# Hill's Prescription Diet



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Hi all,

First, I'm new here and have read a lot of threads over the last few days. I have two puppies, a Shepard mix (9 months old) and a Daschund/Cocker mix (10 months old). One is a rescue and one is a shelter pup and I love 'em both.

I've been experimenting with food and have run into some obstacles. I started with Innova Puppy dry and both dogs had bad gas and diarrhea no matter how much or little I fed them. Yes, I transitioned them slowly from their previous food to a new food. Nothing against Innova, on paper it's great food and I know a lot of dogs respond well to it. Mine didn't, in particular my Shepard mix.

When the Innova didn't work out, I started adding some Beneful puppy to their food (just because I wasn't sure what the next move should be so I bought a little as interim food) and the more they ate, the less gas and loose stool problem I saw. But I knew that wasn't a permanent solution.

So now I have them on Wellness Super 5 Mix "Just for Puppy". It's okay. They don't LOVE it, they like it and the gas is gone but the occasional loose stools make an appearance. 

I also feed them gently boiled, unseasoned beef and chicken meat from time to time and some treats (Innova or Vitality biscuits mostly). I've done this since day 1 with them so that has been constant. But I'm still seeing loose stools now and then, and diarrhea from time to time, especially in the Shepard mix.

Now here's where it gets weird. At separate times, both dogs have contracted giardia, most likely from our wonderful local dog park. Both times, my vet put the afflicted dog on Metronidazole and gave me some Hill's Prescription Diet i/d canned dog food (6 cans) and told me to feed that to the afflicted dog as it was "easy to digest".

Okay, this was before I read about Science Diet and clearly understood the poor regard most dog people hold for Hill's products. All I know is that both times, I gave most of the food to the sick dog and a little to the other just to keep it from feeling left out and from raiding the sick dog's food bowl. So they were both getting some at both times during these giardia infestations.

Amazingly, I've never seen my dogs so energetic and playful and with such perfect, soft (but not runny) stools. The first time I thought it was a fluke. But the most recent time, I saw the same thing in both dogs as long as they were eating this food.

Everyone says Science Diet is crap, and I've read that Prescription Diet isn't much different than their "over the counter" Science Diet version, but the dogs love it and seem like they have a new level of vitality on it. When I stop feeding it to them, they kind of slow down and the intermittent diarrhea returns. 

I don't want to hear from the raw food proponents. That is not for me at this point. I am interested in hearing from people who have very objective reasons for liking or not liking Hill's dog food, and their reasons why. I want to feed my dogs high quality food but at the same time, I can't argue with the results I see in them when they eat this Hill's stuff. I'm not sure what to do here. Any insight is appreciated.

BTW, both dogs are giardia free now and eating the dry Wellness puppy food daily. They are much better on this than the Innova, but not as energetic and playful as when they were both eating the Hill's stuff. I'm baffled.

Thanks.

Jay


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> I am interested in hearing from people who have very objective reasons for liking or not liking Hill's dog food, and their reasons why. I want to feed my dogs high quality food but at the same time, I can't argue with the results I see in them when they eat this Hill's stuff. I'm not sure what to do here. Any insight is appreciated.


Thats easy. Just look at the ingredients. With many of the Hill's products, corn is the first ingredient. Corn is an indigestable filler that is inappropriate food for a carnivore. They all also contain powdered cellulose which is a fancy name for sawdust. They also contain dried beet pulp which is used to artificially keep stools solid and contains sugar for energy. Many of their foods also contain preservatives that are known to cause cancer.

To feed your dog a high quality food, at least as high a quality as you can get with kibble, you need to feed a food that has a high meat content and no grains. The more meat, the better. Meat is what dogs are designed to digest. 

If your dogs have soft stools on Innova and not on Hill's, its more than likely because of the beet pulp in Hill's which is masking a symptom of a possible underlying digestive problem. There is nothing that is particularly easy to digest in Hill's products. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

keep trying different foods, I reccomend emailing different companies for samples, my dog prefers grain free foods taste wise over regular, his favorite right now is Acana provincial and he loves Orijen, but little too calorie dense. 

I've never used wellness myself, except for the Core line, which he seems to like, but not as much as orijen/acana. 

If you dogs prefer canned to kibble, mix in a tablespoon with dry food, wellness canned is a pretty good line of food, I also like innova evo. 

email taste of the wild for samples, theyre pretty generous when it comes to that.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

also try this:

Dry Dog Food Sampler Pack - Luke's All Natural Pet Food


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I would reccomend Panacur if your dogs get giardia again. It is a much better product than the Metron antibiotic.

I feed one of dogs Pedigree for most of her life. She wouldn't eat the "better" quality dog food. She lived to be over 13 years old.

In my experience, some dogs will not eat what we think is the best kibble for them. Through trial and error, you'll find something they like. I would try sample packs to see what they gravitate towards. I know Natural Balance has samples and is a good kibble. There are others but when I was searching, my dogs liked the Natural Balance - they also liked the Orijen but my money tree defoliated!

Good luck!

I have transitioned to raw now and have not had any issues. Should you ever consider that, talk to RFD. Hehe.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies. I guess I should have included the ingredient list for the particular food my vet provided because while it has ground whole-grain corn, it is definitely NOT the first ingredient on the list. Discounting the water that is listed first, corn is 4th on the list. Not that I want to feed my dogs corn. The premium dry foods I have chosen for them are corn-free which was intentional on my part.

Prescription Diet i/d® Canine
For the Nutritional Management of Dogs with Gastrointestinal Disorders

Ingredients

Water, Egg Product, Turkey, Rice, Ground Whole Grain Corn, Pork Liver, Soy Fiber, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Iodized Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Taurine, Thiamine Mononitrate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Riboflavin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Sodium Selenite, Folic Acid. 

I don't see any "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp" although I have no idea what "Egg Product" is but I'm disappointed to see salt so high on the list. But at the end of the day, this ingredient list doesn't look as sinister as some of the Hill's foes I've encountered would want you to think.

I took a look at the ingredients for a comparable Science Diet canned food and, again, while corn is there, it is 4th on the list if you discount the water. And again, I see no "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp". Frankly, "Meat By-Products" are a deal-breaker for me in dog food but overall this doesn't look as bad as I thought it would be from just reading some of the SD hate-mail I've seen.

Science Diet Adult Advanced Fitness Savory Chicken Entrée

Ingredients

Water, Chicken, Liver, Cracked Pearled Barley, Ground Whole Grain Corn, Meat By-Products, Soybean Meal, Dried Whey, Chicken Liver Flavor, Soybean Oil, Calcium Carbonate, Iron Oxide, Choline Chloride, Iodized Salt, Vitamin E Supplement, Magnesium Oxide, Potassium Chloride, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Biotin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite. 

