All manufacturers have benefits and points of interest for their various products. We all like to advocate the merits of our products and highlight the benefits and advantages of each specific product. I have no issue with doing that until I see a program that completely is opposite of my own philosophy.
I am referring specifically about my competition that is advocating a ROTATION CONCEPT. Rotating from feeding a frozen raw meat diet, then to a heat processed canned diet, then switch to a heat processed dry kibble formula- does this make any sense to you? Either you advocate a raw feeding program or you don’t. I can’t imagine how anyone can accept this philosophy that totally promotes the additional sales of heat processed foods.
- Can it be suggested for any other reason than to supplement additional sales to support the sale of the frozen diets? What am I missing here?
- How can anyone accept this concept as a proper and biologically appropriate way to feed a dog?
This is a classic example of turning a negative into a positive approach. For that I give them an “A”. For the CONCEPT that they are trying to promote, I give them an “F”. If anyone can offer a reason why this philosophy is a proper and appropriate feeding protocol for a dog I would welcome their input. Other than trying to reduce the cost of feeding a dog with cheaper and less appropriate ingredients, I can’t come up with any advantages.
A true believer in feeding raw foods, and someone that is convinced that feeding a natural, raw food diet is a better program would NEVER accept such a marketing fiasco. Replies to me are welcomed from anyone able to offer me an advantage to using a rotation diet concept.
posted by Rob Mueller