Science Diet, nutrients and quality ingredients?

You won't get a straight answer from them. They will simply perform
spin control on their product and send out endless smoke screens to try
to change the subject. They will also attempt to discredit any food
other than Hill's and anyone that doesn't agree with them. They're
here for one reason, to defend their product and try to convince the
masses that corn meal, soy meal and by-products are somehow equal to
real meat, whole grains, fruits and veggies. In the end, they won't
answer the question If it's all about nutrient profiles, then why
don't we all give up real meats, whole grains, fresh fruits and veggies
and just slap a feed bucket over our heads and eat a mixture of
fortified Corn Meal, Soybean Meal and By-products? The answer is that
it's all about money and the fact that they can make a huge profit
selling their formula at ~$1 per pound. If you look at the other foods
you mentioned, they also cost around ~$1 per pound. If you consider
your dog livestock and don't mind paying ~$1 per pound for Corn Meal,
Soybean Meal and Chicken heads, feet, intestines and other random
organs, then Science Diet isn't a bad food, albeit overpriced, but if
you consider your Dog Family, I wouldn't touch Science Diet with a 10
foot pole. I'd also like to see the ingredient list of their foods
before they were assimilated by Colgate-Palmolive, anyone have it?

Let the spin begin!

presented the following explanation :
You won't get a straight answer from them. They will simply perform
spin control on their product and send out endless smoke screens to try
to change the subject. They will also attempt to discredit any food
other than Hill's and anyone that doesn't agree with them. They're
here for one reason, to defend their product and try to convince the
masses that corn meal, soy meal and by-products are somehow equal to
real meat, whole grains, fruits and veggies. In the end, they won't
answer the question If it's all about nutrient profiles, then why
don't we all give up real meats, whole grains, fresh fruits and veggies
and just slap a feed bucket over our heads and eat a mixture of
fortified Corn Meal, Soybean Meal and By-products? The answer is that
it's all about money and the fact that they can make a huge profit
selling their formula at ~$1 per pound. If you look at the other foods
you mentioned, they also cost around ~$1 per pound. If you consider
your dog livestock and don't mind paying ~$1 per pound for Corn Meal,
Soybean Meal and Chicken heads, feet, intestines and other random
organs, then Science Diet isn't a bad food, albeit overpriced, but if
you consider your Dog Family, I wouldn't touch Science Diet with a 10
foot pole. I'd also like to see the ingredient list of their foods
before they were assimilated by Colgate-Palmolive, anyone have it?

Let the spin begin!

David, I do believe you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Well
put! I did get a chuckle out of Steve Crane's reply on why they add
peanut hulls to their food. He said it was so the dog was satiated and
didn't drive the owner nuts by begging for more food. What he fails to
realize (or maybe he does, lol) is that if the dog were fed a good
wholesome food instead of a food with filler bulk, the dog would be
naturally satiated.

--
PawsForThought

wrote:
So my questin still wasn't aswered by the SD expert(s). Whether or
not
Innova or Canidae or any other higher end dog food really uses high
or
low grade meat, Why does SD use low grade ingredience? I would be in
SD's corner if they used brown rice or flaxseed instead of peanut
hulls.
Or chicken meal instead of soy meal. Why do the have to use such
shitty
ingredience? My old vet who was really old, told me that Hill's used
to
be a great company when they were independent. But when they got
bought
up buy these corporations like their current owners Colgate-Palmolive
their ingredience had really gone down hill.

I see the discussion still hasn't evolved into a nutritional
discussion, but remains a discussion on the ignorance of ingredients,
instead. Colgate has owned Hill's since 1976. Incredibly enough,
canine and feline nutrition is light years ahead of 1976. Foods that
treat canine cognitive dysfunction, gingivitis/periodontal disease,
dissolve struvite stones, extend the life/quality of life for renal
failure dogs, the advent of the use of antioxidants, hairball control
in cats, large breed puppy foods, neoplasia diets for dogs, and on and
on and on.....! All of those things were pioneered by Hill's Pet
Nutrition. And all of those things were done because the focus was on
NUTRITION, not on what ingredient will look good on a bag of cat/dog
food.


