Eu não vou perder mais tempo com imbecis como Vc.
No entanto e por uma questão de respeito para todos os outros 477 foristas que tiveram a paciência de ler esta "thread", aqui fica o comentário de toda esta situação dado pela moderadora da alimentação do tal site americano que só tem uns milhõeszitos de participantes ...
Citação:
"There are some people in this world who are never going to allow themselves to be convinced, no matter what you've got to say. Especially if there's an implied criticism there about what they feed their dogs.
Some people, for example *do* cling to the belief that a food is wonderful because it is scientifically formulated by a large cosmetics company (eg. Hills - which is actually Colgate-Palmolive or Eukanuba, which is Proctor & Gamble) irrespective that they've got eyes and can read the ingredient list. How they can come to the conclusion that a food can magically be better than the ingredients used to make it is beyond me. But some people certainly do believe it. Actually, I suspect they just don't want to believe otherwise, but that's just me.
Maybe they don't understand what they're reading? Hard to believe though - AAFCO ingredient definitions are so easy to access (heck, they're all over the internet even) that it only takes two seconds to discover that the "Chicken by-product meal" found in just about every formula of Eukanuba consists of "the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice". Heads and feet? Well, personally I'd rather my dog was eating whole chickens - at least they've got some actual meat on them.
Then there's the amount of meat products in dog food. Now, I'm a believer in the Darwinian theory of evolution - and I find it hard to imagine how dry dog food (which has been in existance for 100 years, and popularly fed for less than 50) can have made the slightest dent in the physiological make up of a dog. Well, we know it hasn't. Dissection tells us what the dog's digestive tract is like. It's that of a carnivore - extremely short and designed specifically for the fast digestion of meat and bones. Not grains - in fact, dogs are so badly designed for digesting grains and plant matter that they haven't even got the digestive enzymes necessary to do so (specifically, they lack the digestive enzyme cellulase which is required to break down the cellulose walls of plant material). That interesting fact can be found in any basic biology textbook. Here's what one veterinary site has to say about dog's tolerance (note that tolerance is less than thrive at the best of times) for carbohydrates in the diet:
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm ... icleid=655
So again, why are we feeding our dogs foods that are - in the case of Eukanuba Adult Lamb, for example (and in the EU it says so right on the packet) - only 14% meat? Because it's convenient, that's why. Just scoop and serve. But why choose that over a food that's closer to 50% meat if you've got the choice? Especially if it doesn't even cost much more? Hard to believe that it's because you thought it was better, or could remotely be considered species-appropriate nutrition.
Hills is such an issue it's hard to even get into it. Suffice it to say that that food didn't earn the nickname "cancer in a bag" for no reason. And they still haven't removed the carcinogenic preservatives (things like BHA/BHT that are banned from the human food chain precisely because they're carcinogenic - something that's been known for over 50 years) from their prescription foods. Heck, well-respected insitutions like the Whole Dog Journal (
http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/ if you're interested) have even run whole series on how bad those foods are. The information is out there for anyone who cares to know it. Nothing you can do if people don't want to know though.
A few interesting links:
http://www.api4animals.org/facts?p=359&more=1
http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/litter.htm
http://www.flintriverranch.org/petfoodarticles.html
And this one - a bit on the hysterical side, but still containing good information:
http://www.fila.org/peak/dirtydogs.htm
IMO - if people want to take onboard the information they're given; to take that and do a little research for themselves and come out with a new viewpoint - then great. Give them all the help you can. Doesn't mean their viewpoint is going to end up exactly the same as yours, but it will at least be an informed one. But if they don't want to know, they just don't - no amount of information provision is going to change that. So save your energy for the open minds. It's far more worthwhile.
As for me - well, I'm yet to be convinced that a dog food can possibly be magically better than the ingredients used to make it. So I'll continue to assess them on the basis of what is in them
And I'll take the ones using decent grade meats at high percentages, as few carbs as possible - and where they are used, decent quality whole grains/vegetables - over the crappy foods filled with by-products, floor sweepings and carcinogenic chemical preservatives."
Fim de citação.
Espero que compreendam Inglês. O par de jarras que me tem andado a chatear percebe de certeza já que são muito "habilitados", por supuesto
Queriam links ????
Eat your heart's out !!!
Fiquem
PS: antes de responder Vasco, pense bem e não diga mais alarvidades.