Food

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
...and Melinda is another Hill's Hater who would rather kill the
messenger because she is unable to kill the message.

The fact is that initially I thought that Science Diet just
didn't work for my dogs - it's not the only one that hasn't,
including some "premium" foods like Solid Gold, so I assumed
it was just one of those things. Then I discovered that
other people had exactly the same problems with it that I
did, and then I discovered that the people who browbeat
anybody who criticizes Science Diet actually work for Hills,
and then I discovered that Hills asserts that ingredients
don't matter, and then I discovered that one of the people
who claims his job is reviewing the research literature for
Hills is completely innumerate. So that's the sequence of
events that led to me having a problem with your employer.

I think the two key points are that Hills position is that
ingredients don't matter and that they've got unqualified
people reviewing the research literature (and posting to
Usenet about it). I would guess those two things are
related, but they're key to understanding why Steve posted
incomplete information about the digestibility of corn. As
I said, I don't know if he does it deliberately or he just
doesn't know better, but in the end it really doesn't
matter; he's equally misleading in either case.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community.

Melinda, what problems, exactly, did you have when you were using Science
Diet dog food?

"Papa Dog" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
In article .com,
Steve Crane wrote:
Additionally the starch or carbohydrate fraction of corn - like all
grains - is nearly 99% digestible in dogs. The protein fraction of corn
is more digestible than any other grain commonly used in pet foods.

This would be where I refer you to Huff's "How To Lie With
Statistics." "99% of the good stuff is good! Woohoo!" The
problem is that dog foods commonly contain corn hull and less
digestible parts of corn.

To the person Steve's responding to: we have a little
ethics problem here in rpdh. Steve and the Gaub are on
Hills payroll. Sharon sells Science Diet. They should have
told you that.


I've read this group for a long time. I'm well aware whose payroll
they're on. I don't work for any dogfood company. I've had dogs all my
life and I know a crap dog food when I read the ingredients. There are
lot of good ones out there. A lot of bad ones too. Iams is not great,
neither is Hills for that matter. They're both better than ole roy, but
then that ain't sayin' much.

You sound like you know a thing or two about dog food, Papa, so I'll put it
to you. What dog food do you like best, if money is no object?

In article ,
wolfpuppy wrote:
Since I paid a great deal of money for
my pup, I took her at her word.

You'd pay a huge amount of money for a doodle dog and those
breeders are some of the biggest dog morons on the planet.
I'm not sure why you're equating "sells at high prices" with
"knows a lot about dog food," but the fact that she
recommended IAMS is kind of a big hint that she doesn't,
actually.

Vets can be pretty hit and miss on dog food. Some know a
lot about nutrition, some don't. Some know a lot about
what's on the market, some don't.

When I questioned my vet on IAMS, he was
very quick to point out that it was a high quality dog
food.

It's probably better than Purina Dog Chow or Old Roy. What
was your vet comparing it to?

It isn't true in every case, but I feel that you most often get what you pay
for.

I've found the correlation to be pretty loose, but if that's
what you believe why are you buying a less expensive dog
food? For example, the IAMS company itself produces a
premium brand (Eukanuba) - why aren't you buying that? What
about the probably dozens of other premium brands?
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community.

In article ,
wolfpuppy wrote:
Melinda, what problems, exactly, did you have when you were using Science
Diet dog food?

Dry skin and coat, hard poops (firm poops are good, hard
poops aren't), and low energy levels.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community.

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wolfpuppy wrote:
Since I paid a great deal of money for
my pup, I took her at her word.

You'd pay a huge amount of money for a doodle dog and those
breeders are some of the biggest dog morons on the planet.
I'm not sure why you're equating "sells at high prices" with
"knows a lot about dog food," but the fact that she
recommended IAMS is kind of a big hint that she doesn't,

actually.

Vets can be pretty hit and miss on dog food. Some know a
lot about nutrition, some don't. Some know a lot about
what's on the market, some don't.

When I questioned my vet on IAMS, he was
very quick to point out that it was a high quality dog
food.

It's probably better than Purina Dog Chow or Old Roy. What
was your vet comparing it to?

It isn't true in every case, but I feel that you most often get what you
pay
for.

I've found the correlation to be pretty loose, but if that's
what you believe why are you buying a less expensive dog
food? For example, the IAMS company itself produces a
premium brand (Eukanuba) - why aren't you buying that? What
about the probably dozens of other premium brands?
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community.

