XPost: rec.pets.dogs.health, rec.pets.dogs.breeds, rec.pets.dogs.behavior   
   XPost: alt.religion.dake-bonoism   
   From: flick@starband.net   
      
   "Dan"  wrote in message   
   news:_RXTg.12221$7I1.5903@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...   
   >   
   > All of what you just wrote is unsubstantiated opinion.  One is going to   
   > find few, if any unbiased studies on the internet.  One would be well   
   > advised to consult the Journal of Veterinary Medicine or a similar   
   > periodical for studies on animal nutrition.   
      
   I'd like to see some good studies on this too.  We've got a house full of   
   energetic dogs with nice coats and good skin and pad quality that have been   
   raised on Old Roy, Field Trial and River Run - 50 lbs for $9.95-$12.95.   
      
   Our Shar Pei was 13 when I had her put down, physically very healthy still   
   (alas, untreatably senile), a breed supposedly prone to "food allergies" and   
   various "food sensitivities" that should have precluded a long healthy life   
   on such stuff.  Our Saint just went for his yearly checkup, and the vet   
   pronounced him "gorgeous" and asked what we were feeding.  Heh.   
      
   So there's my anecdotal evidence that inexpensive dog food is fine.  I fail   
   to see how spending two or three times as much would improve the health of   
   our dogs.   
      
   flick 100785   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)