Substitute from Science Diet Canine Food W/D?
FalconFan
girlfriend's dog was "prescribed" (oh brother) this dog food and she
is having trouble finding it and it also costs $2.00 per can. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated :)
FalconFan
Tara O.
news:sf4n1vcseljlkehrc...@4ax.com...
A substitute for W/D would depend on why it was prescribed. Was it for
weight loss or for a disease such as colitis, pancreatitis, diabetes, etc?
If it was prescribed to alleviate symptoms of a disease then its very
important to consider the benefits before looking at other brands. At least
know what it is you are looking for in another brand. If it was prescribed
for weight loss, the only cheaper substitutes (something you can buy in
grocery stores, walmart, k-mart) are "diet" foods.
Hill's Precription Diet foods should be found at any (or at least most) vet
office. Since its a prescription food, you can't buy it anywhere else.
There are compatible brands to the W/D for treating disease related issues
but you're going to pay at least the same amount per can or bag, if not
more.
--
Tara
Pennie
I have to echo what Tara asked and wonder why the diet was prescribed.
If you can give us more information I'm sure you can get more accurate
information. =)
Pennie
The great pleasure of a dog is that you make a fool of yourself with him
and not only will he not scold you, he will make a fool of himself too.
--Samuel Butler
------
add mail to "thedoghouse" to reply.
GAUBSTER2
>If it was prescribed
>for weight loss, the only cheaper substitutes (something you can buy in
>grocery stores, walmart, k-mart) are "diet" foods.
Actually, that's NOT the case. If looking for a weight loss food you have to
get something that's says LIGHT, not "lite". (If it says "weight
management/control" or "reduced calorie", etc. those won't work either.) There
are huge differences between the two. I think I did see a light Precise cat
formula a couple of years ago, however the only other company that makes a
LIGHT food is Science Diet.
Kim
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030108112442...@mb-cd.aol.com...
Many of the premium diets produce "light" diets.
Reduced calorie and restricted calorie etc in many premium diet cases do
mean exactly the same.
W/D is for seriously overweight dogs, light food on the other hand is
actually used a lot for maintanance or for less active dogs.
An equivalent to Hills w/d would be Eukanuba restricted calorie and Advance
calorie control. All of these companies also provide Light diets as well.
Kim
GAUBSTER2
>Reduced calorie and restricted calorie etc in many premium diet cases do
>mean exactly the same.
With all due respect, no they don't. "LIGHT" has to meet certain requirements.
Canine light foods can't exceed 3100 kcal per kilo fed. Feline light foods
can't exceed 3250 kcal per kilo fed. If it doesn't say LIGHT, then you
probably won't achieve much meaningful weight loss.
>An equivalent to Hills w/d would be Eukanuba restricted calorie and Advance
>calorie control. All of these companies also provide Light diets as well.
>
I'm not familiar w/ Advance, but Eukanuba DOES NOT make a "light" food.
Steve Crane
> "GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030108112442...@mb-cd.aol.com...
> > >A substitute for W/D would depend on why it was prescribed.
Some minor corrections below:
> Many of the premium diets produce "light" diets.
> Reduced calorie and restricted calorie etc in many premium diet cases do
> mean exactly the same.
The word LIGHT has a specific meaning under AAFCO law. It requires the
food have a specific levels of calories. Don't hold me the exact
number gut in dogs I believe it is 2,870 Kcal's / kg. In contrast any
other term, LITE, REDUCED CALORIE, LOW FAT, etc do NOT have to meet
this definition and are always significantly higher in calories per
kg.
> W/D is for seriously overweight dogs, light food on the other hand is
> actually used a lot for maintanance or for less active dogs.
Prescription Diet w/d is for weight maintenance NOT weight loss.
Prescription Diet r/d is for weight loss. w/d is also often used in
diabetics and for some other fiber responsive diseases.
> An equivalent to Hills w/d would be Eukanuba restricted calorie and Advance
> calorie control. All of these companies also provide Light diets as well.
