Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet

Hi All

Which is better Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet ? Which do you think is
better nutrition for a growing puppy ?


kIM

wrote:
Hi All

Which is better Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet ? Which do you think is
better nutrition for a growing puppy ?


kIM

Neither is something I'd feed to my dogs. Here are a couple of good
on-line sites to research commercial dog foods. You won't find them at
your grocery store, or at Petsmart. The better foods are frequently
available at feed stores and some vets. (my regular vet carries the
Hills crap mostly, but my holistic vet carries some of the better
foods). Depending on the breed, after about 4 months you may not want
to feed puppy food. Other alternatives are a home-cooked or raw menu.
But you really need to do your research on that to be sure you are
feeding a balanced diet.
http://www.nhratterriers.com/goodfood.htm
http://www.doberdogs.com/menu.html

Sandy in OK wrote:
wrote:
Hi All

Which is better Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet ? Which do you think is
better nutrition for a growing puppy ?


kIM

Neither is something I'd feed to my dogs. Here are a couple of good
on-line sites to research commercial dog foods. You won't find them at
your grocery store, or at Petsmart. The better foods are frequently
available at feed stores and some vets. (my regular vet carries the
Hills crap mostly, but my holistic vet carries some of the better
foods). Depending on the breed, after about 4 months you may not want
to feed puppy food. Other alternatives are a home-cooked or raw menu.
But you really need to do your research on that to be sure you are
feeding a balanced diet.
http://www.nhratterriers.com/goodfood.htm
http://www.doberdogs.com/menu.html


Hi

I have a too busy life to prepare food for the puppy. I meen I would
look after it take it walking etc. But I cannot make food. I live in
Australia so there is not a large variety of food. I have never seen
any of the brands on those websites before. All I have heard about is
Hill's Science Diet , Eukanuba and Advance which is an Australian dog
food company which food has been tested by WALTHAM. So what do I choose
out of the 3 in your opinion?

in thread oups.com:
whittled the following words:

Sandy in OK wrote:
wrote:
Hi All

Which is better Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet ? Which do you
think is better nutrition for a growing puppy ?


kIM

Neither is something I'd feed to my dogs. Here are a couple of good
on-line sites to research commercial dog foods. You won't find them
at your grocery store, or at Petsmart. The better foods are
frequently available at feed stores and some vets. (my regular vet
carries the Hills crap mostly, but my holistic vet carries some of
the better foods). Depending on the breed, after about 4 months you
may not want to feed puppy food. Other alternatives are a home-cooked
or raw menu. But you really need to do your research on that to be
sure you are feeding a balanced diet.
http://www.nhratterriers.com/goodfood.htm
http://www.doberdogs.com/menu.html


Hi

I have a too busy life to prepare food for the puppy. I meen I would
look after it take it walking etc. But I cannot make food. I live in
Australia so there is not a large variety of food. I have never seen
any of the brands on those websites before. All I have heard about is
Hill's Science Diet , Eukanuba and Advance which is an Australian dog
food company which food has been tested by WALTHAM. So what do I
choose out of the 3 in your opinion?


Of the three, I'd say your puppy is in good hands. All are good foods.
People who put down these companies are people buying into some false
information disseminated by other companies with an agenda. Companies
selling foods on a gimmick rather than good science and jealous of the big
three trying to tarnish their image.

diddy wrote:

I have a too busy life to prepare food for the puppy. I meen I would
look after it take it walking etc. But I cannot make food. I live in
Australia so there is not a large variety of food. I have never seen
any of the brands on those websites before. All I have heard about is
Hill's Science Diet , Eukanuba and Advance which is an Australian dog
food company which food has been tested by WALTHAM. So what do I
choose out of the 3 in your opinion?



Of the three, I'd say your puppy is in good hands. All are good foods.
People who put down these companies are people buying into some false
information disseminated by other companies with an agenda. Companies
selling foods on a gimmick rather than good science and jealous of the big
three trying to tarnish their image.

Yep. I've fed Euk Premium Performance exclusively for almost 7 years
now. I get super coat and condition, small stools, energy, endurance,
and they just never have coat issues.

The thing that the "feed raw" and "feed only some brand you can only get
by hiking to Tibet on the fourth blue moon of September" people don't
understand is that none of those diets have any real science behind
them. The big companies like Purina and Iams actually do real studies
and real feeding trials on real dogs. The little "boutique" brands don't
do any feeding trials at all. And of course Raw has no science behind
it, you're just sort of guessing you're feeding the right thing.

In article myNnh.204153$aJ.62426@attbi_s21,
Robin Nuttall wrote:
The thing that the "feed raw" and "feed only some brand you can only get
by hiking to Tibet on the fourth blue moon of September" people don't
understand is that none of those diets have any real science behind
them.

