Does everyone really feel that you really feed less of a more expensive/better quality food? To the point that you really aren't spending much more money?
I have an 18 month old dane I've tried on a variety of kibble. The research and reading everyone's opinions makes my head spin. Cost is an issue for me, especially with several giant breed dogs in the household. Orijen and the like ($50+ a bag) is out of the question for me at this point. I would honestly like to try raw, but that's not an option for me at this point, either, with many dogs and not a good source/ a lot of travel. Anyway, my point to this post is, After trying several different kibble, he was on Taste of The Wild consistently. I was pretty happy with the quality and price. My local feed store stopped carrying it or having on hand and the next closest place to buy dog food is an hour and 1/2+ away and I can't get out there regularly. Because of many reasons he has been on ProPlan for several months. I'm not happy with the ingredients or quality, even for the price, but I've seen many dogs do well on it, it is easily acceptable and it has to do for now until I can find something else.
He is getting the same amount of proplan as he was of TOTW (about 10-11 cups), possibly even a tad less of the Proplan, and he has gained weight. He was a pretty good weight on the TOTW, maybe a little slender for my liking, but he has filled out a bit and looks great now. It has been in my experience that I (and people I know) haven't *really* fed less of a higher quality kibble. I am certainly not saying feeding a better quality isn't absolutely better, however I see a lot of people trying to "promote" (for lack of a better word) their expensive kibble saying you will feed less so it really won't cost that much more, and in my experience I find this not always to be the case, so using that to make people feel better about spending more isn't always fair. You aren't going to switch from Pedigree (or even diamond naturals, proplan, etc) to Orijen and come out even because you feed less.
Does anyone else feel this isn't a fair statement?
I have an 18 month old dane I've tried on a variety of kibble. The research and reading everyone's opinions makes my head spin. Cost is an issue for me, especially with several giant breed dogs in the household. Orijen and the like ($50+ a bag) is out of the question for me at this point. I would honestly like to try raw, but that's not an option for me at this point, either, with many dogs and not a good source/ a lot of travel. Anyway, my point to this post is, After trying several different kibble, he was on Taste of The Wild consistently. I was pretty happy with the quality and price. My local feed store stopped carrying it or having on hand and the next closest place to buy dog food is an hour and 1/2+ away and I can't get out there regularly. Because of many reasons he has been on ProPlan for several months. I'm not happy with the ingredients or quality, even for the price, but I've seen many dogs do well on it, it is easily acceptable and it has to do for now until I can find something else.
He is getting the same amount of proplan as he was of TOTW (about 10-11 cups), possibly even a tad less of the Proplan, and he has gained weight. He was a pretty good weight on the TOTW, maybe a little slender for my liking, but he has filled out a bit and looks great now. It has been in my experience that I (and people I know) haven't *really* fed less of a higher quality kibble. I am certainly not saying feeding a better quality isn't absolutely better, however I see a lot of people trying to "promote" (for lack of a better word) their expensive kibble saying you will feed less so it really won't cost that much more, and in my experience I find this not always to be the case, so using that to make people feel better about spending more isn't always fair. You aren't going to switch from Pedigree (or even diamond naturals, proplan, etc) to Orijen and come out even because you feed less.
Does anyone else feel this isn't a fair statement?