I'm not aware of a single IAMS or Eukanuba food that qualifies for the
word LIGHT. That is why they use terms like "reduced calorie"
"restricted calorie" etc. Look at the Kcal's/kg of the Euk diet and
compare it to Prescription Diet r/d. Euk reduced calorie has about the
same calories per kg as does Science Diet Canine Maintenance I
believe.
Kim
"Steve Crane" <rose...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f3edd2d2.03011...@posting.google.com...
Hmm would that be the same in Australia as in the USA, Im assuming so as we
our hills and eukanuba imported from there. Advance is a walktham product
but is made in Australia.
I guess sales reps are full of it then arnt they as they told us that Euk
Restricted calorie was the same for weight loss as hills.
Yep I stuffed up on the w/d :) I knew r/d was reducing of course just needed
a reminder of it hehe.
We have heaps of dogs lose lots of weight on all of the premium weight loss
diets we sell.
they are Hills r/d, Eukanuba restricted calorie and Walthams calorie
control.
Cant say the same for any of the light diets though. Most dogs maintain on
them but dont lose weight.
Weird that the Eukanuba dog food product we sell that is imported from the
USA is called Eukanuba Light on the packaging and it defintely says light
not lite or any other variation.
What is the science diet lower calorie product called? We sell Advance as
our main range of premium diet with some Eukanuba which is why I ask as Im
not incredibly familiar with the science diet except for the feline hairball
range we sell.
Kim
Steve Crane
>
> Hmm would that be the same in Australia as in the USA, Im assuming so as we
> our hills and eukanuba imported from there. Advance is a walktham product
> but is made in Australia.
>
> I guess sales reps are full of it then arnt they as they told us that Euk
> Restricted calorie was the same for weight loss as hills.
>
> Yep I stuffed up on the w/d :) I knew r/d was reducing of course just needed
> a reminder of it hehe.
>
> We have heaps of dogs lose lots of weight on all of the premium weight loss
> diets we sell.
>
> they are Hills r/d, Eukanuba restricted calorie and Walthams calorie
> control.
>
> Cant say the same for any of the light diets though. Most dogs maintain on
> them but dont lose weight.
>
> Weird that the Eukanuba dog food product we sell that is imported from the
> USA is called Eukanuba Light on the packaging and it defintely says light
> not lite or any other variation.
>
>
> What is the science diet lower calorie product called? We sell Advance as
> our main range of premium diet with some Eukanuba which is why I ask as Im
> not incredibly familiar with the science diet except for the feline hairball
> range we sell.
>
> Kim
Kim,
That's interesting. I didn't realize you were from Australia. My
apologies. Obviously AAFCO rules do not apply outside the US and
Eukanuba has taken advantage of that fact and used the word LIGHT on
it's overseas packaging. Interesting. According to Eukanuba's Product
Reference Guide dated Jan 2002 Eukanuba Restricted Calorie Veterinary
Diet (grey bag with green strip down left side) contains 3,648
kcal/kg. IAMS Weight Control (blue bag) contains 3,853 kcal/kg.
Eukanuba over the counter Eukanuba Adult Reduced Fat Formula (pink bag
with darker pink strip down left side) contains 3,875 KCal's/kg.
In contrast Prescription Diet Canine w/d is 2,986 Kcal's/kg,
Prescription Diet r/d 2,699 Kcal's/kg, and Science Diet Light 2,997
Kcal's/kg. Science Diet Canine Adult Maintenance contains 3,841
Kcal's/kg. As you can see the Eukanuba/IAMS products that are sold as
"light" (outside the US) "reduced/restricted calorie" etc have
calories as as high or higher than regular adult maintenance Science
Diet. I'd love to get my hands on an empty bag of the Australian
version of Eukanuba "LIGHT". That would be interesting.
Kim
Ide say what they have called Eukanuba light here is the same as the
Eukanuba adult reduced fat you mention as it is in a light pink bag.
