DOG FOOD DILEMA (Cont.)

[Tom McGlinn]

I too am bothered by the Consumer Reports article on dog food. In many
replies below to the same topic, Hill's Science Diet is not mentioned by any
of you. I've been feeding my puppy Hill's Large Breed Canine Growth and
planned to switch to Hill's Canine Maintenance soon.

But were at or near the bottom of the list in the Consumer Report article.
I interpreted it to actually imply that this product that I entrusted my
puppy's most important development stage to was nutritionally incomplete. I
feel like I've wronged my dog. I got her from the pound and I believe that
she had previously been neglected and not fed well. I was determined to
feed her the best and went with the product my vet recommended -- Hill's. I
spent more without regard to cost, but only to my friends proper
development. I feel betrayed having read that CR article.

May I please get the opinion of those here of Hill's Science Diet and a
recommendation of this thread's favorite choice -- I read below that Nutro
is preferred by some here. Is it better than Hill's? Is the CR article
wrong about Hill's?

Thank you,

Tom McGlinn

[Philip Warner]

SD Rocks. There may be other products that are "better" but my puppy
stopped having seizures when I switched from Purina to SD. I can't say
that there is a direct cause and effect relationship, but he certainly
looks a lot healthier after 4 months of SD...

Phil

[Doug Robichaud]

Tom,

I liked the ingredient list on Nutro better than Science Diet, and used to
use Nutro for that reason. (Basically, fewer chemicals if I recall
correctly.)

However, we now feed Solid Gold or Innova supplemented with raw foods.

I wouldn't feel bad about feeding Hill's because of the Consumer Report's
article. Their main (only?) criteria in the ratings was cost.

--
Doug Robichaud
drobi...@midplains.net
Madison, WI

[Lenni & Jay Peskin]

I've switched my dogs to Solid Gold after reading the FDA article about
preservatives in dog food. One of my dog's had been eating SD-RD and Iams
less fat, the other one was getting Iams lamb & rice. I've noticed a
significant improvement in both of their coats as well as a reduction in
allergy symptoms. Hope this helps,
Lenni
Doug Robichaud wrote in message <6aidaf$jfg$1...@news3.alpha.net>...

[Sarra Wright]

>> I too am bothered by the Consumer Reports article on dog food. In many
>> replies below to the same topic, Hill's Science Diet is not mentioned by any
>> of you. I've been feeding my puppy Hill's Large Breed Canine Growth and
>> planned to switch to Hill's Canine Maintenance soon.
>>
>> But were at or near the bottom of the list in the Consumer Report article.
>> I interpreted it to actually imply that this product that I entrusted my
>> puppy's most important development stage to was nutritionally incomplete.

If you look at the way the list is set up, the foods are ranked by
order of cost. That seems to be the only criteria they used to
determine the best food.

Personally I'm not fond of Science Diet because I feel that they use
too many artificial preservatives and corn is the first ingredient,
rather than a meat protein but it is certainly a much better food than
Old Roy or Kibbles and Bits regardless of what the article would lead
you to believe. My choice would be Nutro, Eukanuba , Natures Recipe,
Pro Plan or even better Wysong, Innova or Solid Gold BUT you should
feed whatever premium your dog does best on and that makes you feel
good about feeding it.

In fact, IMO the reason that Bibbles and Bits came out as the best
liked food of the staffers dog's had nothing to do with nutritional
soundness, but rather it's because it's like getting candy in every
bowl. The food is loaded with soft moist chunks that are made with
propylene glycol, or sugar. My dog loves Kibbles and Bits, and would
choose it over any other food, but that doesn't mean it's good for her
any more than eating nothing but ice cream would be good for a child.

In fact, the following is a response to the article originally posted
to the Veterinary Professionals list, by Chris Cowell a nutritionist
from Hills. (Reprinted with permission)

> I too have read the Consumer Reports article. And since I am a
> nutritionist for Hill's you may think I am bias. But there are
> glaring scientific problems with the way some of the comparisons were
> made. Suprisingly, CR did not have any quality criteria in their
> evaluation (as they do in most all of their product comparisons).
> They also inappropriately applied the AAFCO Nutrient Profiles, giving
> the impression that they are nutrient requirments. They also compared
> products of different moisture levels and said the more dilute one had
> lower calories...of course if you add more water it will be less
> calories, but it won't necessarily be balanced for other nutrients,
> and the animal will have to eat more to consume the same energy. They
> also miscalculated cost per day. Also glaringly, the life-stage
> concept was totally missed. Feeding growth products to adults and
> senior animals leads to nutrient excesses and can be contra-indicated
> especially in disease or sub-clinical disease. I am disappointed that
> the CR only criteria were "the cheapest food your pet will eat".
>
> Take a close look at the article and you will see the errors. Too bad
> this article may lead people away from quality nutrition and risk
> factor management towards a "one size fits all" just adequate food.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher S. Cowell, M.S.
> Principal Nutritionist
> Hill's Pet Nutrition

Sarra Wright, RVT