"None?" Uh, nope. There are small companies producing
rather hard-to-find feeds like Annamaet, Momentum, and
Caribou Creek which are, in fact, based on clinical
research. Is that what you meant by "real science?"
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article myNnh.204153$aJ.62426@attbi_s21,
Robin Nuttall wrote:

The thing that the "feed raw" and "feed only some brand you can only get
by hiking to Tibet on the fourth blue moon of September" people don't
understand is that none of those diets have any real science behind
them.


"None?" Uh, nope. There are small companies producing
rather hard-to-find feeds like Annamaet, Momentum, and
Caribou Creek which are, in fact, based on clinical
research. Is that what you meant by "real science?"

Feeding trials on real dogs, not formulas that technically meet AAFCO
standards.

I'm not saying all boutique brands are bad. I'm just saying most of them
are putting ingredients together that sound good but aren't actually
feeding the food to colonies of dogs to see what happens. It could well
be that some of them are doing an excellent job. However, tht doesn't
mean, conversely, that the big companies are doing an awful job because,
well, they're big.

On "science," I really meant no studies on the efficacy of raw food in
the diet though I do believe there are now a couple out there that show
the dangers of feeding raw.

Be gentle with me today, I'm nusring a horrible cold and my head feels
like its going to fall off and roll across the floor like a bowling
ball--which, frankly, would be a relief.

Robin Nuttall wrote:
Feeding trials on real dogs, not formulas that technically meet AAFCO
standards.

[panix.com's news feed is borken; pardon the g00gle]

Well, Pedigree, Friskies, and Science Diet are all trialled,
and I wouldn't feed any of those.

I agree with your basic point, which is that nearly any of
the major premium brands will be a good feed for the
average dog. Find one that makes sense, give it a shot,
and adjust as necessary. I've had good experiences with
a variety of feeds; right now I need something pretty dense
because the dogs are in training [HAH, she says, looking
at the outside temperature reading of 60F] but during
the summer I've tried a variety of them and have been mostly
very satisfied.

However, it's not correct to say that there's "no science"
behind the smaller, harder to find brands. For one thing,
in several cases I know of the companies were spun out of
university research projects. For another thing, I think
the word "science" might be being used incorrectly here.
Certainly when I see vague complaints about bad "science"
it tends to be from people who think that the Grand Canyon
is 6000 years old and climate change denialists, so it
pushes those buttons for me. Real criticism tends to go
beyond "bad science/no science" assertions. Also, there's
a tendency to think it has something to do with providing
citations, even in the absence of any kind of evaluation of the
literature being cited. "Oooh, shiny!"

It's a methodological thing, and as the second t-shirt at:
http://xkcd.com/store/ suggests, we like it!

wrote:
Robin Nuttall wrote:

I agree with your basic point, which is that nearly any of
the major premium brands will be a good feed for the
average dog. Find one that makes sense, give it a shot,
and adjust as necessary. I've had good experiences with
a variety of feeds; right now I need something pretty dense
because the dogs are in training [HAH, she says, looking
at the outside temperature reading of 60F] but during
the summer I've tried a variety of them and have been mostly
very satisfied.

Right. Most dogs are not going to be going to the extremes yours will
(if you ever get snow again!). I consider my dogs athletes and agility a
very athletic sport, but it's high intensity for extremely short
periods. I remember talking to an agility friend several years ago who
said she rests her dogs for 2-3 days after an agility trial because it's
so hard. And I was thinking, "what, for 3 minutes work in a weekend??"
It's the fitness I do with the dogs to make sure they can go that fast
over that many jumps without injury that is the work, not the courses
themselves unless I'm training an hour or more every day (which I've
never done).

However, it's not correct to say that there's "no science"
behind the smaller, harder to find brands. For one thing,
in several cases I know of the companies were spun out of
university research projects.

I had no clue. Brand share please?


For another thing, I think
the word "science" might be being used incorrectly here.
Certainly when I see vague complaints about bad "science"
it tends to be from people who think that the Grand Canyon
is 6000 years old and climate change denialists, so it
pushes those buttons for me.

But Melinda, evolution is just a THEORY!! Intelligent design is just as
valid!

ducking and running

wrote in message
ps.com...
Hi All

Which is better Eukanuba or Hill's Science Diet ? Which do you think is
better nutrition for a growing puppy ?


kIM
===========
I don't know if this brand is available to you where you live, but I use
Nutro Natural Choice and never have had any problems with it or with the
health of my dog. I am able to purchase it at the Petco Store. I don't
know enough about dog food to claim one brand to be better than another,
only that this brand in lamb and rice for large dogs was recommended to me
when I purchased my dog two years ago, and it seems to be working very
nicely for my dog. She has a shiny coat, muscular build and has no skin or
odor problems. They have a puppy food also available in that brand called
Natural Choice Puppy Chicken Meal, Rice and Oatmeal formula for puppies up
to one year of age.