What;s wrong with the grain free kibbles?

[pblove]

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/11/08/new-trends-in-pet-food.aspx

[Savage Destiny]

The title of that article is VERY misleading. Nothing she says is in any way specific to grain free kibbles, the whole article does nothing but spout the evils of kibble in general. She's not talking about grain free kibble being bad, she's talking about ALL kibble being bad and throwing a title on it that says grain free. "In fact she says that nobody should feed kibble ever, only raw should be fed and canned or dehydrated food fed in a pinch.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for raw feeding- I feed all raw. But its not an option for everyone, and canned/dehydrated foods are NOT cost-effective for anyone with a dog over 10lbs.

[pblove]

since I didn't write the article you might want to address your concerns to the vet that did.

[Sarah]

I have to agree... that article is just anti-kibble, nothing specific to grain free.

[Savage Destiny]

since I didn't write the article you might want to address your concerns to the vet that did.

Well, considering that you linked the article on a board meant for discussion, I thought that you wanted feedback and discussion on the article. My bad.

[Emily]

I think the point is that pet owners who want the benefits of raw are being led to believe that "grain free" kibble is a suitable alternative. Kibble is kibble when it comes to moisture content....a very important component of raw. It could be misleading for a person new to the idea of raw feeding to see a kibble being advertised as comparable to raw.

[bimzrus]

I think the point is that pet owners who want the benefits of raw are being led to believe that "grain free" kibble is a suitable alternative. Kibble is kibble when it comes to moisture content....a very important component of raw. It could be misleading for a person new to the idea of raw feeding to see a kibble being advertised as comparable to raw.

I couldn't agree more

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Sarah]

I haven't seen anyone advertising a grain free kibble as being equivalent to raw food. Grain free seems to be advertised as better than food that includes grain (which I'm not so sure about, though I do feed a grain free kibble). In general, though, any manufacturer is going to tell you that their product is the best thing ever.

This article isn't anything more than another pro-raw, anti-kibble article. And the thing is, there are better articles of that nature available. This one doesn't include any actual data to support the position, just some meaningless self-supporting arguments. ie; "raw food is better because it is live food, kibble is dead. You can prove this by putting out a bowl of raw meat and one of kibble, the raw meat will become infested with maggots, the kibble will not. This is because it is dead." Okay, but what exactly does that prove? It's a logical fallacy, there is no actual information given there. No way to judge the validity of the claim. (for point of reference, it's not entirely true, either. If you soak kibble, it will in fact draw maggots. Still not clear what the maggots are supposed to prove, though.)

It completely ignores the fact that the lower moisture content in kibble can be addressed by putting water on the kibble. And that dogs do in fact drink more water if they aren't getting it from their food.

The whole thing is basically just an opinion piece. Nothing really to be learned from it. There is better information available. And the title is misleading.