PS. When I asked a friend of mine who is a manager at a PetsMart why
they don't carry foods like Innova and Canidae. She said that
PetsMart
will only carry foods at a certain price point so if Innova will not
lower their price down far enough for PetsMart to make the profit
they
want to make on each bag, then it doesn't get carried.


Well, I used to work there too, and the biggest reason is that those
companies aren't big enough to make enough food to supply PETsMART's
needs.
Don't you think that those companies would LOVE to have their foods
at Petco OR PETSMART?? They'd make more money than they would know
what to do with (relative to what they're making now). It has nothing
to do with price point.

BTW, you might want to invest in a spell-checker or learn to spell
better!

PawsForThought wrote:


David, I do believe you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Well
put! I did get a chuckle out of Steve Crane's reply on why they add
peanut hulls to their food. He said it was so the dog was satiated
and
didn't drive the owner nuts by begging for more food. What he fails
to
realize (or maybe he does, lol) is that if the dog were fed a good
wholesome food instead of a food with filler bulk, the dog would be
naturally satiated.


More than likely, he got hit in the head WITH a nail! Lauren, you and
David NEVER answer the questions put to you--so it's clear that as long
as you and others attack Hill's, then Steve, me, and others will defend
them. Clearly, you would rather demogogue than discuss, you would
rather attack and bash than debate and reason. It's clear to everyone
here, that neither you nor David, have ANY understanding of feline or
canine nutrition. You think you can discern the quality of a food by
looking at an INGREDIENT LABEL?? That's absolutely laughable! It's
been stated here time and time again, what a fool's errand that is.
Not to mention, that it just doesn't make any sense. Perhaps if you
worked in the pet food industry, you might have more of an
understanding of nutrition, but you don't. It's very amusing that you
castigate Hill's at every turn, yet they are single-handedly
responsible for the lion's share of small animal clinical nutritional
advances in the last 50 years. You recommend companies that have never
done A SINGLE THING to advance canine or feline nutrition, yet you
swear by those same foods. When asked simple questions about
nutrition, you respond w/ personal attacks, namecalling, and insults.
Clearly, that's all you, David, and others have... and that's sad.

has brought this to us :
wrote:
So my questin still wasn't aswered by the SD expert(s). Whether or not
Innova or Canidae or any other higher end dog food really uses high or
low grade meat, Why does SD use low grade ingredience? I would be in
SD's corner if they used brown rice or flaxseed instead of peanut hulls.
Or chicken meal instead of soy meal. Why do the have to use such shitty
ingredience? My old vet who was really old, told me that Hill's used to
be a great company when they were independent. But when they got bought
up buy these corporations like their current owners Colgate-Palmolive
their ingredience had really gone down hill.

I see the discussion still hasn't evolved into a nutritional
discussion, but remains a discussion on the ignorance of ingredients,
instead. Colgate has owned Hill's since 1976. Incredibly enough,
canine and feline nutrition is light years ahead of 1976. Foods that
treat canine cognitive dysfunction, gingivitis/periodontal disease,
dissolve struvite stones, extend the life/quality of life for renal
failure dogs, the advent of the use of antioxidants, hairball control
in cats, large breed puppy foods, neoplasia diets for dogs, and on and
on and on.....! All of those things were pioneered by Hill's Pet
Nutrition. And all of those things were done because the focus was on
NUTRITION, not on what ingredient will look good on a bag of cat/dog
food.

Ah yes, Hill's marketing ploys, and their "prescription" foods to treat
the ills caused by their regular line of foods, LOL Maybe if their
food was higher quality there wouldn't be a need for so many of these
"prescription" foods, hmmm?

--
PawsForThought

Are you going to answer the original poster's question or start sending
up smoke screens and diversion tactics once again? Surely Hill's could
source some high quality, low ash chicken meal to use instead of
by-products and surely you could use better quality grains and protein
sources instead of Corn Meal and Soybean Meal and surely you could use
a better quality fat source than vegetable oil? So why don't you?

pretended :
Are you going to answer the original poster's question or start sending
up smoke screens and diversion tactics once again? Surely Hill's could
source some high quality, low ash chicken meal to use instead of
by-products and surely you could use better quality grains and protein
sources instead of Corn Meal and Soybean Meal and surely you could use
a better quality fat source than vegetable oil? So why don't you?