We used to sell Eukanuba almost esclusively many years ago (it was one of
the first premium diets available in Australia) but changed to Advance as it
is made in Australia although owned by uUncle Bens and Walthams and an
Australian made and owned product called Tucker Time which is an excellent
product except it doesnt do life stages so im hesitant to recommend it to
older animals. I did notice when we changed to the Advance range their
normal adult cat maintanance had less calories then Iams light so perhaps
its an Iams/Eukanuba trait the high calories on whats supposed to be low
calorie foods?
I am going to go to work now and check the calorie amounts of the Waltham
range now, although that is imported from Canada so perhaps you know of them
already? we sell an awful lot of its calorie control range for cats and dogs
with really good results.
Kim
WalterNY
> In contrast Prescription Diet Canine w/d is 2,986 Kcal's/kg
> As you can see the Eukanuba/IAMS products that are sold as
> "light" (outside the US) "reduced/restricted calorie" etc have
> calories as as high or higher than regular adult maintenance Science
> Diet.
Steve, Steve Steve! Can you ever be honest, or up-front, or must you
always omit things and make stuff appear the way you want in order to
make Science Diet look superior to everything out there. I'll show you
how you are attempting to use someones ignorance about dog food for
your gain.
The Science Diet w/d or what many of us refer to as the bag of peanut
hulls since 26% of the bag is peanut hulls, has a Caloric Content of
2,986 kcal/kg, (243 kcal/per cup),
while IAMS weight control has
3,853 kcal/kg, (328 kcal/per cup).
Now for those that would simply compare the two, on a per cup basis,
the IAMS has 85 kcal/per cup more energy. According to what you say,
you don't understand how they call it "light" (or "lite") when you
compare it to Science Diet since you would think it offered less and
not more.
You should once again be ashammed of your dishonest ways of marketing
your product. While cup for cup the IAMS has a bit more energy (85
kcal), on the feeding instructions for IAMS it says to feed a 20 pound
dog
(IAMS)
3/4 to 1-1/3 cup
while the Science Diet bag of peanut hulls you call w/d says to feed a
20 pound dog
(Science Diet)
1 3/4 cups-2 1/2 cups
IN OTHER WORDS SCIENCE DIET SAYS TO FEED TWICE AS MUCH OF ITS FOOD
THAN DOES IAMS SO WHILE IAMS MAY HAVE A BIT MORE ENERGY, YOU ARE
SUPPOSED TO FEED LESS.
See how you made this person look like an idiot knowing that they
didn't know how to read a bag when you know damn well you do.
When are people going to see that this guy hasn't an honest bone in
his body and he will say anything and everything to downplay any food
source other than Science Diet even when time and time again he's
caught lying to you. He's deliberately telling you a mistruth so as to
put down IAMS products to make you think they are a bad company. But
once again it is Steve Crane (representative of Science Diet) that is
the one not telling the whole truth. Shame on you Steve Crane. How
anyone on this board can believe you is beyond me.
And worse off is that when you look at the two ingredient lists for
comparison, it is clear by the wider and more nutritionally available
list of IAMS that IAMS is the better choice especially if you are
feeding less and want more available nutrition.
Look at the two lists and ask yourself which has a wider variety of
ingredients and by the way, peanut hulls have no nutrition so 26% of
this Science Diet bag has leftover elephant shells and your paying top
dollar for what they sweep up at the circus that offers your dog no
usable nutrition. While I'm not happy to see so many grains in the
IAMS formula, at least they offer a wide variety of sources of
nutrition, each of them having some nutritional value and not a
by-product of the peanut butter industry:
Science Diet
Ground corn, peanut hulls 26.0% (a source of fiber), poultry
by-product meal, natural flavor, dried egg product,
IAMS
Lamb Meal, Brewers Rice, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Ground
Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a
source of vitamin E, and Citric Acid), Fish Meal (source of fish oil),
Dried Beet Pulp (sugar removed), Natural Chicken Flavor, Dried Egg
Product,
Steve Crane, representative of Sceince Diet deletes infomration and
then streches the truth once again.
