Food

Any thoughts on IAMS dog food ?Is it considered a good food or is there
issues with it ? thanks

In article ,
says...
Any thoughts on IAMS dog food ?Is it considered a good food or is there
issues with it ? thanks




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. It has Chicken By-products which consist of the rendered, clean
parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, beaks, feet,
undeveloped eggs, and intestines -- exclusive of feathers except in such
amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices. Chicken
By-Products are much less expensive and less digestible than Chicken
Meal.

It has ground whole sorgham. Another grain. Dogs aren't cows.

Dried beet pulp is just a filler.

They add Salt, not good for high blood pressure!

You can do a lot better. Just read ingredients. Do some research on
the net. Ask around. If you have any questions for me you can post
here or e-mail me directly.

papa

Any thoughts on IAMS dog food ?Is it considered a good food or is there
issues with it ? thanks

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.

Let the games begin.....

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.

Do you have a cite for this or is this only your opinion? I'm very
curious why you think this particular statement is true.

It has Chicken By-products which consist of the rendered, clean
parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, beaks, feet,
undeveloped eggs, and intestines -- exclusive of feathers except in such
amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices. Chicken
By-Products are much less expensive and less digestible than Chicken
Meal.

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?


It has ground whole sorgham. Another grain. Dogs aren't cows.

No, they are omnivores.


Dried beet pulp is just a filler.

Actually, it's a fiber source.


They add Salt, not good for high blood pressure!

You can do a lot better. Just read ingredients. Do some research on
the net. Ask around. If you have any questions for me you can post
here or e-mail me directly.

papa

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

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.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

Melinda Shore wrote:
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.

Melinda - that is simply false nonsense, which I believe you are well
aware of - please show us the AAFCO definition of ground corn, corn
meal, or any other corn commonly used in any premium pet foods that
permits any of the things you are claiming. Good luck.


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 used to worry about that, but you and Paws are so very good at
following around on the NG's and making the proclamation at every post
that it's beginning to seem a waste of time. Kind of like having a
personal secretary- Thanks

Now, when you're done with the personal attacks - prove what you said
above. It continues to be my observation that when any opponent is
losing the debate and cannot provide any facts to base their claims
upon, they revert to personal attacks. You may not like my employment -
but prove me wrong instead of using that as a basis for personal
denigration.

In article .com,
Steve Crane wrote:
Melinda - that is simply false nonsense, which I believe you are well
aware of

It's neither false nor nonsense. People need to understand
how you're defining ingredients/terms because it can be
misleading. I have no idea whether or not it's deliberate
on your part.

Now, when you're done with the personal attacks

You know, while I might consider being identified with Hills
a personal attack I'm a bit surprised that you do. To the
extent that pointing out that you've got a financial and
professional interest in promoting a particular (and
exceedingly peculiar) view of dog food ingredients is a
"personal attack," it's only because it suggests that there
were ethical lapses that prevented you from doing it
yourself.

As to the "peculiar view," I was down at one of the local
feed stores yesterday and because I'm about to move the dogs
back onto a maintenance formula I was talking to the food
buyer about what's new. I was also pretty curious to know
if it really is Hill's position that ingredients don't
matter so I asked her what the Hills sales rep said, and
yup, your sales guys tell buyers that ingredients don't
matter.

On a positive note, she did say that one of your feeds works
well for customers - the light formula. And then she said
"That's not surprising, there's nothing in there."
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

Melinda Shore wrote:

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.

She forgot to mention that I sell flea combs too. She also forgot to mention
that the sale of dog food is at the bottom of our profit centers in animal
hospitals. But that really doesn't matter to her.

Melinda Shore wrote:
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.
--

....and Melinda is another Hill's Hater who would rather kill the
messenger because she is unable to kill the message. Melinda has been
unable to refute many of the points made here so she responds with name
calling, smear capaigns, lies, and profanity. shrug Some people are
just like that. There is nothing unethical about providing facts and
information to clear up misconceptions. I would rather listen to
someone who is an authority on the matter than listen to someone else
who does not but hate on everything. As usual, she has provided NO
helpful information in this thread. Her attacks will commence shortly.

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.