| URGENT - food problem - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page |
| Fludge |
Hi.
I'm sorry about the rush but if anyone get's this soon, can they reply ASAP.
We can't find any impartial advice which is why I'm here. Our dogs both eat
Pedigree Advance Adult Maxi, which is being stopped. We're being advised on
two alternatives, niether of which we're sure about, we have a third idea of
our own that sounds better.
1st Alternative - We've been advised by one source to go on to Pedigree
Complete Chicken and Rice, but aparently this isn't a Premium dog food,
what's the difference? Is non-premium a bad thing?
2nd Alternative - We've been told by a vet that Eukanuba Adult would be the
way to go but we've heard many bad reports about the content of their foods
in terms of preservatives etc and that IAMS do some pretty mean things too.
Does anyone know about these negative sides to Euk/IAMS foods, are they bad?
3rd Alternative - We've found James Wellbeloved who people seem to like
because it's natural. This sounds good to us but is it technically good? I
know it's premium but will it give my dog everything she needs? I just want
her to have a good food. Everyone recommends James Wellbeloved for dogs
with sensative stomachs, mine has a fine digestive system so will it still
be okay?
Help welcome, preferably before feeding time tonight, we're a little short
on time. Thanks.
|
|
|
| Lushious Lugs |
"Fludge" <willn@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:aB2xa.22935$xd5.1060113@stones.force9.net...
> Hi.
[..]
> 3rd Alternative - We've found James Wellbeloved who people seem to like
> because it's natural. This sounds good to us but is it technically good?
I
> know it's premium but will it give my dog everything she needs? I just
want
> her to have a good food. Everyone recommends James Wellbeloved for dogs
> with sensative stomachs, mine has a fine digestive system so will it still
> be okay?
>
> Help welcome, preferably before feeding time tonight, we're a little short
> on time. Thanks.
>
All bagged kibble will contain preservatives ~ but there is no need
whatsoever for colourings and flavourings. I believe Eukanuba is a good food
but as you mentioned, there are a few other issues (not least including
expense!) that caused me to switch...
One is personal service. If the food company want to help and answer your
questions ~ and not just in a garbish salesman spiel, then that for me says
a lot.
Secondly, when our local pet supply shop first started selling Eukanuba,
about 6 years ago, Joan was ever so proud to say that she had been on a
course to sell it and had learnt all about canine nutrition. That was before
you started seeing it in the supermarkets over here. I know the new staff
at the pet shop haven't been trained and try asking one of the checkout kids
in Sainsbury's about canine nutrition!
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that they offer the courses for the
retailers now, I do know that Oscars franchisers are well trained in their
products.
Why not email both James Wellbeloved and Oscars (which might not be
available in your area) and put questions to them, like why they endorse
your products above all others, which of your products would you recommend
for my dog <giving details such as age, weight, daily exercise and any
allergies / special needs> and how much support they offer in terms of
advice and answering your queries? Ask for a free sample while your at it
too! (actually Oscars do offer a complete refund if you aren't happy that
their food suits your dog.
http://www.wellbeloved.co.uk/
http://www.oscars.co.uk
Diana
James Wellbeloved has an excellent reputation ~ as has Oscars (which we use
after switching from Eukanuba a year ago).
You won't go far wrong with either but I haven't tried James Wellbeloved so
can't vouch for their service in the same way that I do Oscars ~ Oscars do
offer the most first class personal service. All enquiries are
|
|
|
| ZPL |
One of the big "selling points" when I look at foods is how easy it is to
get. If there is only one store on the area that carries it, I do not even
do a trail run. What if the shop goes out of business or they close at
5:00? Depending on how much you use, shipping might not be a factor for
you. But, if you have a larger dog, sometimes the shipping on these bags of
food costs just as much as another bag.
I used Eukanuba Large Breed Puppy for a few months. My girl put on way too
much weight and her skin was very dry. I eventually decided on Nutro
Natural Selection, Adult Lamb and Rice. Easy to get, and her skin did
improve. There are fewer ingredients in this "flavor", which made me feel
somewhat better.
Would love to try the Candidae (?sp) or California Natural, but I cannot get
it here and just cannot afford the shipping.
Have not tried the Diamond brand. Some are pleased with that as well.
"Fludge" <willn@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:aB2xa.22935$xd5.1060113@stones.force9.net...
> Hi.
> I'm sorry about the rush but if anyone get's this soon, can they reply
ASAP.
>
> We can't find any impartial advice which is why I'm here. Our dogs both
eat
> Pedigree Advance Adult Maxi, which is being stopped. We're being advised
on
> two alternatives, niether of which we're sure about, we have a third idea
of
> our own that sounds better.
>
> 1st Alternative - We've been advised by one source to go on to Pedigree
> Complete Chicken and Rice, but aparently this isn't a Premium dog food,
> what's the difference? Is non-premium a bad thing?
>
> 2nd Alternative - We've been told by a vet that Eukanuba Adult would be
the
> way to go but we've heard many bad reports about the content of their
foods
> in terms of preservatives etc and that IAMS do some pretty mean things
too.
> Does anyone know about these negative sides to Euk/IAMS foods, are they
bad?
>
> 3rd Alternative - We've found James Wellbeloved who people seem to like
> because it's natural. This sounds good to us but is it technically good?
I
> know it's premium but will it give my dog everything she needs? I just
want
> her to have a good food. Everyone recommends James Wellbeloved for dogs
> with sensative stomachs, mine has a fine digestive system so will it still
> be okay?
>
> Help welcome, preferably before feeding time tonight, we're a little short
> on time. Thanks.
>
>
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull. All natural, no
grains at all and 4 meat sources. Pedigree is not a great food. Some of the
pedigree products evan have ethoxyquin as a preservative in ithem. That is a
poison, used to make rubber and a pesticide. Other good foods that are
natural are Eagle Holistic, California Natural, Wysong, Chicken Soup for the
pet lovers soal to name a few. Canidae really is one of the best. Get on the
internet and put in Canidae and do a zip code search for your area. Stay
away from grains, they couse soooo many health problems.
vicki
"Fludge" <willn@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:aB2xa.22935$xd5.1060113@stones.force9.net...
> Hi.
> I'm sorry about the rush but if anyone get's this soon, can they reply
ASAP.
>
> We can't find any impartial advice which is why I'm here. Our dogs both
eat
> Pedigree Advance Adult Maxi, which is being stopped. We're being advised
on
> two alternatives, niether of which we're sure about, we have a third idea
of
> our own that sounds better.
>
> 1st Alternative - We've been advised by one source to go on to Pedigree
> Complete Chicken and Rice, but aparently this isn't a Premium dog food,
> what's the difference? Is non-premium a bad thing?
>
> 2nd Alternative - We've been told by a vet that Eukanuba Adult would be
the
> way to go but we've heard many bad reports about the content of their
foods
> in terms of preservatives etc and that IAMS do some pretty mean things
too.
> Does anyone know about these negative sides to Euk/IAMS foods, are they
bad?
>
> 3rd Alternative - We've found James Wellbeloved who people seem to like
> because it's natural. This sounds good to us but is it technically good?
I
> know it's premium but will it give my dog everything she needs? I just
want
> her to have a good food. Everyone recommends James Wellbeloved for dogs
> with sensative stomachs, mine has a fine digestive system so will it still
> be okay?
>
> Help welcome, preferably before feeding time tonight, we're a little short
> on time. Thanks.
>
>
|
|
|
| Gwen Watson |
Vicki Rabe wrote:
> I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull. All natural, no
> grains
Canidae has grains. Rice is a grain. And it definitely has at least
one type of rice if not two.
Here is what is in the bag according to their website
www.canidae.com
Chicken Meal, Turkey Meal, Brown Rice, White Rice, Lamb Meal, Chicken Fat,
(Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Ascorbic Acid), Menhaden Fish Meal, Flax
Seed, Sun Cured Alfalfa Meal, Sunflower Oil, Lecithin, Brewers Yeast, Natural
Flavors, Monosodium Phosphate, Choline, Linoleic Acid, Rosemary Extract, Sage
Extract, Ferrous Sulfate, Mixed Tocopherols (Source of Vitamin E) Zinc Oxide,
Sodium Selenite, Manganous Oxide, Riboflavin Supplement (Source of B2), Yeast
Culture, Dried Aspergillus Niger Fermentation Extract, Dried Aspergillus Oryzae
Fermentation Extract, Dried Lactobacillus Acidophilus Fermentation Product,
Dried
Streptococcus Faecium Fermentation product, Zinc Amino Acid Chelate,
Manganese Amino Acid Chelate, Copper Amino Acid Chelate, Cobalt Amino Acid
Chelate, Iron Amino Acid Chelate, Niacin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin A
Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, D- Biotin Supplement, Pyridoxine
Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Calcium, Iodate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid,
Papain, Bacillus Subtilis, Aspergillus Niger, Yucca Schidigera Extract.
Gwen
|
|
|
| Lushious Lugs |
"Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vca4gpj89ra19b@corp.supernews.com...
> I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull. All natural, no
The original poster is in the uk ;-)
Diana
|
|
|
| shelly |
"Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote on Fri, 16 May 2003
11:27:27 -0500
in message vca4gpj89ra19b@corp.supernews.com:
> I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull.
> All natural, no grains at all and 4 meat sources.
i don't imagine Canidae is available in the UK. also, both
canned and kibbled Canidae *do* contain grain. that's not a
bad thing. in fact, Canidae (and even moreso, Felidae) is at
the top of my list of good foods. (and, oh frabjous day,
they've finally added local distributors, including my
favoritest pet supply shop. yay! both my dogs and cats will
be switching back to Canidae/Felidae ASAP.)
shelly (vicious Klingon rabbit tart) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
|
|
|
| Gwen Watson |
shelly wrote:
> "
> favoritest pet supply shop. yay! both my dogs and cats will
> be switching back to Canidae/Felidae ASAP.)
>
> shelly (vicious Klingon rabbit tart) and elliott & harriet
> http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
Yay Shelly, even though I am in your KF and you won't be seeing
this. I am cheering for you and your crew! Gotta love that
Canidae and felidae! Great stuff.
Gwen
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
It is lacking wheat and corn which are the biggest offenders with allergies.
There aren't alot of foods with a better ingredient list. I have had great
results with it.
vicki
"Gwen Watson" <gwen@ig.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:3EC51778.BEB00E5F@ig.utexas.edu...
>
>
> Vicki Rabe wrote:
>
> > I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull. All natural,
no
> > grains
>
> Canidae has grains. Rice is a grain. And it definitely has at least
> one type of rice if not two.
>
> Here is what is in the bag according to their website
> www.canidae.com
>
> Chicken Meal, Turkey Meal, Brown Rice, White Rice, Lamb Meal, Chicken Fat,
> (Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Ascorbic Acid), Menhaden Fish Meal,
Flax
> Seed, Sun Cured Alfalfa Meal, Sunflower Oil, Lecithin, Brewers Yeast,
Natural
> Flavors, Monosodium Phosphate, Choline, Linoleic Acid, Rosemary Extract,
Sage
> Extract, Ferrous Sulfate, Mixed Tocopherols (Source of Vitamin E) Zinc
Oxide,
> Sodium Selenite, Manganous Oxide, Riboflavin Supplement (Source of B2),
Yeast
> Culture, Dried Aspergillus Niger Fermentation Extract, Dried Aspergillus
Oryzae
> Fermentation Extract, Dried Lactobacillus Acidophilus Fermentation
Product,
> Dried
> Streptococcus Faecium Fermentation product, Zinc Amino Acid Chelate,
> Manganese Amino Acid Chelate, Copper Amino Acid Chelate, Cobalt Amino Acid
> Chelate, Iron Amino Acid Chelate, Niacin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin
A
> Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, D- Biotin Supplement, Pyridoxine
> Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Calcium, Iodate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic
Acid,
> Papain, Bacillus Subtilis, Aspergillus Niger, Yucca Schidigera Extract.
>
> Gwen
>
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull. All natural, no
>grains at all and 4 meat sources.
Canidae doesn't have grain?? That's news to me. As for 4 meat sources, why is
that a good thing nutrionally?