WalterNY
> our main range of premium diet with some Eukanuba which is why I ask as Im
> not incredibly familiar with the science diet except for the feline hairball
> range we sell.
Kim you're asking the wrong person if your asking Steve Crane because
he has lied to you in order to make Science diet look like a more
honest company.
He said:
> Interesting. IAMS Weight Control (blue bag) contains 3,853 kcal/kg.
> In contrast Prescription Diet Canine w/d is 2,986 Kcal's/kg
> As you can see the Eukanuba/IAMS products that are sold as
> "light" (outside the US) "reduced/restricted calorie" etc have
> calories as as high or higher than regular adult maintenance Science
> Diet.
But it's not about total ME in a cup, its about how much you feed.
The Science Diet w/d or what many of us refer to as the bag of peanut
hulls since 26% of the bag is peanut hulls, has a Caloric Content of
2,986 kcal/kg, (243 kcal/per cup),
while IAMS weight control has
3,853 kcal/kg, (328 kcal/per cup).
Now for those that would simply compare the two, on a per cup basis,
the IAMS has 85 kcal/per cup more energy. Steve is telling you he
doesn't understand how they call it "light" (or "lite") when you
compare it to Science Diet since you would think it should offe less
and
not more. While cup for cup the IAMS has a bit more energy (85
kcal), on the feeding instructions for IAMS it says to feed a 20 pound
dog
(IAMS)
3/4 to 1-1/3 cup
while the Science Diet bag of peanut hulls you call w/d says to feed a
20 pound dog
(Science Diet)
1 3/4 cups-2 1/2 cups
IN OTHER WORDS SCIENCE DIET SAYS TO FEED TWICE AS MUCH OF ITS FOOD
THAN DOES IAMS SO WHILE IAMS MAY HAVE A BIT MORE ENERGY, YOU ARE
SUPPOSED TO FEED LESS.
Steve is using his advantage and your disadvantage to make you look
foolish. No one expects you to understand everything on the side of a
bag. Not every one does and that is okay but you would think a
reprentative of the dog food industry would be up front and honest.
Obviously Steve Crane has an agenda and can't even be honest even in
your case where your question wasn't even about his answer.
And worse off is that when you look at the two ingredient lists for
comparison, it is clear by the wider and more nutritionally available
list of IAMS that IAMS is the better choice especially if you are
feeding less and want more available nutrition.
Look at the two lists and ask yourself which has a wider variety of
ingredients and by the way, peanut hulls have no nutrition so 26% of
this Science Diet bag has leftover elephant shells and your paying top
dollar for what they sweep up at the circus that offers your dog no
usable nutrition. While I'm not happy to see so many grains in the
IAMS formula, at least they offer a wide variety of sources of
nutrition, each of them having some nutritional value and not a
by-product of the peanut butter industry:
Science Diet
Ground corn, peanut hulls 26.0% (a source of fiber), poultry
by-product meal, natural flavor, dried egg product,
IAMS
Lamb Meal, Brewers Rice, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Ground
Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a
source of vitamin E, and Citric Acid), Fish Meal (source of fish oil),
Dried Beet Pulp (sugar removed), Natural Chicken Flavor, Dried Egg
Product,
This is the same guy that just told us the lie that dog food companies
do not sponsor the science related to pet nutrition and that it'1s
done at universities. While the work is done at universities it is
done by people on the payroll of the companies that sponsor it. You
can easly look up who sponsors the science to see that it is indeed
the pet food industry who sponsers their own work, calling into
question the reliablility of what they publish. Kind of like asking a
mother if she thinks her children are the most georgous people in the
world. SHe's not being dishonest, just has a bias.
This man will lie just to make his product look good so best to take a
grain of salt with everything he says. I would expect someone from a
pet food company to be honest. Sorry to say Steve is not
representative of other folks I know who work for the big pet food
companies.
GAUBSTER2
Walter, you're a jerk and a fraud. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about canine
nutrition. I have given you solid facts repeatedly in the past about dog food
labels and the tricks behind them and yet you convienently ignore what you
should have learned. You refuse to learn the truth about things of which you
have no prior knowledge and you cling to these psychopathic, paranoid notions
that have absolutely no truth whatsoever.