Let me state now that I don't work for Hill's or have anything to do with them or any pet food company other than being a consumer and I'm not waving the Hill's flag here. I'm just curious as to why my dogs seem to react so positively to feeding on this stuff, and why SD has such a bad rap when, clearly, the ingredients in these foods is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff on the shelf at your local WalMart.

Everything is going to change for the dogs since they are going to pass the one-year mark soon which is when I'll start looking into a good adult dry food. I've given them samples of both Artemis Fresh Mix and Dogswell Vitality Chicken & Oats which they both liked but both REALLY preferred the Artemis so I may transition them to that in a few months and see what happens. 

But for now, while they are still pups, I need to figure out the best food for them, and for the sake of simplicity for me, one they both like and can tolerate well. Unosmom's suggestion of a little wet mixed into the dry might be a good idea. I'll go over to my local premium pet food place today and see what they have in Wellness canned food.

Thanks all!

Jay


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I guess I should have included the ingredient list for the particular food my vet provided because while it has ground whole-grain corn, it is definitely NOT the first ingredient on the list.


OK, I didn't notice you were talking about canned food. I was describing SD kibble. Water will be the first ingredient in any canned food because canned food is about 70% water. ANY dog food with corn anywhere on this list is bad. There is nothing good about corn in a dog food.



> I don't see any "powdered cellulose" or "dried beet pulp" although I have no idea what "Egg Product" is but I'm disappointed to see salt so high on the list.


Again cellulose and beet pulp will be in the kibbles. I have looked for years for a good understandable explanation of what egg product is but have never been able to find it anywhere other than dog food company promotional material and I just don't trust that source.



> Frankly, "Meat By-Products" are a deal-breaker for me in dog food but overall this doesn't look as bad as I thought it would be from just reading some of the SD hate-mail I've seen.


The greatest majority of people by far feed kibble and rarely if ever feed canned. Look at the ingredient list on SD kibble. Most people never ever read canned food info. Meat by-products aren't as bad as a lot of people think. There is good protein in them. It's mainly and esthetic thing.




> I'm just curious as to why my dogs seem to react so positively to feeding on this stuff, and why SD has such a bad rap when, clearly, the ingredients in these foods is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff on the shelf at your local WalMart.


Again you are looking at canned which almost no one feeds anymore except maybe as a supplement to kibble meals. The SD kibbles are terrible. The only place you can find worse stuff is in Walmart.



> But for now, while they are still pups, I need to figure out the best food for them, and for the sake of simplicity for me, one they both like and can tolerate well.


One thing you haven't figured out yet is that there is no disernable difference between puppy food and adult food and senior food. These are marketing gimmicks to make you think the food was formulated specially for your dog. Many people never feed puppy food or senior foods. If you look at ingredients lists, they will have the same ingredients with maybe two ingredients switched in order. Again, I'm talking about kibble.

Good luck in your quest. :smile:


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> OK, I didn't notice you were talking about canned food. I was describing SD kibble. Water will be the first ingredient in any canned food because canned food is about 70% water. ANY dog food with corn anywhere on this list is bad. There is nothing good about corn in a dog food.
> 
> Again cellulose and beet pulp will be in the kibbles. I have looked for years for a good understandable explanation of what egg product is but have never been able to find it anywhere other than dog food company promotional material and I just don't trust that source.


Well I did clearly state that I was referring to Prescription Diet canned food in the first post. To clarify, I normally feed them dry kibble but my vet provided canned Prescription Diet i/d each time one of them contracted giardia.



RawFedDogs said:


> The greatest majority of people by far feed kibble and rarely if ever feed canned. Look at the ingredient list on SD kibble. Most people never ever read canned food info. Meat by-products aren't as bad as a lot of people think. There is good protein in them. It's mainly and esthetic thing.
> 
> Again you are looking at canned which almost no one feeds anymore except maybe as a supplement to kibble meals. The SD kibbles are terrible. The only place you can find worse stuff is in Walmart.


I had no intention of feeding them canned food in the beginning either but I questioned this decision after seeing how well they reacted to this Hill's canned stuff. My beef (forgive the pun) with the term "meat by-products" is that it is an ambiguous term. Of course, some by-products like organ meat are fine for dogs and a great source of protein. But the term is non-specific and could cover a broad range of pure crap that you would never feed your dog if given the choice. 



RawFedDogs said:


> One thing you haven't figured out yet is that there is no disernable difference between puppy food and adult food and senior food. These are marketing gimmicks to make you think the food was formulated specially for your dog.


Uh, well that's not entirely true. For one, if you have a small puppy, the smaller sized kibble in puppy food is easier for them to eat. Aside from that though, while I was researching dry food options for my pups I noticed right away that most high quality puppy food is slightly higher in protein and calories compared to the same manufacturer's adult version of the food. It may be a subtle difference but there is often some difference. Maybe in the supermarket brands it's all a marketing gimmick but I do believe that the premium food manufacturers try to provide a product for puppies that is better suited to their rapid development. Just my opinion based on what I've read from many sources.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> Well I did clearly state that I was referring to Prescription Diet canned food in the first post. To clarify, I normally feed them dry kibble but my vet provided canned Prescription Diet i/d each time one of them contracted giardia.


Yes you did and I missed that part.



> My beef (forgive the pun) with the term "meat by-products" is that it is an ambiguous term. Of course, some by-products like organ meat are fine for dogs and a great source of protein. But the term is non-specific and could cover a broad range of pure crap that you would never feed your dog if given the choice.


There is a definate definition as to what by-products are and yes, esthetically they can be very gross but nutritionally, not all that bad. "meat by-products" is something you want to avoid but if it's a named source such as "chicken by-products" don't worry about it. "chicken by-products include any part of the chicken that is not eaten by humans with the exception of feathers. It includes head, eyeballs, brain, intestines, feet, and undeveloped eggs. All these gross parts are pretty nutritious. There are many who argue that named source by-products are preferable to the meat from the same source.



> Uh, well that's not entirely true. For one, if you have a small puppy, the smaller sized kibble in puppy food is easier for them to eat.


Yes, what I said is true. If you understand how a dog eats you will see that.



> Aside from that though, while I was researching dry food options for my pups I noticed right away that most high quality puppy food is slightly higher in protein and calories compared to the same manufacturer's adult version of the food.


The slightly different levels of protein and calories is a marketing gimmick. Small enough differences not to make any real difference. The proof is in the ingredients list. Study the ingredients list carefully in a regular adult food of a specific brand then look at the puppy food from the same brand. The ingredients will be identical with the exception of 2 items will be reversed in the order ... sometime 2 sets of 2 ingredients will be switched in order. These ingredients will always be right next to each other. In other words maybe the 5th and 6th ingredients will be switched. There will be no other differences. 