>Some of the
>pedigree products evan have ethoxyquin as a preservative in ithem. That is a
>poison, used to make rubber and a pesticide.
There is evidence out there that ethoxyquin actually retards the spread of
cancer. As for it being poisonous, so is vitamin C, E, salt etc....anything in
extreme excess can be toxic--at levels found in dog foods, nothing bad will
happen.
>Canidae really is one of the best.
They make a puppy food and nothing else. It's not best to feed adult and
senior dogs, a puppy food.
> Other good foods that are
>natural are Eagle Holistic, California Natural, Wysong, Chicken Soup for the
>pet lovers soal to name a few.
I would bet that if the food was sent to a lab to be analyzed, that it would
come back positive for artificial preservatives!
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
>Date: 5/16/03 12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vcaejoh63e9v68@corp.supernews.com>
>
>It is lacking wheat and corn which are the biggest offenders with allergies.
>There aren't alot of foods with a better ingredient list.
Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to allergies
or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much. As
for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about nutrition
instead of what ingredients are listed on a label. Canidae doesn't utilize a
fixed formula which means that the ingredients in the food itself can be
different for as long as 6 months before they change back.
|
|
|
| Tara |
shelly wrote:
> "Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote on Fri, 16 May 2003
> 11:27:27 -0500
> in message vca4gpj89ra19b@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>I haven't heard of wellbeloved, but Canidae is wonderfull.
>>All natural, no grains at all and 4 meat sources.
>
>
> i don't imagine Canidae is available in the UK. also, both
> canned and kibbled Canidae *do* contain grain. that's not a
> bad thing. in fact, Canidae (and even moreso, Felidae) is at
> the top of my list of good foods.
Felidae *used* to be on my short list, but my Mikey cat's IBD started
(we think) when I fed that kibble. I'm sure he was battling it already
anyway, but I suspect all the grains in it sped up the process.
Now I've been trying to get them to eat grain-free canned food only.
Funny, but when they were on only/mainly kibble, canned food was like
nummies sent from heaven. Now, they're begging for kibble.
Friggin' cats.
Anyhoo, they're on Wellness canned, though I might try a few cans of
Azmira to see how they like that one. Those are pretty much the only two
that don't have grains AFAIK.
> (and, oh frabjous day,
> they've finally added local distributors, including my
> favoritest pet supply shop. yay! both my dogs and cats will
> be switching back to Canidae/Felidae ASAP.)
I like Canidae for Finn....though since he's slowing down so much and
can't have as much fun "running" around as he used to, I might switch
him over to a raw diet. He just gets SO much enjoyment out of that. Its
reeeeeaaalllly expensive though. Knowing him, once I switch him over to
the mucho bucks food, he'll live to be 100 just to spend all my money
S'ok by me :-)
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
>>Date: 5/16/03 12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <vcaejoh63e9v68@corp.supernews.com>
>>
>>It is lacking wheat and corn which are the biggest offenders with allergies.
>>There aren't alot of foods with a better ingredient list.
>
>
> Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to allergies
> or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much.
Probably because there are so many animals who develop IBD whose
symptoms stop when those ingredients are taken out of their diets. I'd
say that would have a lot to do with perpetuating that "stuff".
> As
> for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about nutrition
> instead of what ingredients are listed on a label.
As someone who has spent almost $2000 on tests to diagnose and treat IBD
in an animal, I would have to say NO. Ingredients are *just as*
important as nutrients, IMO.
> Canidae doesn't utilize a
> fixed formula which means that the ingredients in the food itself can be
> different for as long as 6 months before they change back.
And when those ingredients change, so does the ingredient list, I would
assume.
<shrug>
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
"GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516195404.25731.00000130@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
> >Date: 5/16/03 12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <vcaejoh63e9v68@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >It is lacking wheat and corn which are the biggest offenders with
allergies.
> >There aren't alot of foods with a better ingredient list.
>
> Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to
allergies
> or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much.
If corn isn't one of, if not the biggest offender of dogs with sensitive
digestive systems then why is it that only foods without corn have worked on
the dogs our rescue has had with IBS/IBD, colitis and pancreatitis? Put
those dogs on a food that doesn't contain corn and they improve
dramatically.
--
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
"GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516195138.25731.00000129@mb-m07.aol.com...
>
> They make a puppy food and nothing else. It's not best to feed adult and
> senior dogs, a puppy food.
As you've been told several times now over the last two days, Canidae *does*
make another food, its called Platinum and I posted the info in the weight
loss thread.
> I would bet that if the food was sent to a lab to be analyzed, that it
would
> come back positive for artificial preservatives!
Am I misremembering or are you the diehard fan of Prescription Diet foods?
The same ones that really don't do anything for most of the dogs that are
eating them.
--
Tara
|
|
|
| Rocky |
Tara O. said in rec.pets.dogs.health:
> Put
> those dogs on a food that doesn't contain corn and they
> improve dramatically.
I mentioned this to Gaubster years ago, with respect to Murphy's
intolerance to corn. I wasn't believed.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to
>allergies
>> or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much.
>
>Probably because there are so many animals who develop IBD whose
>symptoms stop when those ingredients are taken out of their diets. I'd
>say that would have a lot to do with perpetuating that "stuff".
When considering the vast universe of dogs, corn is so far down on the scale
that it is considered rare when it is an offender. Yet most everyone thinks it
is at the top of the list and that is simply not the case.
>> As
>> for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about
>nutrition
>> instead of what ingredients are listed on a label.
>
>As someone who has spent almost $2000 on tests to diagnose and treat IBD
>in an animal, I would have to say NO. Ingredients are *just as*
>important as nutrients, IMO.
You can hold that opinion if you wish. If you have a specific case, then you
would be looking for specific things. If you have a healthy dog, then you
should be more interested in the nutrition going into your dog rather than what
the ingredient label SAYS is in the bag.
>> Canidae doesn't utilize a
>> fixed formula which means that the ingredients in the food itself can be
>> different for as long as 6 months before they change back.
>
>And when those ingredients change, so does the ingredient list, I would
>assume.
><shrug>
Well, then you would assume wrong. A fixed formula is something to brag about.
By law companies can put whatever they want into their product and NOT reflect
the change on the ingredient list as long as they don't do it for more than 6
months.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>If corn isn't one of, if not the biggest offender of dogs with sensitive
>digestive systems then why is it that only foods without corn have worked on
>the dogs our rescue has had with IBS/IBD, colitis and pancreatitis?
How is the corn in the food processed? Is it ground and cooked?
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> Put
>> those dogs on a food that doesn't contain corn and they
>> improve dramatically.
>
>I mentioned this to Gaubster years ago, with respect to Murphy's
>intolerance to corn. I wasn't believed.
>
It's not that you weren't believed, Rocky. The statement was being made (if I
remember correctly) that corn is a horrible ingredient to have in a food and
that it is implicated so often. I simply pointed out the facts to the
contrary.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>As you've been told several times now over the last two days, Canidae *does*
>make another food, its called Platinum and I posted the info in the weight
>loss thread.
What EXACTLY does the AAFCO statement on that food say?
>> I would bet that if the food was sent to a lab to be analyzed, that it
>would
>> come back positive for artificial preservatives!
>
>Am I misremembering or are you the diehard fan of Prescription Diet foods?
>The same ones that really don't do anything for most of the dogs that are
>eating them.
Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic foods in
vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030517111611.24838.00000237@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >As you've been told several times now over the last two days, Canidae
*does*
> >make another food, its called Platinum and I posted the info in the
weight
> >loss thread.
>
> What EXACTLY does the AAFCO statement on that food say?
Again, HOW should I know? I do not subscribe to the AAFCO and I assume this
information is only available to subscribers (since I couldn't find it on
their website).
> >> I would bet that if the food was sent to a lab to be analyzed, that it
> >would
> >> come back positive for artificial preservatives!
> >
> >Am I misremembering or are you the diehard fan of Prescription Diet
foods?
> >The same ones that really don't do anything for most of the dogs that are
> >eating them.
>
> Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic
foods in
> vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
For the record, I didn't say they don't do anything for all dogs. I've
personally had luck with r/d for weight loss but have since had better luck
with Canidae Platinum in that it has produced several benefits to my dog
outside of weight management. As for the rest of your question......
Any number of reasons:
1. Targeting vets as merchandisers
2. Most vets aren't nutritionists or internal specialists so they're not
food experts
3. Because making it exclusive to only vet offices and high-end private pet
stores makes it seem more premium
4. The profit may be good for the vet
I can tell you from experience with more than a handful of dogs with
digestive disorders that Hill's PD formulas haven't worked.
--
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>>Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to
>>
>>allergies
>>
>>>or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much.
>>
>>Probably because there are so many animals who develop IBD whose
>>symptoms stop when those ingredients are taken out of their diets. I'd
>>say that would have a lot to do with perpetuating that "stuff".
>
>
> When considering the vast universe of dogs, corn is so far down on the scale
> that it is considered rare when it is an offender. Yet most everyone thinks it
> is at the top of the list and that is simply not the case.
You've just had two different people in two parts of the country state
that in their experience (and one of them has said she has experience
with *numerous* dogs on this specific issue), that there was definitely
a connection between IBD and corn. I've also spoken with a number of
others who have the exact same experience.
So, whether or not you consider it "low on the scale" or not is
irrelevant. I can also only assume that you have yet to personally have
to care for and treat an animal with chronic IBD.
>>>As
>>>for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about
>>
>>nutrition
>>
>>>instead of what ingredients are listed on a label.
>>
>>As someone who has spent almost $2000 on tests to diagnose and treat IBD
>>in an animal, I would have to say NO. Ingredients are *just as*
>>important as nutrients, IMO.
>
>
> You can hold that opinion if you wish. If you have a specific case, then you
> would be looking for specific things.
That's all a few of us are saying. Though the issue of IBD is massively
increasing. And grains tend to be the worst offenders when it comes to
exacerbating it. Feel free to stay blind to the connection if you wish.
> If you have a healthy dog, then you
> should be more interested in the nutrition going into your dog rather than what
> the ingredient label SAYS is in the bag.
I'm pretty happy with a natural balanced diet. Personally, I like
balance to come from fresh foods myself.
Following your logic of "nutrition at the expense of ingredients" People
should be able to take a couple of mullet vitamins every day and then
eat nothing but bread and rice for optimal health. While if the vitamins
are actually *processed* by the body, I believe someone could *survive*
this way....I don't for a minute think this would in any way resemble
optimal health. Not by a long shot.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
> Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic foods in
> vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
Marketing and profit margins are the factors in all the vet offices I've
worked in.
Not really a mystery.
Tara
|
|
|
| Pennie |
Tara <tara.green2@verizon.net> said:
>You've just had two different people in two parts of the country state
>that in their experience (and one of them has said she has experience
>with *numerous* dogs on this specific issue), that there was definitely
>a connection between IBD and corn. I've also spoken with a number of
>others who have the exact same experience.
Tara...it's like talking to a brick wall...that's why most people have
him killfiled (me included). He only goes by certain scientific
evidence (that favors his Hill's dog food) and ignores anything else.
>So, whether or not you consider it "low on the scale" or not is
>irrelevant. I can also only assume that you have yet to personally have
>to care for and treat an animal with chronic IBD.
His experience on dog food comes from working as a manager at a pet
store a bunch of years ago...oh yeah, and from his "vet friend".
>I'm pretty happy with a natural balanced diet. Personally, I like
>balance to come from fresh foods myself.
Me too. =)
>Following your logic of "nutrition at the expense of ingredients" People
>should be able to take a couple of mullet vitamins every day and then
>eat nothing but bread and rice for optimal health. While if the vitamins
>are actually *processed* by the body, I believe someone could *survive*
>this way....I don't for a minute think this would in any way resemble
>optimal health. Not by a long shot.
Tried explaining this before also...he just doesn't get it. I also
tried to find out from him exactly what nutrients he consumed on a
daily basis..he didn't know...then I asked why it was important to
know exactly what nutrients our dog's are getting, but not us. <shrug>
Seems he thinks that dog's are somehow genetically made up that they
only survive on a certain set of nutrients ONLY Hill's Science Diet
knows the "secret nutrient code" for all dogs.