Here we go.......
>Steve, Steve Steve! Can you ever be honest, or up-front, or must you
>always omit things and make stuff appear the way you want in order to
>make Science Diet look superior to everything out there.
>The Science Diet w/d or what many of us refer to as the bag of peanut
>hulls since 26% of the bag is peanut hulls, has a Caloric Content of
w/d has been SUCCESSFULLY used for many decades to shed excess pounds off of
overweight pets. You ARE THE ONLY ONE that refers to it as a "bag of peanut
hulls" which by your own admission would only be about 26%--not even close to
100%.
>According to what you say,
>you don't understand how they call it "light" (or "lite") when you
>compare it to Science Diet since you would think it offered less and
>not more.
You have no idea what the difference is between LIGHT and "lite", DO YOU????
It's been explained here plenty of times before, yet you still can't understand
it?? Steve Crane knows the difference--you are the only who doesn't
understand. You are projecting your own ignorance onto others.
>You should once again be ashammed of your dishonest ways of marketing
>your product.
IAMS is actually the one that has been taken to court over their feeding
guidelines, not Hill's. Hill's hasn't done ANY dishonest marketing at all.
Yet in your anti-Hill's stupor, you blindly bash them for something that you
don't even understand and have no idea of what you're talking about.
>while the Science Diet bag of peanut hulls you call w/d says to feed a
>20 pound dog
There you go again.
>When are people going to see that this guy hasn't an honest bone in
>his body and he will say anything and everything to downplay any food
>source other than Science Diet even when time and time again he's
>caught lying to you. He's deliberately telling you a mistruth so as to
>put down IAMS products to make you think they are a bad company. But
>once again it is Steve Crane (representative of Science Diet) that is
>the one not telling the whole truth. Shame on you Steve Crane. How
>anyone on this board can believe you is beyond me.
Uh, because he has much more credibility than you would ever hope to have. You
must be a failure in life to be so unhappy. I'd love to see you sued for
slander, because that's the road you're headed down. You're the one, Walter,
that has shown an overwhelming arrogance time and time again. You hate Hill's
so passionately because they (successfully) have helped so many animals and yet
your own paranoid ramblings that have no basis in fact never seem to get much
play because you pull this stuff out of thin air. Steve Crane has never said
anything that I can ever remember that has been deliberately misleading or
false in any way, shape, matter, or form. You, on the other hand do resemble
the exact accusations that you make. You are the one that can never back up
any of your crazy, paranoid, conspiracy-theory opinions and you constantly
backpedal or end up contradicting yourself or take things out of context. You
are a fraud, Walter. Go back to taking pictures of flowers and spare the rest
of us your psycho venom.
>Look at the two lists and ask yourself which has a wider variety of
>ingredients and by the way, peanut hulls have no nutrition so 26% of
>this Science Diet bag has leftover elephant shells and your paying top
>dollar for what they sweep up at the circus that offers your dog no
>usable nutrition.
Walter, please give some cites as to Hill's putting in circus floor sweeping in
their foods. If you were actually informed, you would know that Hill's is a
member of the American Baking Association and uses human-manufacturing
standards in all of their plants. And, you're still barking up the wrong tree
when you try to judge a food based on it's ingredient list. If you knew
ANYTHING about nutrition, you would have at least an elementary understanding
of nutrients and their requirement in the body.
>Steve Crane, representative of Sceince Diet deletes infomration and
>then streches the truth once again.
>
In your dreams, Walter--in your dreams. You've lost the argument, so all you
can do is try to discredit the person whom you've lost the argument to.
I will say this, though. Your spelling improved quite a bit in this particular
post you made. I've noticed that your posts are quite illegible most other
times. (and that's just your grammar and spelling, not your wild tangents)
Must be your meds.
Kim
"WalterNY" <walt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ef6a97e5.0301...@posting.google.com...