> It may be a subtle difference but there is often some difference.


Just enough difference to be able to label them as different stuff and to convince you that this food was specially designed for your dog.



> Maybe in the supermarket brands it's all a marketing gimmick but I do believe that the premium food manufacturers try to provide a product for puppies that is better suited to their rapid development.


Again, thats what they tell you. Thats what they want you to believe. It's a marketing gimmick. 

There is no breed that develops faster than my breed, The Great Dane. Dane puppies are around 2lbs at birth and will often reach 100 lbs at 9 months. All knowledgable Dane owners never feed their pups puppy food. They almost always feed them adult food from the time they are weened. Raw feeders feed pups the same diet as adults.



> Just my opinion based on what I've read from many sources.


You need to do more reading from different sources. Sounds like you have been reading the dog food manufacturers web sites. Expand your research horizons. :smile:


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> The slightly different levels of protein and calories is a marketing gimmick. Small enough differences not to make any real difference. The proof is in the ingredients list. Study the ingredients list carefully in a regular adult food of a specific brand then look at the puppy food from the same brand. The ingredients will be identical with the exception of 2 items will be reversed in the order ... sometime 2 sets of 2 ingredients will be switched in order. These ingredients will always be right next to each other. In other words maybe the 5th and 6th ingredients will be switched. There will be no other differences.
> 
> Just enough difference to be able to label them as different stuff and to convince you that this food was specially designed for your dog.


Why would they bother? All a dog food manufacturer has to do to label a product differently is change the size of the kibble. They don't HAVE to change the caloric or protein content to call it "puppy food". If they change the order (i.e. quantity) of certain ingredients in order to increase the calories and/or protein per ounce of food, that doesn't sound as nefarious as a simple gimmick when they don't even need to bother just to be able to call the product puppy food.



RawFedDogs said:


> You need to do more reading from different sources. Sounds like you have been reading the dog food manufacturers web sites. Expand your research horizons.


The only thing I read on dog food manufacturer sites and product labels are ingredient lists. I don't read sales copy. All the other information I've read has either been anecdotal experiences people have shared (which is somewhat useless until you see enough of a particular topic to establish a trend) and information about canine nutrition from so-called experts who are not selling dog food. You have to admit that the study and research in this field compared to humans is in its infancy. Hell, most of the medical establishment still doesn't understand human nutrition and its affect on the metabolic system very well so why would the so-called experts know all there is to know about dog nutrition?

Anyway, I appreciate your constructive feedback RFD but really, is there ANY manufactured dog food you think is worth a darned or do you despise them all because you have a raw agenda? Not trying to pick a fight here, it just seems like there is no manufactured dog food on earth that you would recommend so unless I become a disciple of raw, I'll never get any useful information from you. If there is a manufactured wet or dry dog food out there that you think is good quality and beneficial to dogs, I'd love to hear what it is. :wink:

Jay


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> Why would they bother? All a dog food manufacturer has to do to label a product differently is change the size of the kibble.


As I said, they do it to make you think that the food you are buying is designed specifically for your dog. If you have a puppy, then you assume that puppy food is designed specifically for puppies. Changing ingredients around will automatically change some of the nutritional information. Also, study the ingredients closely. For example protein levels and fat levels are measured as a minimum. They can be more ... a lot more ... and the label still be truthful.



> You have to admit that the study and research in this field compared to humans is in its infancy.


It's nonexistent.



> Anyway, I appreciate your constructive feedback RFD but really, is there ANY manufactured dog food you think is worth a darned or do you despise them all because you have a raw agenda?


No there is no manufactured (processed) dog food I would recommend over whole raw food, just as there is no processed human food that any nutritionist would recommend over whole food. Whole food is just automatically more nutritious because processing destroys A LOT of nutrients.



> Not trying to pick a fight here, it just seems like there is no manufactured dog food on earth that you would recommend so unless I become a disciple of raw, I'll never get any useful information from you.


You're right and you're wrong. There is no manufactured food I would recommend over whole raw food. There are manufactured foods that I think are better, healthier, and more nutritious than others. The average raw feeder knows MUCH more about nutrition and the ingredients in manufactured dog food than the average kibble feeder because we generally have studied them much longer and much closer and understand the marketing stradegies of the pet food industry.



> If there is a manufactured wet or dry dog food out there that you think is good quality and beneficial to dogs, I'd love to hear what it is.


If I were forced to feed my dogs kibble, it would be either EVO or Orijen because of the high meat content (protein & fat) and the lack of grains and the very small amount of carbs.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RFD,

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points but I thank you for your candor. The funny thing is that your signature quote, "Unnatural diets predispose animals to unnatural outcomes" applies as much to human animals as it does to dogs yet how many people do you know who have entirely natural diets? 

For me, this decision of what to feed my dogs is going to be a compromise between nutrition and convenience, not unlike the meals I prepare for myself and my family every day. I try to lean towards optimum nutrition but not if it takes time I don't have to find the perfect food and prepare a 100% natural meal.

I haven't had dogs for quite a few years. The last time I did, there were no "designer" dog foods and few people knew anything about pet nutrition. But I've never lost a dog to anything but old age and every one lived to be at least 16 years old. So while I want to educate myself on the latest and greatest choices in high quality food options for my current dogs, I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over a decision to find a compromise between nutrition and convenience. But I can appreciate your position and desire to share your knowledge and I will probably incorporate some of your practices in my dog's "diet of compromise". 

I very much appreciate your insight. Thanks.

Jay


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> ... yet how many people do you know who have entirely natural diets?


How many do you know that have entirely natural outcomes? Heart attacks, strokes, and cancer are not natural outcomes.



> But I've never lost a dog to anything but old age and every one lived to be at least 16 years old. So while I want to educate myself on the latest and greatest choices in high quality food options for my current dogs,


Research indicates that dogs fed a non-commercial diet live an average of 30 months longer than dogs fed commercial diets. So your dogs would have lived even longer if you had only known.



> I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over a decision to find a compromise between nutrition and convenience. But I can appreciate your position and desire to share your knowledge and I will probably incorporate some of your practices in my dog's "diet of compromise".


Cool ... i'm sure we'll chat again. :smile:


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> How many do you know that have entirely natural outcomes? Heart attacks, strokes, and cancer are not natural outcomes.


