|Barked: Wed Dec 9, '09 11:50am PST |
|holy moley!!! I missed a lot!!
IMHO, raw is basically the best. I stuck basically in there, because there could be dogs that just couldn't tolerate it for whatever reason. I'm not a scientist, or a statistitian, so I don't have any surveys or studies to prove that either way. All I know is, I do what's best for my dogs, to the best of my capabilities, and I think that is the right thing to do. If I could afford to feed Duppy a raw diet of only duck, fish, and lamb, I would. I can't, so I feed the best kibble. I spend 50$ for a month and a half's worth of kibble for him, where as if I were to feed that raw, (no chicken or beef) I'd be spending 100$+ a month. I just can't do it, so we go with kibble. He gets a complete diet, and he's healthy, and that's what matters most to me.
Now Lucy and Kiro, I can get buy feeding them on average between 20-30$ worth of raw food a month, and they still get a complete diet, and it's raw. So there's no point in changing that, especially when they do so well on it, and I know I am giving them the best.
I like what Lilith said at the very beginning of this thread- Moderation! When I have kids, I'll be feeding them the best I can. But that's not going to say that they're never going to get junk food, or an express breakfast of Quaker Oatsquares. Might not be the best, but it's the best that I can do, and that's what counts. If I could afford to have all fresh, organic food for myself, heck, you bet that's all I'd be eating!!!! I can't, so I do what's best for myself. Does that mean, because I can't afford the best of the best, that I can't have kids, or animals? I surely don't think so.
Know thy dog, do what's best for thy dog. (know thyself and take care of thyself!) I think thats a reasonable standard to go by?'
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|