Funny I dont foolish :)
We dont sell science diet light or w/d or r/d. we sucessfully see weight
reduction with Walthams calorie control and Eukanuba calorie control, the
fact they different amounts to feed is interesting and if I was considering
changing what we sell something I would of course of looked into. As we
dont have problems with what we sell not working I have no reason to want to
change.
Dont get me wrong, in Australia anyway, the 3 main premium diets are
Iams/Eukanuba, Hills and Advance (Uncle Bens/Waltham), we sell some of all 3
but our main range is Advance and Walthams.
I am interested in Steves opinion as an employee of hills he is a good
source of information on their products, if I wanted specific info on a
competitors product Ide ask someone that worked for that company.
Im not an idiot I know how labels work and as an employee of a vet hospital
I disagree with you that I shouldnt be expected to know how to read a label
on dog food, of course I should otherwise how could I sell something I didnt
understand.
I know most of the premium diets use a lot of grain which you are so against
and I dont ahve a problem with that when I see how much better they are then
what most people feed their pets from the grocery store. However, when
someone comes in that feeds a home cooked or raw diet I also dont comment on
that aside to say I hope they use the internet a lot :) cause most dogs I
see on raw look great, great coat, great teeth and breath etc etc. Then
again most dogs I see on premium foods look that good to.
To the average full time working person feeding home made or raw diets is
time consuming ( I know I used to do it) while opening a packet or cutting
something from a roll is very easy with some veges and a raw bone thrown in
weekly as extras is quick. Much much quicker in fact.
When I see posts here of peopl grinding their own organic carcesses, growing
their own organic veges then food procesing them up etc etc I think good for
you thats great but you obviously have a lot more time on your hands then I
do. Which is why I choose a premium brand dog food instead.
Anyway Ive rambled enough but just wanted to point out I dont think I looked
foolish at all. Well apart from getting w/d and r/d mixed up :). Australia
does not have the same rules as the USA so our lebelling is different and I
certainly dont think Hills is a bad company in fact I think they are a good
company. They feed the entire RSPCA animals in NSW for free and in my books
thats pretty good, marketing sure but who cares at least these animals arnt
being fed cheap supermarket crap they are being fed at least one of the
premium diets.
Kim
Pennie
>To the average full time working person feeding home made or raw diets is
>time consuming ( I know I used to do it) while opening a packet or cutting
>something from a roll is very easy with some veges and a raw bone thrown in
>weekly as extras is quick. Much much quicker in fact.
>
>When I see posts here of peopl grinding their own organic carcesses, growing
>their own organic veges then food procesing them up etc etc I think good for
>you thats great but you obviously have a lot more time on your hands then I
>do. Which is why I choose a premium brand dog food instead.
Working full time that was one of main my concerns when deciding to
feed my crew raw, but it really isn't as time consuming as one would
think.
I buy their meat about once a month in bulk and then divide and
refreeze. Molly is the only one I grind for (chicken thighs) and it
takes me about 1/2 an hour to repackage and grind. Their veggies are
bought on a weekly basis and grinding and repackaging takes another
1/2 hour. Total time feeding each meal is 15 min. morning and
evening. The little bit of extra time and effort have more then paid
off in health benefits.
As far as cost we figure we're spending equal to the amount we were
spending each month on premium kibble.
Pennie
Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you?
But when you take him in a car he sticks his head out the window!
-- Steve Bluestone
staf...@webtv.net
From: rose...@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane)
<The word LIGHT has a specific meaning under AAFCO law. >
Does AAFCO 'law' <G> also have a specific meaning for 'fixed formula'?
Debbie
staf...@webtv.net
From: gaub...@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
<You ARE THE ONLY ONE that refers to it as a "bag of peanut hulls" which
by your own admission would only be about 26%-->
ONLY 26%?????? Jeez, Gaubby. ONLY??!!!
Debbie
This place amuses the hell outta me.
GAUBSTER2
Yeah, me too. That's why I keep "tuning in"!
BUT, I was just using Walter's own words. He thinks that 26% = 100%.