What? Heart attacks and stroke can be perfectly natural causes of death (outcomes)! Everybody has to die from something. If a healthy 98 year-old man dies and it is determined that "his heart stopped beating", that is categorized as a natural heart attack. There is nothing unnatural about it. Same with strokes. Granted, many people die from heart attacks and stroke that is exacerbated by coronary blockage and other health issues that may be related to diet but to just say heart attacks and stroke are not natural outcomes is an inaccurate generalization.



RawFedDogs said:


> Research indicates that dogs fed a non-commercial diet live an average of 30 months longer than dogs fed commercial diets. So your dogs would have lived even longer if you had only known.


You're broad-brushing again and your comments are driven by the fact that you clearly don't like commercial dog food. What research and on what kind of food was it conducted? I believe feeding crap food to a dog can shorten its life span but how can you paint such a broad picture using such a specific number (30 months) when there is clearly a difference in the nutrition of junk commercial dog food and quality commercial dog food?

Sorry, I don't buy it.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> What? Heart attacks and stroke can be perfectly natural causes of death (outcomes)! Everybody has to die from something.
> 
> I guess it was a little too broad of a generalazation. I don't consider a healthy heart stopping beating as the same as a heart attack caused by circulatory problems or heart muscle problems. I don't think a stroke will just happen without some physical problem causing it.
> 
> ...


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> You are right. I don't like commercial dog food. It is killing our dogs.
> 
> This was proven by 2 Dutch vets who did a 5 year study on dogs who died from non-accidental causes. If I remember correctly their names were Dr. Lippert and Dr. Sappy. They researched what diet the dogs were fed and classified them as either commercial dog food or any other food which would include everything from raw diets, to home cooked food, to table scraps. The dogs feed "home made food" lived an average of 32 months longer than dogs feed commercial kibble or canned dog food. This study took place between 1998 and 2003. There were over 500 dogs in the study.


Well, I must be an idiot. I read this study with a critical eye and disregarded it as crap science. This study flies in the face of everything this dog food forum is here for because it lumps all commercial dog food into the same category which, it seems, is exactly why all of us are here trying to educate ourselves on the differences between bad dog food and good dog food. The study was conducted by Lippert and Sapy in Belgium between 1998 and 2002. It has only three categories of food, "home made food", "canned industrial food", and a mix of both of these.

I don't know what people in Belgium feed their dogs, especially back in the 5 years starting in 1998. For all we know, it was the kind of food that all of us here are trying to learn to avoid. The study says NOTHING about the TYPE or QUALITY of this "canned industrial food" the animals in the study ate so what use is that for all of us here? I mean, even here in the States, the masses feed their dogs crap like Alpo. So if these 522 dogs in the study represented typical people who buy mass-market dog food, what on earth does that have to do with the smaller segment of the marketplace made up of the kind of people who read this forum, who don't buy mass-market crap food and carefully choose high quality nutrition options for their pets?

Furthermore, it had nothing stated in it about raw food. Only "home made food", meaning "based on similar food as the family". Of course, we all know these days that there are a lot of things we people eat that are totally unsuitable for dogs. So again, how relevant are the generalizations this study was based on? How relevant is it to dog owners today in North America with the choices for quality manufactured food with human-grade ingredients? It isn't. It's crap science.



RawFedDogs said:


> You divide them up into 2 classes ... dogs fed commercial food and dogs fed "home made" food. I honestly don't believe there is a whole heck of a lot of difference between the best and worst of kibbles. The ingredients are so highly processed by the time they go into the bag that the ingredients don't make much of a difference. THey are all pretty worthless.


Well, there you go then. Why do you even bother reading this forum? Why are you a moderator of this forum when every product discussed here is "worthless" (your word, not mine) to you? This forum is about "Dry and Canned Dog Food". You have your own raw food forum, why do you have to dis every kind of commercial food that anyone talks about here? Useless information, as I stated before, unless I'm interested in a raw program, which I'm not.

I'm not over in your raw forum telling you that you have it all wrong. I respect your beliefs and I don't necessarily think you are wrong or that raw isn't good, even though I DO think you have based your decisions on a bunch of anecdotal information and bad science. I just don't have the time for raw so I'm here, in THIS forum to learn about possible commercial dog food options. So far I've spent a lot of time here reading a lot of generalizations and anecdotal information that is of little use to me if I have no intention of going raw. Only that this is crap and that is crap and everything that isn't raw is crap. Sorry, but these kinds of comments are a complete waste of time in a "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Well then, be smart and go with the best, or the best other than a raw diet! haha :biggrin:Go with Orijen dry kibble, stay away from feeding Hill's it's crap and that's all I'll say on that subject. If you want to know how different and how processed dry kibble is? My bull terrier couldn't eat any kibble with beef in it, after switching to a raw diet, his favorite meal is beef anything. That's how much the crap is processed!


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

Let's see - 40 pounds of chicken backs; 30 pounds of tom turkey necks; 40 pounds of chicken leg quarters ... and I'll be by next week to to get some spare ribs ...

No wonder the cashier looked at me funny when I asked her over for supper!


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Wow. I feel like a Christian who just got off the plane in Salt Lake City. Or one of those hapless chaps who posts a Windows question in a computer forum dominated by Apple fans. No useful information. Nothing based on facts. Plenty of contradictions. Just repeated attempts to "spread the word" and convert me to raw.

I guess I've exposed this "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum for what it is. A platform that the raw Kool-Aid drinkers use to convert the "unenlightened". All I came here to find out is that even though I know Hill's has a bad reputation, why do both of my dogs do so well on the food? I discovered this by accident and I'm just trying to understand because at the end of the day, it's results that we are all after.

But all I've gotten back are platitudes, generalizations, and anecdotal information about commercial food that had nothing to do with my original question. If you don't know, it's okay. Just exercise a little restraint and pass on replying to the question.

But I see that isn't possible here because of the folks on this site who do use commercial food, they probably have no idea why I get the results I did on the "crap" food and everyone else thinks I need to be "enlightened" with the raw agenda even though in my very first post I stated that raw wasn't an option for me at this time.

It's too bad because while I came here for information, I really like to participate and provide reciprocal information in forums that I find useful. While all this "discussion" (or indoctrination or whatever you want to call it) was going on, I stumbled on a really nice, high quality, canned dog food to use as a topper for my premium kibble. It is loaded with meat, no by-products, no corn or wheat, and is only $1.09 per 22 ounce can. But now that I've smoked all the BARF zealots and the real purpose of this site, I'm not going to waste my time here sharing this information because I know it will just get labeled as being crap like all the other crap manufactured food. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Woof, woof.