My dogs parents were imported from Germany and are registered down to the
number of teeth. When you deal with german breeds, you are dealing with
some of the finest and purest breed dogs on the planet, so don't go
referring to my dogs as doodle dogs, whatever the hell that is. There are
backyard breeders, then there are breeders who breed for show, but that is a
subject or later discussion, if you wish.

As far as Eukenuba dog food...I wasn't aware that it was produced by IAMS.
I will investigate and find out if it is indeed a better quality dog food.
If so, I may change to it. I simply want the best.

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:06:04 -0500, "wolfpuppy" ,
clicked their heels and said:

When you deal with german breeds, you are dealing with
some of the finest and purest breed dogs on the planet, so don't go
referring to my dogs as doodle dogs, whatever the hell that is.

she was referring to the mixed breed "doodles" - labradoodles,
goldendoodles, etc. They cost a lot of money. That isn't a criteria
to base quality on.

No idea what dogs you have but don't know why they are "better" than
anyone else's dog either.

As far as Eukenuba dog food...I wasn't aware that it was produced by IAMS.

Pretty common knowledge.

--
Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bestfr...bedience/album

Papa Dog wrote:
In article .com,
says...

Oh boy, here we go again.... sigh

Papa Dog wrote:

In my opinion, its not that great. I think you can do a lot better.
Corn is the second ingredient. This is the #3 cause of alergies in
dogs.

Yup, I have a cite. I'll find it and post it.

Hopefully it'll be at least a Grade 2 or Grade 1 study and not
somebody's opinion.


This sounds as if it was written by Nutro. The part about
digestibility is not neccessarily true. Again, do you have any cites
to back this up?


Actually came right from AAFCO.

Then you should have no problem citing chapter and verse. I'll be
waiting for that one, too.


Dried beet pulp is just a filler.

Actually, it's a fiber source.

Its a high source of sugar and is used as a filler. Its garbage.

That's your opinion which is not based in fact. Do you deny that beet
pulp is a source of fiber?




There's more to nutrition than just reading ingredient panels. That
will not tell you the whole story and will only lead you astray.


I gave my opinion. You gave yours. If its not about good ingredients
then what is it about? I know fat content, fiber, protien and other
things are important, but what they come from is important, at least to
me.

It's about the nutrients that those ingredients provide. Don't forget
about phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, etc. Nutrition goes much deeper
than what the ingredient is. You've got to start with the nutrient
profile you are trying to achieve and work backward from there. You
don't start with what ingredient "sounds" good and then hope you
stumble upon proper nutrition in the process.

Papa Dog wrote:


I've read this group for a long time. I'm well aware whose payroll
they're on. I don't work for any dogfood company. I've had dogs all my
life and I know a crap dog food when I read the ingredients.

....and that's where you got led astray, just as I predicted.

"wolfpuppy" wrote in message:

My dogs parents were imported from Germany and are registered down to the
number of teeth. When you deal with german breeds, you are dealing with
some of the finest and purest breed dogs on the planet, so don't go
referring to my dogs as doodle dogs, whatever the hell that is.

OY! What was being said here is that there isn't necessarily a correlation
between the quality of the breeder and the amount of money they charge for
the dog. Just as an example, some of the pricier dogs are often found at
petstores, although the pups are the product of puppy mills.

And being,imported, or of foreign descent, or having registrations up the
wazoo aren't necessarily an indicator of quality either. I've seen some
pretty craptacular dogs that looked wonderful on paper. I am NOT saying
anything about the quality of your dog or his wonderful lineage, mind you.

Suja

Melinda Shore wrote:
.. (Although frankly, until
you hire someone to do literature evaluation who's actually
qualified to do literature evaluation there's really no way
of knowing whether or not your understanding of any given
set of results is correct in the first place.)

I see, you consider yourself to be more knowledgable about small
animal clinical nutrition than the 200 plus veterinarians who work for
Hill's and the 30+ boarded diplomates of one veterinary board or
another that work at Hill's, more knowledgable than the dozens of pHd's
in nutrition that work at Hill's. More knowledgable than the scientists
and veterinarians who did the two thousand plus clinical studies
referenced in Small Animal ClinicaI Nutrition IV and I suppose you know
more than the people who developed 90% of all the veterinary
therapeutic diets over the past 60 years?

Give me a break, that's hardly a member of a "reality based community".