me too, but that doesn't mean the guy knows anything about nutrition. Smith & Walton fed Ol' Roy when I got there, and he won a lot of shows too. Winning contests and making a profit on the kennel isn't a good measure of sound nutritional choices. In fact, if profitability is a key driver, poor nutrition likely will provide a much more attractive return on investment.
Generally dog people of any fancy are blind idiots following idiots with a little more, yet still limited vision. So these "knowledgable" Greyhound fanciers may not be knowledgeable whatsoever. In fact, I am supposing that because they keep hundreds and hundreds of dogs and cull a majority of them, that this feed choice has much more to do with economics than it does nutritional benefits.
It's pretty much this simple: Mohammad Ali eating McDonald's french fries would probably have whipped 99% of humanity in a boxing match, even if those people ate great food, but that doesn't make french fries "good food."
Every "old timer" idiot out there thinks because his dog wins a match that his "feed keep" is what won the match
Wrong! All it means is the guy knows a "Mohammad Ali" when he sees one and can put him in decent shape. One thing old timers generally get right is what a good dog is, how to find its best weight, and how to keep him in good condition ... in fact a good dog at its best weight, right there, is hard to beat coming right off the chain fed kibble.
But that does NOT mean kibble is "optimal nutrition" nor that coming off the chain is "optimal condition."
Jack
PS: The only thing I disagree with is the long term economics of feeding poorly mean shorter lives, more vet bills, and more problems down the road. Long term, it is actually less costly to feed raw. Better stated, long term feeding raw is an investment into your dogs.
Reply With Quote