Pennie
Let Food Be Our Medicine.
-Hippocrates
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> When considering the vast universe of dogs, corn is so far down on the
>scale
>> that it is considered rare when it is an offender. Yet most everyone
>thinks it
>> is at the top of the list and that is simply not the case.
>
>You've just had two different people in two parts of the country state
>that in their experience (and one of them has said she has experience
>with *numerous* dogs on this specific issue), that there was definitely
>a connection between IBD and corn. I've also spoken with a number of
>others who have the exact same experience.
>
I'll check w/ a vet friend of mine to see what his experience is. BTW, Are you
saying that corn CAUSES IBD?? But what you've experienced still doesn't change
the fact that corn is extremely low on the list of offending ingredients,
period.
>So, whether or not you consider it "low on the scale" or not is
>irrelevant.
Check Small Animal Clinical Nutrition for more info...
>Following your logic of "nutrition at the expense of ingredients" People
>should be able to take a couple of mullet vitamins every day and then
>eat nothing but bread and rice for optimal health.
You're completey missing the point. Nutrition comes FROM ingredients...not the
other way around.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Tara...it's like talking to a brick wall...that's why most people have
>him killfiled (me included). He only goes by certain scientific
>evidence (that favors his Hill's dog food) and ignores anything else.
It's funny...Pennie bashes Hill's any chance she can get. Right down to lying
or twisting things around to support her biased point of view. When you try to
argue facts w/ her she immediately gets defensive. How she can at all comment
on this thread (since she can't see my posts) will show you just how biased she
is since she can't positively know what she is talking about. She killfiles
people whom she doesn't agree with. Purely self-censorship on her part.
>His experience on dog food comes from working as a manager at a pet
>store a bunch of years ago...oh yeah, and from his "vet friend".
And that is somehow invalid...why?? Nothing I've said is wrong at all and she
simply can't pick it apart.
>I also
>tried to find out from him exactly what nutrients he consumed on a
>daily basis..he didn't know...then I asked why it was important to
>know exactly what nutrients our dog's are getting, but not us.
Pennie, you didn't know what nutrients you got on a daily basis either. So
what's your point? Neither one of us could answer the question exactly, yet
you want to demagogue me? I have specifically told you why it's important why
our dog's nutrient needs are met and you conviently disappeared. You're really
a piece of work.
>Seems he thinks that dog's are somehow genetically made up that they
>only survive on a certain set of nutrients ONLY Hill's Science Diet
>knows the "secret nutrient code" for all dogs.
>
A COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I've posted here. And this is how Pennie
works...she twists things around and put words in people's mouths and then bad
mouths them herself.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Again, HOW should I know? I do not subscribe to the AAFCO and I assume this
>information is only available to subscribers (since I couldn't find it on
>their website).
>
If you have the food, just look on the bag. Sheesh. AAFCO stands for
Association of American Feed Control Officials. You have a state AAFCO
official.
You said: >> >Am I misremembering or are you the diehard fan of Prescription
Diet
>foods?
>> >The same ones that really don't do anything for most of the dogs that are
>> >eating them.
Then I said: >> Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their
theraputic
>foods in
>> vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
Then you said: >For the record, I didn't say they don't do anything for all
dogs.
I simply quoted you...I never stated that you said "all dogs".
>Any number of reasons:
>
>1. Targeting vets as merchandisers
And what makes you think that Canidae has vets or nutrionalists or internal
specialists working for them? Because they sell in pet and feed stores??
Hill's has close to 200 nutritionalists, vet, scientists working for them.
>2. Most vets aren't nutritionists or internal specialists so they're not
>food experts
>3. Because making it exclusive to only vet offices and high-end private pet
>stores makes it seem more premium
>4. The profit may be good for the vet
>
How about the products work--pure and simple. You don't think that vet
reputations are on the line if the product is so universally bad? Surely you
don't think that vets are stupid? A lot of vets aren't happy w/ the profit on
food, btw. But don't you think that the pet store makes profit on Canidae?
>I can tell you from experience with more than a handful of dogs with
>digestive disorders that Hill's PD formulas haven't worked.
Which company's products have worked the best for you?
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic
>foods in
>> vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
>
>Marketing and profit margins are the factors in all the vet offices I've
>worked in.
>
>Not really a mystery.
Profit is a factor in ALL business relationships. Don't you make a paycheck?
There are other companies like Purina, Waltham, Del Monte, and IAMS that all
make products sold in the vet channel? Wouldn't that 100 share be more evenly
spread amongst the available companies under your theory?
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
"GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030517180957.15319.00000291@mb-m18.aol.com...
>
> I'll check w/ a vet friend of mine to see what his experience is. BTW,
Are you
> saying that corn CAUSES IBD?? But what you've experienced still doesn't
change
> the fact that corn is extremely low on the list of offending ingredients,
> period.
Can you prove that corn is low on the list of offending ingredients for dogs
with digestive disorders and food allergies?
--
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>
> You're completey missing the point. Nutrition comes FROM ingredients...not the
> other way around.
Exactly. You just finished my argument for me. That's exactly why I'd
rather be more concerned with the ingredients (which contain the
nutrients) than be concerned with nutrients at the expense of the
ingredients, which is what you seem to prattle on about. To do it that
last way strikes me as profoundly back-asswards.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>His experience on dog food comes from working as a manager at a pet
>>store a bunch of years ago...oh yeah, and from his "vet friend".
>
>
> And that is somehow invalid...why?? Nothing I've said is wrong at all and she
> simply can't pick it apart.
Its not necessarily "invalid", it just isn't all that much really.
I have WAY more experience than that, and I sure don't consider myself
an expert on this stuff.
>>I also
>>tried to find out from him exactly what nutrients he consumed on a
>>daily basis..he didn't know...then I asked why it was important to
>>know exactly what nutrients our dog's are getting, but not us.
>
>
> Pennie, you didn't know what nutrients you got on a daily basis either. So
> what's your point? Neither one of us could answer the question exactly, yet
> you want to demagogue me?
If that's what you think she meant, then you really missed the point there.
> I have specifically told you why it's important why
> our dog's nutrient needs are met and you conviently disappeared. You're really
> a piece of work.
Its equally important that all mammals nutrient needs be met. THAT was
her point. You obviously don't know what you're eating on a daily basis,
and yet you manage to continue walking around. Given that we're all
(more or less all of us anyway) aware of the nutrrients our donutrientss
them ahead of the game there.
> A COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I've posted here. And this is how Pennie
> works...she twists things around and put words in people's mouths and then bad
> mouths them herself.
I honestly don't see that as being much different from what you've been
doing yourself, so it looks funny from this angle for you to get huffy
about that particular character flaw.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>
>
>>Any number of reasons:
>>
>>1. Targeting vets as merchandisers
>
>
>
> And what makes you think that Canidae has vets or nutrionalists or internal
> specialists working for them? Because they sell in pet and feed stores??
> Hill's has close to 200 nutritionalists, vet, scientists working for them.
Wow. Way to go off on an unrelated tangent. That doesn't have anything
to do with what she just said.
>>2. Most vets aren't nutritionists or internal specialists so they're not
>>food experts
>
>
>>3. Because making it exclusive to only vet offices and high-end private pet
>>stores makes it seem more premium
>>4. The profit may be good for the vet
>>
>
>
> How about the products work--pure and simple. You don't think that vet
> reputations are on the line if the product is so universally bad? Surely you
> don't think that vets are stupid? A lot of vets aren't happy w/ the profit on
> food, btw. But don't you think that the pet store makes profit on Canidae?
A store making a profit from selling food is one thing. Hell that's
*expected* and the very point of a pet food store is for them to make
money selling.....get this....FOOD.
A vt should not be in the retail business for selling any particular
brand of food. Especially since they tend to only carry one brand of
food (at the behest of the food companies, by the way). It smacks of
underhanded dealings.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>>Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic
>>
>>foods in
>>
>>>vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
>>
>>Marketing and profit margins are the factors in all the vet offices I've
>>worked in.
>>
>>Not really a mystery.
>
>
> Profit is a factor in ALL business relationships. Don't you make a paycheck?
> There are other companies like Purina, Waltham, Del Monte, and IAMS that all
> make products sold in the vet channel? Wouldn't that 100 share be more evenly
> spread amongst the available companies under your theory?
I never aid that no one should be making a profit. To suggest I did is
nothing more than word twisting and a big fat red herring in the argument.
Vets should not be in the business of pushing a certain brand of food
for a profit anymore than first grade teachers should be selling a
specific brand of snacks to her students. Its a blatant abuse of the
inherent relationship. I'm absolutely fine with vets making a profit
(please see my post on medications and vets), but when it comes to
putting their profits over what might ultimately be best for the
animals, I draw the line. If they are beholden to only one brand of
food, then that is what they will be pushing over all others. That is wrong.
Tara
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
"Tara O." <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ba6f06$q77pp$1@ID-92443.news.dfncis.de>...
> "GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030517180957.15319.00000291@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >
> > I'll check w/ a vet friend of mine to see what his experience is. BTW,
> Are you
> > saying that corn CAUSES IBD?? But what you've experienced still doesn't
> change
> > the fact that corn is extremely low on the list of offending ingredients,
> > period.
>
> Can you prove that corn is low on the list of offending ingredients for dogs
> with digestive disorders and food allergies?
I doubt that Gaubster can prove it, but the literature certainly does.
Small Animal Clinical Nutrition IV edition 2002, Pocket Edition page
334 lists the following allergens from a study of all published
literature over a 30 year period.
beef, dairy, wheat, = 68% of all reported cases
Lamb, Chicken, Chicken egg, soy = 25% of all reported cases
The above comprise 93% of all food allergens. The remainder would be
all other possible foods, turkey, turkey egg, duck, duck egg, venison,
corn, rice, barley, sorghum, and all other ingredients combined add up
to the remaining 7%. At the very highest corn could possibly make up
1% of all food allergens ever noted in published literature.
Corn gets a bad rap because a few unscrupulous pet food companies try
to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. One company used to
put out dozens of blatantly false claims that corn was not digestible
etc. They were so course about this they had demo people standing in
the pet sotres telling consumers that corn wasn't digestible, and to
prove it they had the consumers think back to the last time they ate
corn on the cob and what they saw in the toilet the next day. Of
course no food manufacturer uses whole kernel corn. You can't even
feed whole grains to cows, pigs and horses for that matter. That's why
such grains are sold "cracked", "steamed", "pearled", "split" "rolled"
etc.
In fact the starch (energy) portion of corn, like all grains is 99%
digestible in dogs. The protein fraction of corn holds the highest
digestibility level at 84%. Corn also contains five times the Omega
fatty acids as rice.
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
Tara <tara.green2@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3EC67FA5.6010107@verizon.net>...
> GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>
> > Oh, please. Then why does Hill's have a 70+ share on their theraputic foods in
> > vet clinics around the USA if they don't "do anything"??
>
> Marketing and profit margins are the factors in all the vet offices I've
> worked in.
>
> Not really a mystery.
>
> Tara
That's sad! I 've been in those clinics as well, bu they sure don't
represent the vast majority of clinics. Out of over 1,200 clinics in
the Northwest there were about 50 that fell into the category that you
describe. The rest are in business to help and do a magnificent job of
it. It's too bad your exposure was limited to that kind of practice.
If you feel able to do so, I would like to know if these were
"corporate" practices, solo practices, or whatever.
|
|
|
| Pennie |
rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) said:
>I doubt that Gaubster can prove it, but the literature certainly does.
>Small Animal Clinical Nutrition IV edition 2002, Pocket Edition page
>334 lists the following allergens from a study of all published
>literature over a 30 year period.
I think you're missing the point here Steve. This thread is about dogs
with an intolerance to corn or wheat, which in turn causes digestive
problems. There is a difference between a food allergy and a food
intolerance.
"Food Allergy: Allergic symptoms are a result of an inflammatory
process triggered by an allergen or allergens to which a patient has
generated antibodies after previous exposure.