Jay


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

Jayjay, there is plenty of information on these kibble forums for us kibble users. I understand what you mean about RFD and his passion for raw. He truly feels that raw is the only way and does care for the well-being of dogs in general so he pushes for his own beliefs. Either way, of course you do not need to take his advice and you can disregard all his "raw or nothing" comments if you wish. He does give really good, relevant to the topic advice now and then so he definitely is an asset to our forums. Just a bit pushy and close-minded to other views. 

raw feeders...most of the kibble users know that raw may be the best...its just not feasible to a lot of us. the regular members all know that you all feel raw is best, so being a broken record about kibble is bad and raw is good is kind of pointless. we know. please try and stick with the topic as much as possible without finding a way to turn it into a raw pitch.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> Well, I must be an idiot. I read this study with a critical eye and disregarded it as crap science. This study flies in the face of everything this dog food forum is here for because it lumps all commercial dog food into the same category which, it seems, is exactly why all of us are here trying to educate ourselves on the differences between bad dog food and good dog food. The study was conducted by Lippert and Sapy in Belgium between 1998 and 2002. It has only three categories of food, "home made food", "canned industrial food", and a mix of both of these.


Exactly. Thats what the study was designed to check ... those three categories. I'm sure you would like similar studies with each brand of dog food but that ain't gonna happen. We got what we got. You can't accept the results of the study because it goes against your belief system.



> So if these 522 dogs in the study represented typical people who buy mass-market dog food, what on earth does that have to do with the smaller segment of the marketplace made up of the kind of people who read this forum, who don't buy mass-market crap food and carefully choose high quality nutrition options for their pets?


Personally, I don't think the brand of dog foods would make much different in the results of this particular study. Of course that just my opinion. 



> Furthermore, it had nothing stated in it about raw food. Only "home made food", meaning "based on similar food as the family".


Well my dogs eat food based on similar food as my family. Theirs is raw, which makes it healthier and the family's is cooked which makes it less healthy.



> Of course, we all know these days that there are a lot of things we people eat that are totally unsuitable for dogs. So again, how relevant are the generalizations this study was based on? How relevant is it to dog owners today in North America with the choices for quality manufactured food with human-grade ingredients? It isn't. It's crap science.


I find it to be a good informative study with valuable information. Far from crap information. Have you read the whole study or just the summary? Oh, BTW ... there is no dog food that contains human-grade ingredients regardless of what the dog food companies would lead you to believe.



> Well, there you go then. Why do you even bother reading this forum?


To both teach and learn.



> Why are you a moderator of this forum when every product discussed here is "worthless" (your word, not mine) to you?


To see what the dog food companies are up to now. :smile:



> This forum is about "Dry and Canned Dog Food". You have your own raw food forum, why do you have to dis every kind of commercial food that anyone talks about here? Useless information, as I stated before, unless I'm interested in a raw program, which I'm not.


Oh there are so many posts and threads in this forum that I never comment on. In this partucular thread, you asked a question and I answered it. I didn't "butt in". I answered a question which at the time no one else had.



> I'm not over in your raw forum telling you that you have it all wrong. I respect your beliefs and I don't necessarily think you are wrong or that raw isn't good, even though I DO think you have based your decisions on a bunch of anecdotal information and bad science.


You don't tell me I have itwrong because I don't. They are not beliefs, they are facts. Millions of years of evolution prove me right. There is no study anywhere done by anybody at any time in history that even suggests mildly that processed dog food is healthier than whole foods. Why do you believe the propoganda about dog food and accept it as fact when there are no studies and kibble has only been around for a little over 50 years. Raw diets for carnivores have been around for millions of years. Kibble and canned food are the fad diets of animals, a raw diet is the real proven by time diet.



> I just don't have the time for raw so I'm here, in THIS forum to learn about possible commercial dog food options.


I spend about an hour or two a month on the raw diet. I think most anyone can find an hour or two in a month.



> So far I've spent a lot of time here reading a lot of generalizations and anecdotal information that is of little use to me if I have no intention of going raw.


You haven't read any generalizations. You have read facts. You have read a scientific study. The only scientific study in existance that I know about. but you refuse to see this stuff. You don't want to see it.



> Only that this is crap and that is crap and everything that isn't raw is crap. Sorry, but these kinds of comments are a complete waste of time in a "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum.


Perhaps you could post some "good" information that you think should be in this forum. :smile:


----------



## EnglishBullTerriers (Sep 10, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> Wow. I feel like a Christian who just got off the plane in Salt Lake City. Or one of those hapless chaps who posts a Windows question in a computer forum dominated by Apple fans. No useful information. Nothing based on facts. Plenty of contradictions. Just repeated attempts to "spread the word" and convert me to raw.
> 
> I guess I've exposed this "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum for what it is. A platform that the raw Kool-Aid drinkers use to convert the "unenlightened". All I came here to find out is that even though I know Hill's has a bad reputation, why do both of my dogs do so well on the food? I discovered this by accident and I'm just trying to understand because at the end of the day, it's results that we are all after.
> 
> ...




JayJayisme,
I am curious what canned food you found for that price. 
I will step forward and say that I am a raw feeder for my dogs, but I bring in so many fosters and rescues that I am on here also trying to learn what kinda of kibble are best for the ones I don't get a chance to feed raw! 
I have a new litter of pups and I am going to start them on some canned food pretty soon, but have only ever used BlueBuffalo Evolution and I am a little hesatent to try something new with out knowing more about it and making sure that it is a great quality canned food to start the toothless pups out on! 
I would like to appolagise for some of the raw feeders. Sometimes we come on here and see things that just ask us to put our 2 cents in. Then sometimes we come on here and just have a little fun and tell people that raw is better then everything else cause that is what we feed. If you were to ask kibble feeders, what is a good kibble, they will tell you, the best is the one that they are feeding their dogs. It really is the same thing. But as I said before, I am a raw feeder that feeds kibble to the ones that are 'passer-bys'.
I hope that all works out with you and your dogs! :wink:


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Exactly. Thats what the study was designed to check ... those three categories. I'm sure you would like similar studies with each brand of dog food but that ain't gonna happen. We got what we got. You can't accept the results of the study because it goes against your belief system.


Wrong. I would like to see a study that is relevant to dogs that are fed high quality commercial food rather than commodity (mass merchandise) stuff. To lump all commercial food in one category is useless information. It doesn't have to be brand-by-brand. That would be ridiculous to since all dogs are different and not all can eat the same foods. But a study revolving around the top 5 or 10 quality foods versus mass-market foods, versus people and/or raw foods would really be helpful for people like me trying to decide what to feed my dogs.



RawFedDogs said:


> Personally, I don't think the brand of dog foods would make much different in the results of this particular study. Of course that just my opinion.


