Hi James P,
How well a dog does or doesn’t do with a particular diet is independent of the star rating. I feed my own dog a 2.5 star rated food and the lower star rating is of no concern to me. On another rating site my 2.5 star rated food is given a 9.2/10 rating in the health category and RC Boxer rates 8.3/10 in the health category. http://www.goodguide.com/products?brand_id%5B%5D=309255-royal-canin&filter=&page=2&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Why the huge difference? The two sites are using different criteria. I’m open to the idea that there are different ways to evaluate a food and I’ve found that veterinary nutritionists and PhD nutritionists use different parameters by which to evaluate foods than do most rating sites.
Interestingly enough I’ve found that when zoo nutritionists use commercial products they often choose Hill’s Science diet products to feed the valuable animals in their care. When I was last at the zoo I saw the keepers measuring out Science Diet in the feeding room. I later verified with the zoo that they purchase this food and was told they chose SD based on the nutrient content and bioavailability of the nutrients.
Dr. Remillard, a boarded veterinary nutritionist, when asked which food she’d feed responded: “It’s kind of a race to the top between Royal Canin, Purina and Hill’s for me….” https://www.petdiets.com/Ask-the-Nutritionist
The criteria important to me may not be what is important to someone else and that’s Ok.
Like others I add fresh into my dog diets as well.