Food Intolerance: An adverse reaction to a food which does not involve
the body's immune system. They are not allergic reactions."
http://users.bigpond.net.au/allergydietitian/
For more info on the difference between food allergy and food
intolerance you can check out these sites:
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.i...Factallergy.htm
http://www.allergy-testing.com/about.html
http://health.yahoo.com/health/cent...estive/126.html
As you can also see (if you read the links) food intolerance is much
more prevalent than food allergies. You keep listing food *allergies*
and percentages of allergic reactions, when the discussion is about
food *intolerance*.
Pennie
Let Food Be Our Medicine.
-Hippocrates
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Wow. Way to go off on an unrelated tangent. That doesn't have anything
>to do with what she just said.
>
Tara, you've misplaced your quotes. Go back and reread my post and you'll see
that I responded directly and not on an "unrealted tangent"::::::::
>>>1. Targeting vets as merchandisers
>>>2. Most vets aren't nutritionists or internal specialists so they're not
>>>food experts
>> And what makes you think that Canidae has vets or nutrionalists or internal
>> specialists working for them? Because they sell in pet and feed stores??
>> Hill's has close to 200 nutritionalists, vet, scientists working for them.
Obviously verbal communications would probably make more sense.
>A store making a profit from selling food is one thing. Hell that's
>*expected* and the very point of a pet food store is for them to make
>money selling.....get this....FOOD.
>
>A vt should not be in the retail business for selling any particular
>brand of food. Especially since they tend to only carry one brand of
>food (at the behest of the food companies, by the way). It smacks of
>underhanded dealings.
Who are you to say what a veternarian can and can't sell? If they choose to
stock only one brand of food, perhaps they like that particular companies'
offerings? Nothing "underhanded" about that. You're starting to sound
paranoid.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Are you
>> saying that corn CAUSES IBD?? But what you've experienced still doesn't
>change
>> the fact that corn is extremely low on the list of offending ingredients,
>> period.
>
>Can you prove that corn is low on the list of offending ingredients for dogs
>with digestive disorders and food allergies?
Steve Crane already posted the "rankings" in a different post on this board.
But my reference (Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Vol. IV..pg. 437) shows that
68% of all reported cases rank Beef, Dairy Products, Wheat as the top 3. Then
after that is Lamb, chicken egg, chicken, and soy. Corn and rice have the
least amount of allergies reported. I don't see very many "holistic" or "all
natural" foods dumping rice due to allergies...corn is only a fraction of a
decimal point higher.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>As you can also see (if you read the links) food intolerance is much
>more prevalent than food allergies. You keep listing food *allergies*
>and percentages of allergic reactions, when the discussion is about
>food *intolerance*.
The OP is alleging that corn is the offender w/o doing the tests singling out
tha one ingredient as being the culprit. The conversation is relevant whether
discussing "intolerance" or an actual "allergy". Nice try, though.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> You're completey missing the point. Nutrition comes FROM ingredients...not
>the
>> other way around.
>
>Exactly. You just finished my argument for me. That's exactly why I'd
>rather be more concerned with the ingredients (which contain the
>nutrients) than be concerned with nutrients at the expense of the
>ingredients, which is what you seem to prattle on about. To do it that
>last way strikes me as profoundly back-asswards.
>
Is there a traffic cop inside the body regulating which nutrients can come from
which ingredients? Of course not. There is nothing in the body that dictates
that the protein from Beef can be used, but the protein from chicken can't be.
So what's "back-asswards" (as you put it) is to suggest that ingredients are
more important. That may feel better to you, but your body will assimilate
whatever nutrition it can get from the available ingredients. Not the other
way around. You seem to be more concerned w/ what ingredients "sound good" vs.
what "sounds bad". I'm telling you that the body doesn't care what your
emotions are--if there are nutrients in the ingredients, the body will use
them.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Vets should not be in the business of pushing a certain brand of food
>for a profit anymore than first grade teachers should be selling a
>specific brand of snacks to her students.
I am completely unaware of 1st grade teachers anywhere "selling" snacks to
their students. WTF??
> I'm absolutely fine with vets making a profit
>(please see my post on medications and vets), but when it comes to
>putting their profits over what might ultimately be best for the
>animals, I draw the line. If they are beholden to only one brand of
>food, then that is what they will be pushing over all others. That is wrong.
What are you suggesting is "beholden to one brand of food"? And why is it
wrong for a vet to sell/use what they want? Sounds to me like you've either
got the wrong idea about what happens in vet offices or had a bad experience.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: Tara tara.green2@verizon.net
>>>His experience on dog food comes from working as a manager at a pet
>>>store a bunch of years ago...oh yeah, and from his "vet friend".
>>
>>
>> And that is somehow invalid...why?? Nothing I've said is wrong at all and
>she
>> simply can't pick it apart.
>
>Its not necessarily "invalid", it just isn't all that much really.
>
Your opinon only. Why are my experiences/relationships less valid than anyone
elses? They aren't. And again, nothing I've ever said regarding labeling
laws, "tricks of the trade", etc. have ever been disproven. You want to know
why? Because I know what I'm talking about. That's why. You don't have to
agree w/ it.
>I have WAY more experience than that, and I sure don't consider myself
>an expert on this stuff.
>
I don't consider my self and expert either--never have I even suggested such a
thing.
>> Pennie, you didn't know what nutrients you got on a daily basis either. So
>> what's your point? Neither one of us could answer the question exactly,
>yet
>> you want to demagogue me?
>
>If that's what you think she meant, then you really missed the point there.
>
No, I got her point...from that post and the hundreds of others she's made.
>> I have specifically told you why it's important why
>> our dog's nutrient needs are met and you conviently disappeared. You're
>really
>> a piece of work.
>
>Its equally important that all mammals nutrient needs be met. THAT was
>her point. You obviously don't know what you're eating on a daily basis,
>and yet you manage to continue walking around.
My nutrient needs are in excess of what I should be getting (in my particular
case). I'm about 20 lbs overweight, fyi. So while I'm not "undernourished,
you could say that my "nutrient needs are being met". That's my point. A lot
of people feed their dogs, foods that are excessive in certain nutrients.
>Given that we're all
>(more or less all of us anyway) aware of the nutrrients our donutrientss
>them ahead of the game there.
....not sure what you meant say here?....
>> A COMPLETE misrepresentation of what I've posted here. And this is how
>Pennie
>> works...she twists things around and put words in people's mouths and then
>bad
>> mouths them herself.
>
>I honestly don't see that as being much different from what you've been
>doing yourself, so it looks funny from this angle for you to get huffy
>about that particular character flaw.
>
I don't killfile people that I disagree with. She does, and then attempts to
respond to the person she killfiled through a 3rd party. That's the problem I
have with her....that and her constant bashing of one particular company that
she can never back up. Don't take my defending myself w/ being "huffy", if you
will.
|
|
|
| Supergoof |
"GAUBSTER2" wrote ...
> for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about
nutrition
> instead of what ingredients are listed on a label. Canidae doesn't
utilize a
> fixed formula which means that the ingredients in the food itself can be
> different for as long as 6 months before they change back.
Ingredients are the first thing I look at - anything that has animal
products that aren't chicken or turkey are eliminated instantly.
My girl has bad IBD and can't tolerate any lamb, beef or pork. We even had
to switch her from the meat-flavoured chewable rimadyl tablets because they
were making her sick.
Now that Iams has a virtual monopoly in New Zealand it's increasingly
difficult to get hold of the Nature's Recipe food that suits our dog, but we
won't change unless we absolutely have to because we've tried a few times
and it's always made her sick.
Rachel
(New Zealand)
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
Actually, any company can change their formula anytime and it doesn't have
to be reported except every 6 months.
"GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516195404.25731.00000130@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
> >Date: 5/16/03 12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <vcaejoh63e9v68@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >It is lacking wheat and corn which are the biggest offenders with
allergies.
> >There aren't alot of foods with a better ingredient list.
>
> Actually you're wrong...corn is NOT a big offender when it comes to
allergies
> or even food intolerance. I don't why this stuff gets perpuated so much.
As
> for looking at ingredient lists--shouldn't you be more worried about
nutrition
> instead of what ingredients are listed on a label. Canidae doesn't
utilize a
> fixed formula which means that the ingredients in the food itself can be
> different for as long as 6 months before they change back.
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
You Hill's people can try to back your food all you want, But proof is in
the feeding, and when you have a dog this 4 months old with an awful coat
filled with dandruff and no shine being fed Hill's and you see a complete
turn aroud in two weeks on Canidae, thenproof is in the feeding. I have case
after case of this results and Canidae isn't out tooting their horn all day
long. Their food is growing in popularity because of the great results and
people are tired of spending money on Hill's and not having healthy results
just because they spend so much on advertising to fool the public. As usual,
these are my opinions of results I have had and seen. Would you Hill's reps
feel comfortable feeding your children just a drop of arsnic with their
meal? It is only a drop every day! Well, I wouldn't feed my animals
Ethoxyquin either, not one drop. How can Hill's still put that in their
prescription food I don't know. Lucky for our animals that people are
starting to read more and are asking more questions of their vets and are
finding better foods. It may be a long process but it is happening.
"Pennie" <mutleycrew@thedoghouse.com> wrote in message
news:4q4fcvshtl0ddgm7dnjfm1oobvjlf69nsg@4ax.com...
> rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) said:
> >I doubt that Gaubster can prove it, but the literature certainly does.
> >Small Animal Clinical Nutrition IV edition 2002, Pocket Edition page
> >334 lists the following allergens from a study of all published
> >literature over a 30 year period.
>
> I think you're missing the point here Steve. This thread is about dogs
> with an intolerance to corn or wheat, which in turn causes digestive
> problems. There is a difference between a food allergy and a food
> intolerance.
>
> "Food Allergy: Allergic symptoms are a result of an inflammatory
> process triggered by an allergen or allergens to which a patient has
> generated antibodies after previous exposure.
>
> Food Intolerance: An adverse reaction to a food which does not involve
> the body's immune system. They are not allergic reactions."
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/allergydietitian/
>
> For more info on the difference between food allergy and food
> intolerance you can check out these sites:
> http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.i...Factallergy.htm
> http://www.allergy-testing.com/about.html
> http://health.yahoo.com/health/cent...estive/126.html
>
> As you can also see (if you read the links) food intolerance is much
> more prevalent than food allergies. You keep listing food *allergies*
> and percentages of allergic reactions, when the discussion is about
> food *intolerance*.
>
> Pennie
>
> Let Food Be Our Medicine.
> -Hippocrates
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
Vets take one semester of animal nutrition and most of it is large animal,
Guess what? the book is provided by Hill's and the vets are given huge purks
to carry the food. They are mot nutritionists just as our doctors aren't.
Ask one what ethoxyquin is and they can't tell you.
"Tara" <tara.green2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3EC6D946.6040707@verizon.net...
> GAUBSTER2 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Any number of reasons:
> >>
> >>1. Targeting vets as merchandisers
> >
> >
> >
> > And what makes you think that Canidae has vets or nutrionalists or
internal
> > specialists working for them? Because they sell in pet and feed
stores??
> > Hill's has close to 200 nutritionalists, vet, scientists working for
them.
>
> Wow. Way to go off on an unrelated tangent. That doesn't have anything
> to do with what she just said.
>
> >>2. Most vets aren't nutritionists or internal specialists so they're not
> >>food experts
> >
> >
> >>3. Because making it exclusive to only vet offices and high-end private
pet
> >>stores makes it seem more premium
> >>4. The profit may be good for the vet
> >>
> >
> >
> > How about the products work--pure and simple. You don't think that vet
> > reputations are on the line if the product is so universally bad?
Surely you
> > don't think that vets are stupid? A lot of vets aren't happy w/ the
profit on
> > food, btw. But don't you think that the pet store makes profit on
Canidae?
>
> A store making a profit from selling food is one thing. Hell that's
> *expected* and the very point of a pet food store is for them to make
> money selling.....get this....FOOD.