Yet whoa Nellie if a food has corn in it. You start flapping your wings in protest at how horrible corn is for a dog. But then you say "Personally, I don't think the brand of dog foods would make much different in the results of this particular study." Huh? So if this study were based on commercial, wholesome, no-corn food, the results wouldn't be much different? Well, then why should anyone care if there is corn in dog food? You're contradicting yourself.



RawFedDogs said:


> Well my dogs eat food based on similar food as my family. Theirs is raw, which makes it healthier and the family's is cooked which makes it less healthy.


Good for you but the study didn't make any distinction between raw and cooked food that was fed to the dogs in the study.



RawFedDogs said:


> I find it to be a good informative study with valuable information. Far from crap information. Have you read the whole study or just the summary? Oh, BTW ... there is no dog food that contains human-grade ingredients regardless of what the dog food companies would lead you to believe.


I read both the whole study and the summary. I found it to be very vague and irrelevant to modern dogs fed modern, quality (i.e. "premium") commercial foods.



RawFedDogs said:


> To both teach and learn.


 Teach or preach? :wink:



RawFedDogs said:


> To see what the dog food companies are up to now. :smile:


Ha, ha, ha...now I REALLY have to laugh. You think you've smoked out some guy who works for a dog food company? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge? Classic. I came here with an honest question about a food my vet recommended that seems to produce amazing results in my dogs even though the manufacturer of the food is constantly criticized in pet forums. I just wanted to see if anyone had any OBJECTIVE information to justify the hatred of Hill's products. Read this thread again. I've never said I think Hill's Prescription Diet is great and anyone who disagrees with me is whacked. I only came here to see if anyone ever experienced similar results to mine and why they think that is. The ingredient list in this food contradicts the results. I am just trying to understand why. That's it.



RawFedDogs said:


> Oh there are so many posts and threads in this forum that I never comment on. In this partucular thread, you asked a question and I answered it. I didn't "butt in". I answered a question which at the time no one else had.


 You didn't answer anything and clearly you have no idea what the answer is.



RawFedDogs said:


> You don't tell me I have itwrong because I don't. They are not beliefs, they are facts. Millions of years of evolution prove me right. There is no study anywhere done by anybody at any time in history that even suggests mildly that processed dog food is healthier than whole foods. Why do you believe the propoganda about dog food and accept it as fact when there are no studies and kibble has only been around for a little over 50 years. Raw diets for carnivores have been around for millions of years. Kibble and canned food are the fad diets of animals, a raw diet is the real proven by time diet.


Um, me like fire, okay? Get over it. If evolution dictates your decision, why do you only apply that to your dogs? There's a whole "religion" for people who think cooked food is horrible for people too. So why not your own diet and your family's diet? Again, you can't seem to get past the fact that I'm not interested in a raw diet for my dogs for various reasons but that I would like a good, healthy alternative that balances nutrition with convenience. But in your world there is no such thing and you polarize everything. It's either good or bad. There is no in-between. The dog food manufacturers are all evil. What about the meat processors in this country who routinely kill humans with insanitary practices? Jeez, this is dog food, not a religion.



RawFedDogs said:


> I spend about an hour or two a month on the raw diet. I think most anyone can find an hour or two in a month.


Well, I didn't think I could but after all the time I've wasted on this forum, maybe I DO have the time! :wink:



RawFedDogs said:


> You haven't read any generalizations. You have read facts. You have read a scientific study. The only scientific study in existance that I know about. but you refuse to see this stuff. You don't want to see it.


I want to see RELEVANT facts and OBJECTIVE information that reflects the options that are available to us (North Americans) in this modern world of high quality commercial dog food versus other options. Lumping all dog food into one category is ridiculous. This is the equivalent to saying that dogs fed mass-market pet food (i.e. WalMart stuff) have the same mortality rate and quality of life as dogs fed niche market, high quality, protein rich, corn free commercial food. Neither you nor I know whether this is true or not but to speculate that all brands of dog food are basically the same is nothing more than hearsay. The truth is, we don't know.

Perhaps this IS the only scientific study in existence. Does that make it right or relevant? Nope. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want to see.



RawFedDogs said:


> Perhaps you could post some "good" information that you think should be in this forum. :smile:


I WOULD if I had something to share. And I planned to as I learned and experienced more with my own dogs. But now I see what is going on here and that as long as I'm not one of the raw Kool-aid drinkers, nothing I have to contribute will matter.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Thanks for your kind words but obviously this is a hostile environment for me so I don't think I'm going to share what I found. I WAS going to post this find of the "Dog Food Ingredients" forum for open critique and comments but after all this, I just don't need the grief. 

Jay



EnglishBullTerriers said:


> JayJayisme,
> I am curious what canned food you found for that price.
> I will step forward and say that I am a raw feeder for my dogs, but I bring in so many fosters and rescues that I am on here also trying to learn what kinda of kibble are best for the ones I don't get a chance to feed raw!
> I have a new litter of pups and I am going to start them on some canned food pretty soon, but have only ever used BlueBuffalo Evolution and I am a little hesatent to try something new with out knowing more about it and making sure that it is a great quality canned food to start the toothless pups out on!
> ...


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

whether you want to share information is completely up to you but saying that you don't want to share because its a hostile environment seems unlike you. when i say unlike you...i mean...your posts are well thought out and i got the sense that you were trying to keep it amicable rather than turning it into a full blown argument rather than debate. But saying "i found something really good but I'm not telling you because i don't want to" seems to be stooping to the childish caveman level you seem to be avoiding. 

there are MANY kibble feeders here but...we're not vets nor canine nutritionists so if we do not know the answer to a specific question, we don't answer it. simple as that. a few of the raw feeders' answers for everything is "go raw. it cures all and gives you wings" so its easy to post that for whatever health question there may be. we all learn from each other and share information of what we know. 

for your question, i can honestly say i don't know but i've always wondered. growing up, my dogs were fed alpo and whatever was on sale. they all hit 15-16 and lived healthy lives. my current furkids all eat orijen, evo, merricks, etc and have been taking turns being sick. i know factually...these brands are better but health wise in my dogs...pedigree has proven better lol.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

BabyHusky said:


> whether you want to share information is completely up to you but saying that you don't want to share because its a hostile environment seems unlike you. when i say unlike you...i mean...your posts are well thought out and i got the sense that you were trying to keep it amicable rather than turning it into a full blown argument rather than debate. But saying "i found something really good but I'm not telling you because i don't want to" seems to be stooping to the childish caveman level you seem to be avoiding.


I'm not trying to be childish or stoop to someone else's level. I just don't feel like taking the time to read the microscopic text on each of the three cans of food I have and type out the ingredients only to have the raw foodies proclaim that it's crap because it's commercial food and all commercial food is crap, or something to that effect. Waste of my time. As I said, I HAD every intention of sharing this but if I can't share all the information I have without getting a bunch of crap over it, why bother?