Walter's a whackjob, what can I say? :)
Kim
"Pennie" <mutle...@thedoghouse.com> wrote in message
news:6epa2vk9qukuu77n6...@4ax.com...
hospital they were more when I fed raw as I get the premium food at cost :)
And it probably took me similar amounts of time as you say which doesnt
sound much until you do it on a daily basis and having a small fridge and
freezer I had to shop more then once a week for the meat and bone componants
and I used to process up the veges daily as the books I read said the
processing and then leaving for any length time caused some nutrients to be
lost. Anyway was at the point it took me longer to preapre pet food then it
did family meals so I gave up and now feed mostly premium food and some
bones/veges etc and seems to work as well as the only raw for my dog.
If you add cleaning up time to it as well you can add some more time on
there daily.
Like I said takes a lot more time then feeding prepared diets :) But I
agree its a very good way to go and have absolutely nothing like fire coming
out of my mouth about raw feeding :)
Kim
Steve Crane
> Ide say what they have called Eukanuba light here is the same as the
> Eukanuba adult reduced fat you mention as it is in a light pink bag.
>
> We used to sell Eukanuba almost esclusively many years ago (it was one of
> the first premium diets available in Australia) but changed to Advance as it
> is made in Australia although owned by uUncle Bens and Walthams and an
> Australian made and owned product called Tucker Time which is an excellent
> product except it doesnt do life stages so im hesitant to recommend it to
> older animals. I did notice when we changed to the Advance range their
> normal adult cat maintanance had less calories then Iams light so perhaps
> its an Iams/Eukanuba trait the high calories on whats supposed to be low
> calorie foods?
>
> I am going to go to work now and check the calorie amounts of the Waltham
> range now, although that is imported from Canada so perhaps you know of them
> already? we sell an awful lot of its calorie control range for cats and dogs
> with really good results.
> Kim
Waltham is the world's largest pet food manufacturer. In Australia I
think you have MasterFoods brand in the grocery stores. I've never
seen the Tucker Time but that sounds interesting. I would expect that
the Waltham product you have will be identical to what we have here in
the US, Canada, Europe and Japan. It's doesn't change around the
world.
Steve Crane
> > Interesting. IAMS Weight Control (blue bag) contains 3,853 kcal/kg.
>
> > In contrast Prescription Diet Canine w/d is 2,986 Kcal's/kg
>
> > As you can see the Eukanuba/IAMS products that are sold as
> > "light" (outside the US) "reduced/restricted calorie" etc have
> > calories as as high or higher than regular adult maintenance Science
> > Diet.
>
>
> Steve, Steve Steve! Can you ever be honest, or up-front, or must you
> always omit things and make stuff appear the way you want in order to
> make Science Diet look superior to everything out there. I'll show you
> how you are attempting to use someones ignorance about dog food for
> your gain.
>
> The Science Diet w/d or what many of us refer to as the bag of peanut
> hulls since 26% of the bag is peanut hulls, has a Caloric Content of
>
> 2,986 kcal/kg, (243 kcal/per cup),
>
> while IAMS weight control has
>
> 3,853 kcal/kg, (328 kcal/per cup).
>
Really Walter, you must be really having a bad day, the numbers for
Kcal's you wrote EXACTLY match mine, therefore I'm being
dishonest??????? The question had to do with caloric content and the
use of the term LIGHT.
Steve Crane
Debbie,
I don't think it does. I don't remember ever reading that. When I
get to the office I'll dig up an AAFCO manual and see.
Steve Crane
> > <The word LIGHT has a specific meaning under AAFCO law. >
> >
> > Does AAFCO 'law' <G> also have a specific meaning for 'fixed formula'?
> >
> > Debbie
>
> Debbie,
> I don't think it does. I don't remember ever reading that. When I
> get to the office I'll dig up an AAFCO manual and see.
I could find no definition in AAFCO for "fixed formula"
staf...@webtv.net
From: rose...@sbcglobal.net
<I could find no definition in AAFCO for "fixed formula" >
Thanks Steve.
Debbie