>
> A vt should not be in the retail business for selling any particular
> brand of food. Especially since they tend to only carry one brand of
> food (at the behest of the food companies, by the way). It smacks of
> underhanded dealings.
>
> Tara
>
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
>Date: 5/19/03 7:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vchpg27hp6ckb3@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Actually, any company can change their formula anytime and it doesn't have
>to be reported except every 6 months.
Exactly right. That's why I feed Science Diet because Hill's uses a fixed
formula on all of the offerings. So I don't have to worry about it. (the only
other company that I've ever heard of that used to do this was IAMS--but not
anymore)
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Their food is growing in popularity because of the great results and
>people are tired of spending money on Hill's and not having healthy results
>just because they spend so much on advertising to fool the public.
I know dozens of people (friends and family members) that have fed Hill's
either recently or for many years and they've always had better than excellent
results. So have I for that matter. Just because your experience is different
doesn't explain the millions of pet that have done great or are doing great
right now. As for the advertising, how exactly do they "fool the public"? Can
you give me an example of something in print or that you heard on TV that is
misleading?
>Would you Hill's reps
>feel comfortable feeding your children just a drop of arsnic with their
>meal? It is only a drop every day! Well, I wouldn't feed my animals
>Ethoxyquin either, not one drop. How can Hill's still put that in their
>prescription food I don't know.
Ethoxyquin is NOT arsenic and why you would try to draw a similiarity between
the 2 makes me question either your knowledge or your agenda. There has never,
ever been one single study that shows that it is at all harmful when fed to
dogs at the levels that it is fed in. I guess using your reasoning, we should
ban motor vehicles, swimming pools, vitamin C, vitamin E, salt, and a bazillion
other things because those things COULD be harmful when either operated
unsafely, or in extremely high doses. FYI, ethoxyquin is highly effective at
extremely low levels when it comes to effectively preserving the fats in the
food. There is actually some evidence that the big, bad, evil ethoxyquin
actually retards the growth of cancer. Remember the alar apple scare in the
80s?? That turned out to be much ado about nothing also.
>Lucky for our animals that people are
>starting to read more and are asking more questions of their vets and are
>finding better foods.
Yeah, these so-called "better" foods that are all the rage are extremely high
in phosphorus, sodium, protein, magnesium, etc. Ingesting higher than
neccessary levels of those things won't cause health risks...yeah right.
You're more worried about something that has no real risk and you're not at all
concerned w/ real-life risk factors. I just don't get it. But I suppose that
won't stop you from bad-mouthing Hill's, will it?
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
>Date: 5/19/03 8:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vchtr5n6cie570@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Vets take one semester of animal nutrition and most of it is large animal,
>Guess what? the book is provided by Hill's and the vets are given huge purks
>to carry the food. They are mot nutritionists just as our doctors aren't.
>Ask one what ethoxyquin is and they can't tell you.
Are you paranoid? Is it all some big conspiracy? Please back up what you are
saying, because I don't think you can.
Here we go.............Vets see the effects of poor nutrition on a daily
basis--hundreds of times each year. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition (if that
is what you are referring to) has major sections on avian and reptile nutrition
(something that Hill's is NOT involved in). Hill's Pet Nutrition is the
preeminent company to work for, I suppose. They do the most research and are
the most trusted and well-respected nutrition company out there. There are a
handful of people that are experts in their field that have contributed to SACN
and also work for Hill's. Vets go to continuing education (much of it can be
related to nutrition) several times a year, every year. What "huge perks" are
vets given to carry the food (or any food for that matter)?? Hmmm..? And yes,
most vets know what ethoxyquin is.
I really don't think you know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
| staffymom@webtv.net |
From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
<Who are you to say what a veternarian can and can't sell? If they
choose to stock only one brand of food, perhaps they like that
particular companies' offerings?>
Of the vets that I know that sell SD, not one of them feed it to their
own dogs. Not one! Go figure. ;-)
Debbie
|
|
|
| Mike |
If you're looking for a "Natural" food, our dog has some allergic reactions to certain foods.
We use Dick Van Patten's Natural Balance - Potato and Duck formula and have been extremely happy
with the results. It's not sold everywhere (we've only found one store in our area) but they have a
Store Locator on the website.
http://www.naturalbalanceinc.com/products/PandD.html
Hope that helps.
On Fri, 16 May 2003 10:58:47 +0100, "Fludge" <willn@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>I'm sorry about the rush but if anyone get's this soon, can they reply ASAP.
>
>We can't find any impartial advice which is why I'm here. Our dogs both eat
>Pedigree Advance Adult Maxi, which is being stopped. We're being advised on
>two alternatives, niether of which we're sure about, we have a third idea of
>our own that sounds better.
>
>1st Alternative - We've been advised by one source to go on to Pedigree
>Complete Chicken and Rice, but aparently this isn't a Premium dog food,
>what's the difference? Is non-premium a bad thing?
>
>2nd Alternative - We've been told by a vet that Eukanuba Adult would be the
>way to go but we've heard many bad reports about the content of their foods
>in terms of preservatives etc and that IAMS do some pretty mean things too.
>Does anyone know about these negative sides to Euk/IAMS foods, are they bad?
>
>3rd Alternative - We've found James Wellbeloved who people seem to like
>because it's natural. This sounds good to us but is it technically good? I
>know it's premium but will it give my dog everything she needs? I just want
>her to have a good food. Everyone recommends James Wellbeloved for dogs
>with sensative stomachs, mine has a fine digestive system so will it still
>be okay?
>
>Help welcome, preferably before feeding time tonight, we're a little short
>on time. Thanks.
>
|
|
|
| Agilpwd |
"Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote in
news:vchtr5n6cie570@corp.supernews.com:
> Vets take one semester of animal nutrition and most of it is large
> animal, Guess what? the book is provided by Hill's and the vets are
> given huge purks to carry the food. They are mot nutritionists just as
Anyone who's been here long knows I am NOT a Hills supporter, but I've
worked for vets, they do NOT receive "huge purks" (sic) for selling the
food.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Lisa Baird - Haleakala PWDs
"Truly" - CH Fantaseas Truly Scrumptious, CD, AAD, AX, NAJ
"Havoc" - Stargazer Come Hell'R HiWater (puppy with promise!)
Wiley MAD, SM, JM, RM - Beloved All American
Buckeye Region Agility Group http://www.bragagility.com/
PAWZitive Beginnings Dog Training, LLC
http://www.pawzitivebeginnings.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
><Who are you to say what a veternarian can and can't sell? If they
>choose to stock only one brand of food, perhaps they like that
>particular companies' offerings?>
>
>Of the vets that I know that sell SD, not one of them feed it to their
>own dogs. Not one! Go figure. ;-)
>
....and why is that? I know of several vets that sell it AND feed it to their
own pets w/ stellar results. Do you mean Science Diet or Prescription Diet?
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
> Who are you to say what a veternarian can and can't sell? If they choose to
> stock only one brand of food, perhaps they like that particular companies'
> offerings? Nothing "underhanded" about that. You're starting to sound
> paranoid.
Hardly. I love my vet. I respect my vet. I am also well aware of the
financial considerations involved in owning a vet practice.
I have also worked for quite a few vets in my life....and yes, the
bottom line was a big factor in carrying and pushing those prescription
diets. And I didn't in any way work for sleazy vets....just good people
trying to stay in business so that they could continue to help animals
in the best way they could.
You're the one sounding a little paranoid on this topic....and yet you
have so little direct experience that its a bit frightening that you
feel so comfortable spouting off the way you do.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>Vets should not be in the business of pushing a certain brand of food
>>for a profit anymore than first grade teachers should be selling a
>>specific brand of snacks to her students.
>
>
> I am completely unaware of 1st grade teachers anywhere "selling" snacks to
> their students. WTF??
It was an analogy. Think about it.
>>I'm absolutely fine with vets making a profit
>>(please see my post on medications and vets), but when it comes to
>>putting their profits over what might ultimately be best for the
>>animals, I draw the line. If they are beholden to only one brand of
>>food, then that is what they will be pushing over all others. That is wrong.
>
>
> What are you suggesting is "beholden to one brand of food"? And why is it
> wrong for a vet to sell/use what they want? Sounds to me like you've either
> got the wrong idea about what happens in vet offices or had a bad experience.
Neither of the above actually. I just think its verging on a conflict of
interest. Using one's position to push something that might not actually
be beneficial.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>From: Tara tara.green2@verizon.net
>
>
>>>>His experience on dog food comes from working as a manager at a pet
>>>>store a bunch of years ago...oh yeah, and from his "vet friend".
>>>
>>>
>>>And that is somehow invalid...why?? Nothing I've said is wrong at all and
>>
>>she
>>
>>>simply can't pick it apart.
>>
>>Its not necessarily "invalid", it just isn't all that much really.
>>
>
>
> Your opinon only. Why are my experiences/relationships less valid than anyone
> elses? They aren't.
Now you're just making crap up. I specifically stated that it wasn't
"invalid". You asked why your experience wasn't valid. I said it *was*
valid, but that you simply didn't have very much of it.
Now who's being paranoid?
You're starting to sound like a troll at this point.
<snip>
>>Its equally important that all mammals nutrient needs be met. THAT was
>>her point. You obviously don't know what you're eating on a daily basis,
>>and yet you manage to continue walking around.
>
>
> My nutrient needs are in excess of what I should be getting (in my particular
> case). I'm about 20 lbs overweight, fyi. So while I'm not "undernourished,
> you could say that my "nutrient needs are being met". That's my point. A lot
> of people feed their dogs, foods that are excessive in certain nutrients.
I have to say that the above explains a lot.
But why do you pull out the Boogeyman when t comes to dogs, yet you
walk around overeating and obviously OK with that for yourself?
<snip>
> I don't killfile people that I disagree with. She does, and then attempts to
> respond to the person she killfiled through a 3rd party. That's the problem I
> have with her....that and her constant bashing of one particular company that
> she can never back up. Don't take my defending myself w/ being "huffy", if you
> will.
So then the only real difference is that she killfiles and you don't?
Big deal. You still do exactly what you accused her of doing in that post.
Tara
|
|
|
| staffymom@webtv.net |
From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
< I know of several vets that sell it AND feed it to their own pets w/
stellar results. Do you mean Science Diet or Prescription Diet?
I mean any SD/Hills product. One feeds Innova, one Canidae, two feed
fresh food. I know of one other, but can't remember what he feeds.
Pinnacle... IVD.. something.
Debbie
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
"Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vchtr5n6cie570@corp.supernews.com>...
> Vets take one semester of animal nutrition and most of it is large animal,
> Guess what? the book is provided by Hill's and the vets are given huge purks
> to carry the food. They are mot nutritionists just as our doctors aren't.
> Ask one what ethoxyquin is and they can't tell you.
Sigh,
More disinformation. Let's set the facts correctly. The "book" used
by every veterinary college in the US and most countries for that
matter is called Small Animal Clinical Nutrition currently in its 4th
edition. It is written by the Mark Morris Animal Foundation. The
original money to start that foundation was Dr. Mark Morris Sr., the
founder of Hill's.
It contains a synopsis of research materials and factual information
in each Chapter. Each chapter is written by the Board Certified
experts in that respective field. For instance the chapter on
cardiology is edited and written by the leading veterinary
cardiologists in the world. They reference each comment they make with
literally thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed refereed published
studies. The authors of this book are ACVIM, AAVD, ACVN board
certified specialist veterinarians, writing about the areas of small
animal medicine they know better than anyone else on earth.
The comment about "one semester of nutrition" is at best misleading
and at worse deceitful. Regardless of the training veterinarians
receive in school, they soon have to face the school of hard knocks
and experience. Nearly all aspects of small animal disease have a
nutritional component. Further each veterinarian is required to obtain
continuing education to maintain his or her license to practice. True
in almost all states, California being the only exception that I know
of. Depending upon the particular state that means a minimum of 20
hours of scientific sessions each year to satisfy the licensing board.
Of the 2,000 plus such hours of continuing education that I have
amassed I can only remember one seminar that did not have a
nutritional component. That one had to do with equine radiograph
technique in fetlocks. You cannot attend a science session on FLUTD,
Cancer, Dermatology, Cardiology, GI, Renal, or anything else I can
think of where nutrition is not a part of the session and a part of
the science being presented.
