Perhaps the skeletal structure is intact, but there's definitely been some changes to the internal organs that makes the thing tick. In the end, my fundamental question has been addressed, if not outright answered. Hopefully, all will be well when production shifts back to Indiana. The difference in color, while probably the characteristic most likely to be noticed by the average user, was only one of the changes I noted, and arguably the least consequential. I am not well educated in these matters, certainly not so much as many here, so if Purina tells me that the differences in smell, hydration qualities, physical size, and the sheer amount of loose "grit" in the feed is due to an influx of corn, then I am bound to accept their explanation. At least until a better sounding one comes along.
I do have a problem reconciling their grain explanation with the missing data on the label, but as I am endowed with a cynical, somewhat suspicious disposition, I am willing to concede that the problem I perceive with this issue probably lies strictly with me.
I have absolutely no doubt that a formula exists within Purina that specifies that when (X)amount of wheat is removed, then (Y)amount of corn should be added (along with other ingredient changes) to compensate. And I'm sure it looks good on paper. I wonder though, if any of this new formulation was tested in a real world environment, by folks who handle this feed everyday, and not just by a well meaning group of nutritionists. I knew the second I opened that bag that the feed was different. A heads up from Purina beforehand, would've been nice.
Bob, thanks again for getting to the bottom of this issue. Personally, I'm still undecided which direction I'm going to go, but at least I'm not worried about feeding this stuff in the meantime.