BabyHusky said:


> there are MANY kibble feeders here but...we're not vets nor canine nutritionists so if we do not know the answer to a specific question, we don't answer it. simple as that. a few of the raw feeders' answers for everything is "go raw. it cures all and gives you wings" so its easy to post that for whatever health question there may be. we all learn from each other and share information of what we know.


I understand and I never expected anyone to answer if they didn't know the answer. Recall that I got this food in question from my vet and I don't expect even him to have all the answers or even to be completely honest. After all, Hill's is well known as a marketing machine, rather than a quality manufacturer and I'm sure a lot of vets fall prey to these tactics as badly as consumers do. I'm just trying to separate the chaff from the wheat in regards to this product but I didn't come here with the unrealistic expectation that for sure someone would have the answer.

What I DIDN'T expect was to get bombed with a bunch of irrelevant generalizations starting with, "Just look at the ingredients. With many of the Hill's products, corn is the first ingredient. Corn is an indigestable filler that is inappropriate food for a carnivore." So then after scratching my head and reading the ingredients on the food I was referring to for the third or fourth time, I decide to try to clarify that I was referring to CANNED food, even though I said it in the original post. Then I get, "Again you are looking at canned which almost no one feeds anymore except maybe as a supplement to kibble meals. The SD kibbles are terrible. The only place you can find worse stuff is in Walmart." Okay, I don't care about SD kibble but somehow we are back there. Then I'm told there is no difference between puppy and adult dog food. Okay, but that wasn't my original question either. So this goes on and on to steer the conversation away from commercial food and toward raw food even though I expressly stated that I wasn't interested in raw at this time. And you wonder why I'm frustrated and feel that I'm in a hostile environment? We just keep going around in circles.



BabyHusky said:


> for your question, i can honestly say i don't know but i've always wondered. growing up, my dogs were fed alpo and whatever was on sale. they all hit 15-16 and lived healthy lives. my current furkids all eat orijen, evo, merricks, etc and have been taking turns being sick. i know factually...these brands are better but health wise in my dogs...pedigree has proven better lol.


Well thank you for at least saying you don't know. I guess nobody here does, which is fine. Just the fact that there seems to be little quality research done on this topic leads me to believe that nobody knows much about anything and almost anything anyone says is either anecdotal or hearsay. I didn't know that when I started this journey and now I do so I guess I learned something after all.

So in the spirit of giving back to the community that gave me something, I will share the information on the canned food I've been using as a topper. Give me a little time to gather up and type the information up so it's accurate. I'll post it in the "Dog Food Ingredients" forum a little later on when I have time to do this. 

Cheers!

Jay


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

Hey Jay,

First off, thank you for deciding to share the canned food that you found. As for certain raw feeders on our forums, honestly...you just need to know when to ignore them. Yes, I know that is not the way to handle a situation, altercation, etc and you are not the first person to feel this way. I admit I was one of them in the past...I got into my own share of altercations and felt a lot of frustration about talking to what seemed to be a broken record. Hell, if you read older topics, we have lost multiple members due to certain current members. BUT...as frustrating as some of those members may be, they do contribute a lot in certain topics. In the kibble forum, if I see a raw preach beginning, I just don't read their posts. Raw feeders have been asked multiple times to keep the raw preaching to a minimum in kibble forums and most of them have done so. Please understand that sometime people here won't change so there's not much to do but to not deal with them. 

Either way, I hope you continue to use our forums and contribute. Hopefully as our forum grows, we will get more and more experienced people to aid each other.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

I didnt read over the 3 pages of argument because its always the same. I was bashed the same way when I asked or commented regarding feeding my dog kibble. I hope it wont discourage you from being interested and continue to post here.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

I posted the info on the canned food I've been using as a topper here...

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-fo...r-joes-premium-canned-dog-food.html#post11813

Jay


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> For me, this decision of what to feed my dogs is going to be a compromise between nutrition and convenience, not unlike the meals I prepare for myself and my family every day. I try to lean towards optimum nutrition but not if it takes time I don't have to find the perfect food and prepare a 100% natural meal.


Yeah, when I have kids it probably won't be too convenient to give them a home cooked healthy meal every day, so I'll compromise their nutrition and give them happy meals from fast food chains every night.... you know, for convenience. 

What the hell kind of logic is that?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> Wow. I feel like a Christian who just got off the plane in Salt Lake City.


Ok, how's that for ignorant?
CLC, or utah in general is like... 90% Christian. Yes, Mormons are Christians, and anyone believing otherwise is ignorant. (I know this. I'm Mormon) So lets keep this forum on the topic of CANINE NUTRITION and leave religion attacks out of it, mmk?



JayJayisme said:


> But I see that isn't possible here because of the folks on this site who do use commercial food, they probably have no idea why I get the results I did on the "crap" food and everyone else thinks I need to be "enlightened" with the raw agenda even though in my very first post I stated that raw wasn't an option for me at this time.


I see your point. I think every kibble feeder out there experiences this, and you just have to know when to ignore the posts that do not apply to you, and move on. Apparently you're not quite there yet. 



JayJayisme said:


> I guess I've exposed this "Dry and Canned Dog Food" forum for what it is. A platform that the raw Kool-Aid drinkers use to convert the "unenlightened". All I came here to find out is that even though I know Hill's has a bad reputation, why do both of my dogs do so well on the food? I discovered this by accident and I'm just trying to understand because at the end of the day, it's results that we are all after.


Your dogs do well on it because every dog on crap food is not going to flop over dead immediately. 
Most food issues take months, if not years to show up. I had a dog do (what I thought was great) on Pedigree for ten years, then saw how much BETTER he did on better food.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Yeah, when I have kids it probably won't be too convenient to give them a home cooked healthy meal every day, so I'll compromise their nutrition and give them happy meals from fast food chains every night.... you know, for convenience.
> 
> What the hell kind of logic is that?


Wow, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. More polarizing. I didn't say I was willing to feed them junk for the sake of convenience. I said I was looking for the BEST COMPROMISE between nutrition and convenience. My convenience, not yours. McDonalds isn't convenient or realistic for me or my kids and I never implied that convenience was the ONLY factor. Jeez, I love this forum!


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Ok, how's that for ignorant?
> CLC, or utah in general is like... 90% Christian. Yes, Mormons are Christians, and anyone believing otherwise is ignorant. (I know this. I'm Mormon) So lets keep this forum on the topic of CANINE NUTRITION and leave religion attacks out of it, mmk?