I think Gaubster has to go ask his higher ups at work before he can
give you an answer Þ

--
PawsForThought

OK Rocket, Two more things for you to try

1. Show us the peer reviewd published data that illustrates the use
of cellulose and penaut hulls does NOT cause satiety in dogs.

2. Show us the legal definition of "human grade" and explain to use
what law or regulations define that term.

We'll add these to the growing list of your ideas and hypothesis that
you can't support.
3. We're still waiting for you to grant us your infinite wisdom in
regards to what nutrients are of primary concern in large breed adult
puppies and why?
4. We're still waiting for you to show us the published data which
illustrates corn is "bad" for dogs.

How long will this list become - anyone want to start a pool?

Okay, let the flames rise...I don't get it and will probably be
admonished for this; but...

It's not difficult to seek out the facts. If you do a quick google
search to either substantiate or disprove what Steve and Gaubster have
enspouted (like phosphorus and calcium levels, ash levels, corn meal
advantages etc.), it's easy to find that they speak from a
scientifically sound and proven vantage point.

Look, I don't care about Hill's or think they need anyone here to
"help" them. I think they do pretty well on their own, however, the
truth of the matter is that Science Diet does have science on their
side. Perhaps some are not psychologically able to accept the facts.
Even in my quest to find the most nutritional dog food, it's hard for
me not to fall victim to the hype. It's hard for me to see corn meal as
a first ingredient (or even in the list of ingredients, period) and not
wince, but that is marketing working it's magic on me. Logically and
intellectually, it just isn't accurate.

Does that mean that some of these boutique foods aren't good - no, it
doesn't. Some of them are fine, even good, but the thing that gets
sorely missed in this forum is just because a food like "Blue" passes
the muster, doesn't mean that Hill's is this evil empire wanting to
make dogs sick and terminally ill. It's so silly. Like these boutique
dog food advocates are the only people in the know that happen to
understand this conspiracy, while the majority of vets and scientists
nation-wide are just uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. eyeroll

I'm so sure!! It defies common sense, IMO.

I think it speak volumes that Iams and Hill's doesn't claim, "Human
grade" on their products when legally, they most certain could do so.
They seem less interested in preying on fear than simply making a
quality product through scientificically proven nutrition.

Question: Does anybody here actually have conclusive evidence that
proves your theories about their nutrition to cause x, y or z; from a
*credible*, non-bias source?

I suspect a troll here but let's see.

So my questin still wasn't aswered by the SD expert(s). Whether or
not
Innova or Canidae or any other higher end dog food really uses high
or
low grade meat, Why does SD use low grade ingredience?

On what basis would you define Innova or Canidae as having "better"
ingredients? Please define what that term means. Does it mean that the
ingredient "sounds better" to you from an emotional point of view, or
that the ingredient brings a higher level of digestibility, broader
spectrum of amino acids, lower levels of calcium and phosphorus, much
higher level of proven antioxidants? What measureable things would you
use to define "better".


I would be in
SD's corner if they used brown rice or flaxseed instead of peanut
hulls.

Flax seed does not contain sufficient insoluble fiber to effect satiety
in obese dogs. The only place Hill's uses cellulose and penaut hulls is
in diets designed for obesity. Of course you know that, you're just
hoping readers on this NG will be ignorant enough to believe you when
you try to insinuate cellulose and peanut hulls are used in all Hill's
foods. Flax seed would contribute additional fats which would be
contraindicated in obese prone animals.


Or chicken meal instead of soy meal.
The first ingredient listed in Science Diet Canine adult is chicken,
not soy meal so I'm guessing you'll start singing the praises of
Science Diet now? . Please let us know just exactly why soy meal is
"bad" for dogs? Please be sure to cite your references for this claim.


My old vet who was really old, told me that Hill's used to
be a great company when they were independent. But when they got
bought
up buy these corporations like their current owners
Colgate-Palmolive
their ingredience had really gone down hill. He could no longer
prescribe their use.

Good grief your vet must have graduated from vet school well over 35
years ago. Hasn't he gotten to the point of retiring yet? Colgate
bought Hill's in 1976. What a silly thing to say without checking your
facts. You just end up looking kind of ignorant. Unless of course you
once again hoped that readers on this NG would be so ignorant they
would buy this nonsensical story as well.