I've heard this kind of comment directed at veterinarians for years.
It is noticeable that it always originates from folks who have found
themselves at odds with the veterinary community. In an effort to
denigrate the veterinarians who disagree with them, they revert to
making such ridiculous claims about the profession. No veterinarian
who has been in practice for a few years has managed to do so in a
vacuum regarding the issues of nutrition.
As for the "huge purks", that's simply absurd. They make less
margin on the diets than anything else in the clinic. Veterinarians
provide therapeutic diets to clients because they know how well and
how consistently they work. They know that using a renal diet like k/d
that has been *proven* to double life, reduce uremic crisis and slow
the onslaught of the first uremic crisis. Those clinics that provide
wellness foods do so for client convenience.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>Hardly. I love my vet. I respect my vet. I am also well aware of the
>financial considerations involved in owning a vet practice.
Then it just sounds strange why you said what you did.
>You're the one sounding a little paranoid on this topic....and yet you
>have so little direct experience that its a bit frightening that you
>feel so comfortable spouting off the way you do.
>
A very good friend of mine is a veternarian. I've seen him do his job and have
a little bit of an understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes". Why you
think I have "so little direct experience" commenting on the subjects I do is
interesting since you don't have any idea of who I have or what my experiences
are. If you're paying attention or do your research, you'll find that what I
say is quite accurate. You may not agree w/ me, but the facts are the facts.
>I have also worked for quite a few vets in my life....and yes, the
>bottom line was a big factor in carrying and pushing those prescription
>diets.
They are simply selling a product that the animal needs, no?
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>>>Vets should not be in the business of pushing a certain brand of food
>>>for a profit anymore than first grade teachers should be selling a
>>>specific brand of snacks to her students.
>>
>>
>> I am completely unaware of 1st grade teachers anywhere "selling" snacks to
>> their students. WTF??
>
>It was an analogy. Think about it.
>
It wasn't a good analogy.
>> What are you suggesting is "beholden to one brand of food"? And why is it
>> wrong for a vet to sell/use what they want? Sounds to me like you've
>either
>> got the wrong idea about what happens in vet offices or had a bad
>experience.
>
>Neither of the above actually. I just think its verging on a conflict of
>interest. Using one's position to push something that might not actually
>be beneficial.
>
I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
don't think you're being realistic.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> Your opinon only. Why are my experiences/relationships less valid than
>anyone
>> elses? They aren't.
>
>Now you're just making crap up. I specifically stated that it wasn't
>"invalid". You asked why your experience wasn't valid. I said it *was*
>valid, but that you simply didn't have very much of it.
....and how do you KNOW? Unless you know me personally you can't make an
accurate judgement about how much I know or don't know.
>You're starting to sound like a troll at this point.
Why, because we disagree?? The puppywizard is a troll, if you want an example.
>But why do you pull out the Boogeyman when t comes to dogs, yet you
>walk around overeating and obviously OK with that for yourself?
><snip>
<sigh> Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't lead as
active a lifestyle as I used to. I don't overeat, and by looking at me you can
hardly tell I'm overweight. Why the hyperbole, though? The vast majority of
people who look at ingredients on a dog food label have absolutely NO IDEA of
what they are really getting or the games that are played w/ those same
labels--yet they rave on and on like they know what they are getting. When I
point out risk factors of particular commercial foods, then people like you get
defensive.
>> I don't killfile people that I disagree with. She does, and then attempts
>to
>> respond to the person she killfiled through a 3rd party. That's the
>problem I
>> have with her....that and her constant bashing of one particular company
>that
>> she can never back up. Don't take my defending myself w/ being "huffy", if
>you
>> will.
>
>So then the only real difference is that she killfiles and you don't?
>Big deal. You still do exactly what you accused her of doing in that post.
>
No, that's not the "only real difference". Pennie isn't intellectually honest.
Simple as that. I've done my research on numerous companies and will continue
to post what I've come across. It'll probably offend some of those that
haven't done their research. Pennie is the type of person who only wants to
surround herself w/ "yes men" (and women). Why Pennie would choose to respond
to this thread when she has purposely chosen to look at a select few posts
should really tell you something--she'll bash people she doesn't like w/o
knowing all of the facts (sort of what she does when it comes to Hill's).
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>Hardly. I love my vet. I respect my vet. I am also well aware of the
>>financial considerations involved in owning a vet practice.
>
>
> Then it just sounds strange why you said what you did.
Not really. You see, I don't live in a world in which there are only
Heroes, innocent Victims and Evil Villains. The world just isn't that
black and white. People are pretty much people....wherever you go.
>>You're the one sounding a little paranoid on this topic....and yet you
>>have so little direct experience that its a bit frightening that you
>>feel so comfortable spouting off the way you do.
>>
>
>
> A very good friend of mine is a veternarian.
And I've known veterinarians for over a decade. Pretty well, too. I've
also worked in a pet food store. I've also worked *in* vets offices.
I've also cared for many sick animals in foster care. I've also been a
dog trainer for quite some time.
So what?
> I've seen him do his job and have
> a little bit of an understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes".
Please see above. This is not that much, really.
> Why you
> think I have "so little direct experience" commenting on the subjects I do is
> interesting since you don't have any idea of who I have or what my experiences
> are.
You have said the above as the sum total of your experience more than
once. I still say it isn't that much. It isn't. You don't have to get
defensive about it or feel badly.....it just isn't that much nutritional
experience. BFD and move on.
> If you're paying attention or do your research, you'll find that what I
> say is quite accurate. You may not agree w/ me, but the facts are the facts.
And you've been nagging at me simply because a) I *don't* agree with you
(again, BFD), and
b) because I simply don't think you have much experience in this field.
> They are simply selling a product that the animal needs, no?
Are they? Sometimes. "simply" what the animal "needs"? Not necessarily.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>>>Vets should not be in the business of pushing a certain brand of food
>>>>for a profit anymore than first grade teachers should be selling a
>>>>specific brand of snacks to her students.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am completely unaware of 1st grade teachers anywhere "selling" snacks to
>>>their students. WTF??
>>
>>It was an analogy. Think about it.
>>
>
>
> It wasn't a good analogy.
Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy. The intentions might
be good, but that is what it boils down to.
>
> I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
> efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
> don't think you're being realistic.
And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
that is.
Tara
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
>>>Your opinon only. Why are my experiences/relationships less valid than
>>
>>anyone
>>
>>>elses? They aren't.
>>
>>Now you're just making crap up. I specifically stated that it wasn't
>>"invalid". You asked why your experience wasn't valid. I said it *was*
>>valid, but that you simply didn't have very much of it.
>
>
> ...and how do you KNOW? Unless you know me personally you can't make an
> accurate judgement about how much I know or don't know.
Because YOU have stated quite a few times now the extent of your
experience. Good lord. Are you this dense in person?
>>You're starting to sound like a troll at this point.
>
>
> Why, because we disagree?? The puppywizard is a troll, if you want an example.
Not at all. Because you're making crap up in order to play the victim.
Its as bad as trolling.
<snip running around in circles yet again>
>
> No, that's not the "only real difference". Pennie isn't intellectually honest.
Oh my god....this just broke my irony meter.
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
Tara <tara.green2@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3ECA417B.4040300@verizon.net>...
> GAUBSTER2 wrote:
> > It wasn't a good analogy.
>
> Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
> in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy. The intentions might
> be good, but that is what it boils down to.
>
> >
> > I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
> > efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
> > don't think you're being realistic.
>
> And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
> that is.
Tara,
I don't know what kind of experience you've had working for vets,
maybe it's different in your part of the world. I've spent over 20
years in veterinary clinics all over the Northwest. Out of the 3,500
vets that practice in that part of the world there aren't but a
handful that would fall into the category you describe. And, I know
exactly which ones they are. A good example is one in a sizeable (for
north Idaho anyway) Northern Idaho city. This particular practice
sells whatever they can, to anyone they can, regardless of need. They
push heartworm tests in an area where there has never been a
non-transient case of heartworm in a dog yet. Efficacy of products is
not important to this clinic, although they sure make it sound that
way to clients.
I know these clinics exist, but they are by far and away the extreme
rarity in veterinary medicine. Over the 20 years I've been in and out
of clinics from Fairbanks to Cheyenne there aren't a dozen clinics
that would agree to sell a diet without proof in the way of clinical
studies to back it up. What food does this Northern Idaho clinic sell?
Not Hill's, because Hill's wouldn't agree to give the vet and the
staff free food for their pets.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> I've seen him do his job and have
>> a little bit of an understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes".
>
>Please see above. This is not that much, really.
Simply your opinion. That's fine.
>> Why you
>> think I have "so little direct experience" commenting on the subjects I do
>is
>> interesting since you don't have any idea of who I have or what my
>experiences
>> are.
>
>You have said the above as the sum total of your experience more than
>once. I still say it isn't that much. It isn't. You don't have to get
>defensive about it or feel badly.....it just isn't that much nutritional
>experience. BFD and move on.
That's why I back up my experiences w/ the various food reps w/ the facts right
out of SACN. FYI, the only company reps that were ever honest w/ me about
nutrition were the Hill's reps. Other companies (especially Nutro) played the
ingredients scare games and pushed marketing over nutrition. If the best you
can do is try to belittle what I know by saying that it doesn't somehow
"measure up" to your opinions and experiences, then so be it.
>> If you're paying attention or do your research, you'll find that what I
>> say is quite accurate. You may not agree w/ me, but the facts are the
>facts.
>
>And you've been nagging at me simply because a) I *don't* agree with you
>(again, BFD), and
>b) because I simply don't think you have much experience in this field.
>
The next time you can nail me on the facts, go for it. I doubt I'll be hearing
from you anytime soon. Feel free to try and prove me wrong based on the facts,
not just your opinion. We can argue opinions all day long and not really get
anywhere.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>>>>I am completely unaware of 1st grade teachers anywhere "selling" snacks to
>>>>their students. WTF??
>>>
>>>It was an analogy. Think about it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It wasn't a good analogy.
>
>Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
>in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy.
The reason it wasn't a good analogy is that 1st grade teachers don't sell
snacks to their students. But now we're getting off topic.
>> I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
>> efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
>> don't think you're being realistic.
>
>And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
>that is.
What does that have to do w/ what I said? You must have worked for
unscrupulous vets to hold that sort of opinion.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>> ...and how do you KNOW? Unless you know me personally you can't make an
>> accurate judgement about how much I know or don't know.
>
>Because YOU have stated quite a few times now the extent of your
>experience. Good lord. Are you this dense in person?
You're pretty stubborn, aren't you? See the above and let it sink in.
>>>You're starting to sound like a troll at this point.
>>
>>
>> Why, because we disagree?? The puppywizard is a troll, if you want an
>example.
>
>Not at all. Because you're making crap up in order to play the victim.
>Its as bad as trolling.
Please give an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of anything that I've "made up". I don't "make
things up". I don't have to. I don't play the victim role, btw.
>> No, that's not the "only real difference". Pennie isn't intellectually
>honest.
>
>Oh my god....this just broke my irony meter.
>
>
Whatever floats your boat. If you've read the posts in the past, and weren't
biased one way or the other, you would probably see my point.
|
|
|
| Tara |
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
> Whatever floats your boat. If you've read the posts in the past, and weren't
> biased one way or the other, you would probably see my point.
The inherent irony in your words above is that when I first started
reading this newsgroup (as well as your posts) I wasn't biased at all.
In fact, I was quite horrified at the notion of alternative nutrition.
But believe whatever makes you feel most comfortable.
Tara
|
|
|
| Wayne |
gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) wrote in message news:<20030518122857.04266.00000273@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> My nutrient needs are in excess of what I should be getting (in my particular
> case). I'm about 20 lbs overweight, fyi.
Hahahahahahaha. Ok gaubster, this one had me rolling on the floor.
You are not overweight because you've got "excess nutrients", you're
overweight because you are taking in more calories than you are
excerting. In simple terms you're eating too much and not doing
anything to get rid of the extra calories you are consuming.
