I agree that it is generally frowned upon in the U.S., and even more recently with all the grain-free dog foods hitting the market. It does make sense given that dogs/wolves are not generally adapted to digest grains, and a lot of the skin/health issues we see in dogs are often due to poor diet. Rice may not be as devastating to dogs as cats (which can go blind if they don't get enough protein), but they're still not herbivores.
There is definitely an opposite side to the protein-coin. One of the biggest issues (problems?) I find with many of the "lots of meat" ads for dog-food is that too much protein is bad for domestic dogs. They aren't wolves living in the wild. Too much protein is hard on their kidneys and can damage their health.
I fed my dogs for years on Science Diet, then switched to Royal Cannin when I had to put my elderly dogs on a special diet. The protein levels were fairly low, no more than 15%, which helped prolong their lives. All of my dogs have live to at least 16 years, two to 17, one almost 18. They were in excellent health and condition until they got really old, when not much can be done for them.
Also, it's just as important for dogs to have adequate bulk in their diets so that their GI tracts function properly. It may not be that they get that much nutrition out of a lot of what is in premium dog food designed Vets, but the stuff that's there is important for them.
Protein can appear in many guises: Raw-hide chews, Greenies (anything containing gelatin is really high in protein). Once a dog gets into middle-age (about 7 years), it's a disservice to them not to monitor their protein intake very carefully.
BTW - I really like Greenies for my dogs, because they do such a good job cleaning teeth. Unfortunately, their protein content is so high, I stop feeding them to my dogs early on.
Yeah, but I'm pretty certain it's still better than English often using -s for both plurals and possessives, with intricate rules involving a bit of punctuation (apostrophe) which doesn't affect pronunciation at all.
I say "pretty certain" because I'm a native speaker and I never struggled with it, but thinking how much more clear English could be, it seems like a total nightmare. :D
With few exceptions (which there always are with English), the apostrophe (before the "s") is an indicator of possession. What makes it confusing is that people use the apostrophe inappropriately, e.g., "it's" (=it is) instead of "its" (this is one of those exceptions), or they add it to a plural when just a plain "s" will do.
Aye, and I purposefully ignore the rule that "compact discs" should be abbreviated to CD's rather than CDs, because screw that nonsense.
We seem to be at an impasse with a chicken-and-egg scenario here. "If everyone had learned the language perfectly, common errors would not be socially reinforced." "If the language were less inherently confusing, everyone would learn it more perfectly." Both are true.
Reading the comments it seems that you see this sentence as "the dog has = eats rice" as you can use "have" as an equivalent to "eat" in English. But I think the Russian sentence literally means that the dog "owns" rice. Am I wrong? To say, that he "has" in the meaning of "eats" rice, you would have to say: "савака ест рис", no?