> So while I'm not "undernourished,
> you could say that my "nutrient needs are being met".
For someone who claims to be accurate and correct you sure are wrong a
lot. Being overweight has nothing to do with "excess nutrients" and
everything to with excess calories and fat. Being overweight doesn't
mean your "nutrient needs are being met." And if you really believe
this to be the case I have a bridge in California I'd like to sell
you. In fact, being a betting man, I'll bet you're lacking in certain
nutrients since you're overweight.
I believe this post shows just how little you know about nutrition and
its importance on health. While we're talking about animal nutrition
here it really isn't much different from human nutrition. In fact,
the canine is being used more and more in studies for human nutrition.
I believe a nutrition course would help you out tremendously in your
quest to correct your inaccurate statements.
Wayne
|
|
|
| Vicki Rabe |
If there weren't such incentives to carry it do you think soo many vets
would have it. It isn't a coinincidence, Right!
vivicki
"Agilpwd" <Agilpwd@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9383864EE3A99Agilpwdcolumbusrrcom@65.24.2.11...
> "Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote in
> news:vcpq09cnoo9pe2@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > It is hard to argue an issue with someone that doesn't believe what
> > they don't want. Vets are taken care of very well for carring these
> > foods. I
>
> Actually, I believe what I have seen, having been in various veterinary
> practices. I’m not arguing with you anyway, since I don’t care for SD
> foods myself, just stating facts as I’ve seen them.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
> Lisa Baird - Haleakala PWDs
> "Truly" - CH Fantaseas Truly Scrumptious, CD, AAD, AX, NAJ
> "Havoc" - Stargazer Come Hell'R HiWater (puppy with promise!)
> Wiley MAD, SM, JM, RM - Beloved All American
> Buckeye Region Agility Group http://www.bragagility.com/
> PAWZitive Beginnings Dog Training, LLC
> http://www.pawzitivebeginnings.org/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
>
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
"Vicki Rabe" <fdlpets@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vcpq09cnoo9pe2@corp.supernews.com>...
> It is hard to argue an issue with someone that doesn't believe what they
> don't want. Vets are taken care of very well for carring these foods. I
> happen to know that they get them at a much lowered cost than regulasr
> retailers for the same product (I have seen invoices) and have big
> incentives when they graduate from school to carry the product.
Vickie,
As usual, you are outright lying, and I have to assume you know it.
Vets pay the same EXACT price as PetSmart, Pet Supplies First, or
PetCo or Tractor Supply, BIG-R etc. They get ZERO, that means $0.00,
NOTHING, Nada, Zip, $0.00, nothing for graduating from vet school from
Hill's. All they get is a ~$100,000 DEBT to the bank for thier college
tuition. They get no incentive whatsoever when they graduate to carry
Hill's products, not a single thin dime.
What is your obsession about lying in regards to vets and Hill's?
|
|
|
| Bethgsd |
Steve Crane wrote:
>What is your obsession about lying in regards to vets and Hill's?
>
As someone that hasn't had good luck feeding Science Diet I often wonder the
same thing. I had one dog that I fed R/D and it worked wonders to get the
excess weight off. OTOH, none of my animals has done well on regular SD and I
don't feed it. Wouldn't it be better for people that don' t like SD to post
links to sites that aren't full of lies?
Beth
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>You are not overweight because you've got "excess nutrients", you're
>overweight because you are taking in more calories than you are
>excerting.
Here's a lesson for you, Wayne...the 6 basic nutrients are water, fat,
vitamins, minerals, protein, and carbohydrates. If I've ingested excess fat or
carbs, that could result in being over my ideal weight. Therefore I've taken
excess nutrients.
>> So while I'm not "undernourished,
>> you could say that my "nutrient needs are being met".
>
>For someone who claims to be accurate and correct you sure are wrong a
>lot.
Please give me an example.
> Being overweight has nothing to do with "excess nutrients" and
>everything to with excess calories and fat.
Fat is a nutrient. Excess fat (a nutrient) will contribute to being
overweight. It's not that hard to figure out.
>Being overweight doesn't
>mean your "nutrient needs are being met."
As I originally related this to "all life stage" dog foods which are excessive
in certain nutrients for adult and senior dogs...the nutrient needs are being
met in excess of what is required. Your point above must be in agreement w/ me
then--excess nutrients are not optimal nutrition. That's the point I'm trying
to make.
>In fact, being a betting man, I'll bet you're lacking in certain
>nutrients since you're overweight.
Perhaps you can tell me which nutrients I'm lacking since you think you
know?????
>I believe this post shows just how little you know about nutrition and
>its importance on health.
You haven't shown anything to be true--there's a difference between knowing
nutrition and practicing it. It's been admitted to by someone here before
(Debbie or shelly??) that they like to indulge in buttered popcorn. That's
doesn't mean they don't know something about proper nutrition. Your argument
just doesn't hold water.
> I believe a nutrition course would help you out tremendously in your
>quest to correct your inaccurate statements.
>
I defy you to prove anything I've said here before to be untrue....especially
about labeling games that are played in the industry.
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>It is hard to argue an issue with someone that doesn't believe what they
>don't want.
Yeah, especially you for pointing to that horrendously false website bashing
Hill's. Would you care to correct the mistakes on that website or does that
hurt your agenda?
>Vets are taken care of very well for carring these foods. I
>happen to know that they get them at a much lowered cost than regulasr
>retailers for the same product (I have seen invoices) and have big
>incentives when they graduate from school to carry the product.
Why don't you give specific examples instead of speaking in generalities?
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>From: "Vicki Rabe" fdlpets@charter.net
>Date: 5/22/03 2:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vcqhjag2ghuuf4@corp.supernews.com>
>
>If there weren't such incentives to carry it do you think soo many vets
>would have it. It isn't a coinincidence, Right!
yeah, it's all a big conspiracy! You and walter think everything's a
conspiracy!
You still haven't given any examples of the "incentives".
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>You reference Science Diet but the examples you cite pertain to Prescription
>Diet do they not? I think there's a big difference between SD and the PD
>brands.
Tara, what specifically are your concerns?
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
"GAUBSTER2" <gaubster2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030523182948.15816.00000219@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >You reference Science Diet but the examples you cite pertain to
Prescription
> >Diet do they not? I think there's a big difference between SD and the PD
> >brands.
>
> Tara, what specifically are your concerns?
None, I'm just pointing out that Science Diet is a general feed whereas the
specialty diets Steve cited are Prescription Diet feeds. Two completely
different labels. Science Diet itself is not designed for dogs with IBD,
renal disease, allergies, etc. and I think its important to make the
distinction.
--
Tara
|
|
|
| staffymom@webtv.net |
From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
< It's been admitted to by someone here before (Debbie or shelly??) that
they like to indulge in buttered popcorn.>
Not I. My current indulgence is Schwan's Glacier Bay Lemon frozen
yogurt. Ummmm. :-)
Debbie
I also brake for truffles. Especially Grand Marnier truffles.
|
|
|
| shelly |
On 23 May 2003 04:35:51 -0700, rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane)
wrote:
> I wonder if there is any other possible reason that vets prefer
>science Diet? Could it be:
>1. The products WORK consistently.
that may be, but first you have to get the animal to eat it. i've got a
cat who was diagnosed with, and hospitalized for, bladder stones. he
was put on Hills cd-s, but it's not palatable. he will not touch either
the canned or the kibble. i've tried over and over and over again to
get him to eat it and, short of force feeding him (which i gladly did
with a syringe while he was really sick, but as a way of life it's not
an option), he won't touch it. and this is *not* a picky cat, BTW.
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the
electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
-- Dick Solomon, "Third Rock from the Sun"
|
|
|
| Tara O. |
"Steve Crane" <rosebrook@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f3edd2d2.0305230335.7f27d332@posting.google.com...
>
> Hmmm,
> I wonder if there is any other possible reason that vets prefer
> science Diet? Could it be:
> 1. The products WORK consistently.
> 2. Vets are well versed in science and understand the difference
> betwen peer reviewed published scientific studies and internet
> fantasy.
> 3. Hill's has consistently brought forth nearly every major revolution
> in nutritional management of disease.
> 4. Hill's didn't creat a web site with mostly outright lies and
> deceptions.
> 5. Hill's and the veterinary scientists that work for Hill's have
> published more peer reviewed studies than all other pet food companies
> combined.
> 6. Hill's has consistently used Grade 1, 2 and 3 evidence based
> medicine to support the nutritional decisions made - in contrast, to
> say, using specious web sites to support a decision.
> 7. Hill's has great service, delivery, easy order entry, no back
> orders etc.
> 8. Hill's products have saved literally thousands upon thousands of
> animals over the past 50 years.
> 9. First to understand kidney failure and produce a food for the same.
> 10. First to understand bladder stones and produce a food for the
> same.
> 11. First to produce an adverse food reaction elimination diet.
> 12. First to produce a way to dissolve struvite bladder stones without
> surgery.
> 13. First to produce a specific diet for liver disease.
> 14. First to produce a life stage diet and recognizse different
> nutritional needs between growing puppies and senior citizen couch
> potatoes.
> 15. First to produce a food that doubles life expectancy in cancer
> patients.
> 16. First to produce a food specific to congestive heart failure.
> 17. First to produce a food that reverses canien alzheimer's in 70% of
> afflicted dogs.
> 18. First and still nearly the only company with a fixed formula.
You reference Science Diet but the examples you cite pertain to Prescription
Diet do they not? I think there's a big difference between SD and the PD
brands.
--
Tara
|
|
|
| Pennie |
rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) said:
>1. The products WORK consistently.
Not on ALL dogs/cats. We've had to switch some of our clients from
Hill's to other prescription diets.
>2. Vets are well versed in science and understand the difference
>betwen peer reviewed published scientific studies and internet
>fantasy.
None of the 5 vets I work for feed Hill's...in the other practice I
worked in the vets preferred Purina Prescription diets.
>3. Hill's has consistently brought forth nearly every major revolution
>in nutritional management of disease.
I highly doubt that...with veterinary research and other prescription
diet companies also contributing to the mix.
>4. Hill's didn't creat a web site with mostly outright lies and
>deceptions.
Why should they...they'd lose sales.
>5. Hill's and the veterinary scientists that work for Hill's have
>published more peer reviewed studies than all other pet food companies
>combined.
Who cares about pet food company research? What about universities
and colleges?
>6. Hill's has consistently used Grade 1, 2 and 3 evidence based
>medicine to support the nutritional decisions made - in contrast, to
>say, using specious web sites to support a decision.
Okay...but again, what about colleges and universities?
>7. Hill's has great service, delivery, easy order entry, no back
>orders etc.
We've had foods back ordered.
>8. Hill's products have saved literally thousands upon thousands of
>animals over the past 50 years.
This is an opinion, you have no evidence to support this as no one
knows that Hill's is solely responsible.
>9. First to understand kidney failure and produce a food for the same.
Yes, this was when Hill's wasn't even a company, but a sole doctor who
came up with a home cooked meal to help his friend's dog with kidney
problems.
>10. First to understand bladder stones and produce a food for the
>same.
Maybe first to formulate a food...but NOT the first to understand
bladder stones. Human medicine gets that credit.
>11. First to produce an adverse food reaction elimination diet.
I have to disagree here also. Food elimination (using home cooked
foods) were first used...Hill's just took the ball and made a brown
pellet out of it.
>12. First to produce a way to dissolve struvite bladder stones without
>surgery.
"Bladder stones (uroliths) can vary in their composition, with
struvite and oxalate forms being most common in cats. Over the last
few years the pet food companies have focused on designing diets that
help to dissolve struvite stones. Unfortunately, while this has
resulted in a decline in the incidence of struvite stones there has
been an increase in oxalate stones. Unfortunately, oxalate uroliths
are not dissolvable in cat urine, and so must be removed surgically."
http://www.fabcats.org/is61.html
>13. First to produce a specific diet for liver disease.
Again, using evidence found in human liver disease and diet.
>14. First to produce a life stage diet and recognizse different
>nutritional needs between growing puppies and senior citizen couch
>potatoes.
And open up more marketing abilities.
>15. First to produce a food that doubles life expectancy in cancer
>patients.
Blatant lie...while it's been shown to increase life expectancy it has
not been shown to "double" it.
I've gotten the same results from fresh feeding.
>16. First to produce a food specific to congestive heart failure.
May be the first, but again using human research. First doesn't
always mean "best".
>17. First to produce a food that reverses canien alzheimer's in 70% of
>afflicted dogs.
Again, Hill's was asked to stop advertising this just last year as
they didn't have enough evidence to support this.
>18. First and still nearly the only company with a fixed formula.
Key word "nearly".
>This could go one forever, but maybe Vikie's right, none of these
>things count, it is all one grand conspiracy between an evil company
>and all 27,000 veterinarians in the US.
Not all 27,000 veterinarians are pro-Hills.
Pennie
Let Food Be Our Medicine.
-Hippocrates
|
|
|
| GAUBSTER2 |
>< It's been admitted to by someone here before (Debbie or shelly??) that
>they like to indulge in buttered popcorn.>
>
>Not I. My current indulgence is Schwan's Glacier Bay Lemon frozen
>yogurt. Ummmm. :-)
Those actually sound good. I've never had one though.
>Debbie
>I also brake for truffles. Especially Grand Marnier truffles.
Those don't have alcohol in them, do they? ;)
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
Pennie <mutleycrew@thedoghouse.com> wrote in message news:<3r8scvcb08ngr6cvvsnnd4l5ti42s6pcka@4ax.com>...
> rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) said:
>
> >1. The products WORK consistently.
>
> Not on ALL dogs/cats. We've had to switch some of our clients from
> Hill's to other prescription diets.
And of course you have never had a failure with Purina CNM, IAMS, your
raw concoction etc. right?
>
> >2. Vets are well versed in science and understand the difference
> >betwen peer reviewed published scientific studies and internet
> >fantasy.
>
> None of the 5 vets I work for feed Hill's...in the other practice I
> worked in the vets preferred Purina Prescription diets.
That may be true, however more veterinarians choose to feed Science
Diet than all other pet food brands combined. That is unequivocal fact
and not a debateable issue. Further Prescription Diets hold over 85%
of the market share on Prescription Diets. Purina CNM has NEVER been
able to get over 7% market share, even after years of trying. That is
FACT, not mere anecdotal claims governing five veterinarians. Instead
it covers all 27,000 vets in the US. What data do you think more
valuable - data on five vets you work for or hard data on 27,000 vets?
> >3. Hill's has consistently brought forth nearly every major revolution
> >in nutritional management of disease.
>
> I highly doubt that...with veterinary research and other prescription
> diet companies also contributing to the mix.
Great. Show us all the major advances in nutrition any other company
in the world brought forth. I'll even hlep you out - First hydrolysate
food -Purina now take it from here and tell us all the other
nutritional firsts in the world of small animal clinical nutrition
made by any other company. Do please make sure we are talking about
proven value and not some internet fantasy about bouchu leaves for
goodness sake.
> >4. Hill's didn't creat a web site with mostly outright lies and
> >deceptions.
>
> Why should they...they'd lose sales.
Instead we post more information about our diets out in the public
than any other food company. Try finding the same level of data at any
other companies web site. Wonder what they're hiding?
>
> >5. Hill's and the veterinary scientists that work for Hill's have
> >published more peer reviewed studies than all other pet food companies
> >combined.
>
> Who cares about pet food company research? What about universities
> and colleges?
Pennie, I know you really have some personal issues, but do you think
for one instance that nutritional research work is done in a vaccuum?
> >6. Hill's has consistently used Grade 1, 2 and 3 evidence based
> >medicine to support the nutritional decisions made - in contrast, to
> >say, using specious web sites to support a decision.
>
> Okay...but again, what about colleges and universities?
Who do you think does the majority of this work anyway? Hill's cancer
work was done by Greg Oglivie at Colorado State, many of Hill's
struvite calcium oxalate studies were done By Carl Osborne and Jody
Lulich at Michighan, etc etc, etc.
I can see some information is needed about evidence based medicine.
Grade 1, 2, 3, 4 and grades applied to research REGARDLESS of where it
is done or who did it.
A Grade 1 study will require - double blinded, controlled, clinical,
in the specific species, naturally ocurring disease, peer reviewed,
with the exact food in production, published, and repeatable.
At the other end of the spectrum Grade 4 studies rely upon hypothesis,
written commentary in non peer reviewed journals, information
comapring rats to dogs, humans to cats, etc. This is where all the
BARF data lies at Grade 4 or lower.
Regardless of where the work was done, the Evidence Based Medicine
Grade is applied. Grade 1 studies always trump any lower study. An
example: the Polzin study on naturally ocurring renal failure in dogs
is a Grade 1 study and met all the qualifications. It was done by a
University and the results were undebateable. It was done on k/d.
> >7. Hill's has great service, delivery, easy order entry, no back
> >orders etc.
>
> We've had foods back ordered.
That's interesting I thought you didn't use any of those evil Hill's
products? In comparison to the rest of the industry we have the fewest
back orders of ANY veterinary company. Less than the distributors,
less than all other food companies, less than the Pfizers and Bayers
of the world.
>
> >8. Hill's products have saved literally thousands upon thousands of
> >animals over the past 50 years.
>
> This is an opinion, you have no evidence to support this as no one
> knows that Hill's is solely responsible.
That's true, just my opinion and the opinion of the thousands and
thousands of animal owners and of course the overwhelming opinion of
the vets in practice, but hey they don't count do they.
>
> >9. First to understand kidney failure and produce a food for the same.
>
> Yes, this was when Hill's wasn't even a company, but a sole doctor who
> came up with a home cooked meal to help his friend's dog with kidney
> problems.
Pennie, I swear you must stay up late at night trying to find
something nasty to say. The founder of the company developed k/d in
1948. Since that time we have improved k/d 20 times or more based upon
new information and new science. The last major change to k/d was in
2000.
>
> >10. First to understand bladder stones and produce a food for the
> >same.
>
> Maybe first to formulate a food...but NOT the first to understand
> bladder stones. Human medicine gets that credit.
You've got to be kidding me here right? You need to do some research,
the veterinary side of medicine figured this one out years before the
human side. Let me know where you can buy a human food to dissolve
struvites.
>
> >11. First to produce an adverse food reaction elimination diet.
>
> I have to disagree here also. Food elimination (using home cooked
> foods) were first used...Hill's just took the ball and made a brown
> pellet out of it.
Wrong again - first food on the market (1963) was Prescription Diet
d/d lamb and rice. It was what gave lamb and rice it's claim to fame.
Nevermind it was never intended to be used in that manner and that
lamb has NONE of the characteristics commonly applied to it.
>
> >12. First to produce a way to dissolve struvite bladder stones without
> >surgery.
>
> "Bladder stones (uroliths) can vary in their composition, with
> struvite and oxalate forms being most common in cats. Over the last
> few years the pet food companies have focused on designing diets that
> help to dissolve struvite stones. Unfortunately, while this has
> resulted in a decline in the incidence of struvite stones there has
> been an increase in oxalate stones. Unfortunately, oxalate uroliths
> are not dissolvable in cat urine, and so must be removed surgically."
> http://www.fabcats.org/is61.html
>
> >13. First to produce a specific diet for liver disease.
>
> Again, using evidence found in human liver disease and diet.
So what!!! Who else bothered to produce a food for this purpose -
NOBODY! Hills' produces half a dozen foods which are pure money losers
and always will be. Would you propose that all food manufacturers must
ignore all the science developed in the previous 100 years and start
over from scratch at each new development? How utterly absurd! The
difference is that Hill's may have taken some ideas in human medicine
and then did the work to make the theory work in dogs or cats. Nobody
else bothered to do that. If you think for one moment you can simply
take a human study and then go serve it to another species you are
very mistaken.
>
> >14. First to produce a life stage diet and recognizse different
> >nutritional needs between growing puppies and senior citizen couch
> >potatoes.
>
> And open up more marketing abilities.
I suppose you are going to try to claim that puppies and senior
citizens don't have different needs again! Give me a break.
> >15. First to produce a food that doubles life expectancy in cancer
> >patients.
>
> Blatant lie...while it's been shown to increase life expectancy it has
> not been shown to "double" it.
> I've gotten the same results from fresh feeding.
Pennie - you need to read a journal article once in awhile. It might
open up immense opportunities. In the studies done at Colorado State
on Prescription Diet n/d Hill's MORE than doubled the life span of
dogs with lymphoma. Let me repeat - *MORE than doubled*. Go crack open
a journal. You have gotten no such results with raw feeding - not even
close. Hill's did it under proven circumstances in controlled clinical
studies, peer reviewed published and Grade 1 evidence based medicine -
all you've got is BS claims and no proof of anything.
>
> >16. First to produce a food specific to congestive heart failure.
>
> May be the first, but again using human research. First doesn't
> always mean "best".
>
> >17. First to produce a food that reverses canien alzheimer's in 70% of
> >afflicted dogs.
>
> Again, Hill's was asked to stop advertising this just last year as
> they didn't have enough evidence to support this.
Pennie, you do insist on deliberately misleading don't you? As you are
well aware the French Company Royal Canin made those charges in 9
differrent countries in Europe. All 9 were dismissed by the courts in
Hill's favor. The poor French, lost the suit in thier own court system
and lost thier buddy Sadam Hussein. It's been a tough year for the
French. You know this and yet you continue to blatantly mislead
readers on this NG. Such blatant misleading illustrates quite a bit
about you.
|
|
|
| Steve Crane |
shelly <scouvrette@bluemarble.net> wrote in message news:<5sdscvcpmhu3h6dosikuvao01ua3qnmnuu@4ax.com>...
> On 23 May 2003 04:35:51 -0700, rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane)
> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there is any other possible reason that vets prefer
> >science Diet? Could it be:
> >1. The products WORK consistently.
>
> that may be, but first you have to get the animal to eat it. i've got a
> cat who was diagnosed with, and hospitalized for, bladder stones. he
> was put on Hills cd-s, but it's not palatable. he will not touch either
> the canned or the kibble. i've tried over and over and over again to
> get him to eat it and, short of force feeding him (which i gladly did
> with a syringe while he was really sick, but as a way of life it's not
> an option), he won't touch it. and this is *not* a picky cat, BTW.
I would agree. Prescription Diet c/d-s is NOT designed to remove
stones. I'm assuming you meant s/d? Not all pets will eat everything.
While the palatability studies show both c/d-s and s/d are much more
palatable than regular grocery store foods, if they won't eat it you
have to do something else. The vast majority of cats and gfos fed
either c/d or s/d will eat it and do well, but there will always be
some exceptions to the rule.
|
|
|
| shelly |
In news:f3edd2d2.0306011248.61fec607@posting.google.com,
Steve Crane <rosebrook@sbcglobal.net> typed:
> I would agree. Prescription Diet c/d-s is NOT designed to
> remove stones. I'm assuming you meant s/d? Not all pets
> will eat everything.
it was c/d-s. he had struvite crystals. i was told by the
vet that c/d-s would acidify his urine (the original stones
were flushed/removed via a catheter). since he refused to eat
the prescription diet, the vet prescribed urine acidifying
tablets for shortish term use.
> While the palatability studies show both c/d-s and s/d are
> much more palatable than regular grocery store foods,
heh. that again depends on the individual critter. rory had
to be force fed c/d-s (it makes a nice gruel!), but after he'd
regained some strength and the will to live he was willing to
eat canned cheap-o grocery store food (and in the short-term
mackerel, which probably saved his life).
> if they won't eat it you
> have to do something else.
yep. i really thought i was going to lose rory. he lost half
his body weight in 10 days. that's a Very Bad Thing for any
animal, especially a cat. since he still won't touch c/d-s
(and another brand of prescription food), i'm feeding him a
good quality canned food supplemented with grocery store
quality "urinary tract health" kibble. it's not an ideal
solution, but so far, so good.
shelly (vicious Klingon hag tart) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