Good lord, are you serious? Can't you recognize tongue-in-cheek when you read it? Catholics are Christians too but nobody calls them that. All I meant was that Mormons are well known for their well organized and effective recruiting abilities through their large missionary program. I guess I could have made the same reference using the Jehovah’s Witnesses but I'd probably piss someone else off with that. It was just a parallel comparison, not a bash on anyone's belief system. Sheesh. 

Enough on that.



CorgiPaws said:


> I see your point. I think every kibble feeder out there experiences this, and you just have to know when to ignore the posts that do not apply to you, and move on. Apparently you're not quite there yet.


Clearly not because I SHOULD be ignoring your posts but I just can't help myself. :biggrin:



CorgiPaws said:


> Your dogs do well on it because every dog on crap food is not going to flop over dead immediately.
> Most food issues take months, if not years to show up. I had a dog do (what I thought was great) on Pedigree for ten years, then saw how much BETTER he did on better food.


My dogs haven't "flopped over dead" on ANY of the food I've fed them but if you read the original post again you'll note that I specifically asked about Prescription Diet because I definitely saw a NOTICEABLE and IMMEDIATE difference in their energy, playfulness, and stool quality versus EVERYTHING else I've fed them. All I'm wondering is, why? I read the ingredients and I just don't see it, yet I can't ignore the results thus far. I was hoping someone else here may have experienced something similar and put 2 and 2 together to explain why and whether it was worth pursuing. But clearly, nobody has so it is likely a dead issue here, much like this ridiculous thread.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

In reading my previous post, I hereby promise to stay away when I'm already livid mad. I apologize for being immature about everything you said, it was uncalled for. 

As for my thoughts on the topic:
Dogs tend to do immediately better on the type of quality food they're used to. If they're recent rescues, chances are they've been fed whatever people have been donating which generally is the cheap stuff. (no disrespect, rescues and shelters do what they can) If this is the case, their bodies are used to all the fillers and whatnot. 
When you up the quality it takes time for their bodies to adjust. Sure, phasing can make it easier on them but it's not a sure bet that it'll go over seemlessly. Their bodies have to get all the "junk" from the previous food out of their systems. A lot of times that means vomiting, diarreah, loss of appetite, loss of energy, etc.
For a lot of people, that's the bottom line and they go back to what works "now" but if they can just stick through this "detox" phase, their dogs will benefit in the long run. 
Keep in mind that just because a kibble is good or bad, doesn't mean that you dog will be great right away, or terrible right away on it. Wellness is a good kibble, but my puppy got the runs on it. Pedigree is terrible, but before I knew better, I thought it was great for my Beagle. 
Switching to a quality food can take a lot of patience not only in letting your pups become accustomed to their new superior diet, but also in finding the premium food that is just right for them. 
Hope this provided a little insight.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Dogs tend to do immediately better on the type of quality food they're used to. If they're recent rescues, chances are they've been fed whatever people have been donating which generally is the cheap stuff. (no disrespect, rescues and shelters do what they can) If this is the case, their bodies are used to all the fillers and whatnot.
> When you up the quality it takes time for their bodies to adjust. Sure, phasing can make it easier on them but it's not a sure bet that it'll go over seemlessly. Their bodies have to get all the "junk" from the previous food out of their systems. A lot of times that means vomiting, diarreah, loss of appetite, loss of energy, etc.
> For a lot of people, that's the bottom line and they go back to what works "now" but if they can just stick through this "detox" phase, their dogs will benefit in the long run.
> Keep in mind that just because a kibble is good or bad, doesn't mean that you dog will be great right away, or terrible right away on it. Wellness is a good kibble, but my puppy got the runs on it. Pedigree is terrible, but before I knew better, I thought it was great for my Beagle.
> ...


CorgiPaws, for once we are on the same page. I know my rescue was on premium kibble before I got her, but I was told she had problems with it. I forget which one now but when I fostered her originally, they gave me a couple pounds so I could mix it with her new food for the transition, which I did. Still, like you say, the first premium kibble I had her on did not agree with her (Innova) even after 10 weeks of varying quantities. When she first went on Prescription Diet, the positive results were immediate, which shocked me. But she was only on it for about 10 days then back to the kibble. 

This happened with my shelter pup too. I'm sure he was eating crap in the shelter but that was the least of his problems when we got him. He came home with Coccidia and kennel cough, which quickly turned into antibiotic-resistant pneumonia. It was horrible and from the day he arrived, we had him quarantined so he couldn't get my other dog sick. Then eventually he was hospitalized and the vet didn't give him much of a chance for survival but when there was nothing more he could do, we brought him home and did everything we could to try to nurse him back to health, or at least make his final days as comfortable as possible. It was horrible but after a few days of 24-7 care, he turned around and made a complete recovery. My vet was pleasantly shocked! Since then, I've been playing with different foods to see what works not just for him, but (hopefully) for both of them. 

Then when he recently got a nice case of giardia from the local dog park, he was put on the Prescription Diet for 10 days, and again, immediate positive results. I'm sure you can see how this perked my interest.

BTW, he won't eat raw meat. The female will, but he won't. I've tried several times. One of several reasons I have not tried to pursue this. Maybe when he's a little older I'll try again.

Anyway, the transition to Wellness has been okay. Not great, not bad, just okay. Still, they don't have the vitality and consistency in the quality of their stools that I'd like to see like they both had during those short periods of time they were eating the Hill's stuff. Go figure. 

So next, I am going to try Artemis Fresh Mix kibble. I bought some today since I was almost out of the Wellness and will start the transition tomorrow, putting the canned topper on the back-burner until the transition is complete. When I gave them some Artemis the first time from a sample pack, they liked it so much that I'm thinking I may not even need a wet topper at all. We'll see. Jeez, I hope it works. I had to buy 30 lbs. of it today!

I don't have unrealistic expectations because, as you say, "...just because a kibble is good or bad, doesn't mean that you dog will be great right away...". That is true so I'll be patient, adjust their food volumes if I have to, and hope for the best. But it will be with the understanding that I may have to try something new again until I find the "magic formula".

Thanks again for your comments and feedback. This is an interesting group of people and even though I don't agree with everyone and everything, I can see that everyone here has a passion for their dogs and their dog's health. There is a saying that goes, "You can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat their dog." Judging from the passionate responses I've read here to various topics, it's clear that the folks here are good people.

Cheers!

Jay


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

JayJayisme said:


> ...
> I don't want to hear from the raw food proponents. That is not for me at this point. I am interested in hearing from people who have very objective reasons for liking or not liking Hill's dog food, and their reasons why. I want to feed my dogs high quality food but at the same time, I can't argue with the results I see in them when they eat this Hill's stuff. I'm not sure what to do here. Any insight is appreciated. Jay


After looking at both ingredient profiles of the dry adults, the two best things I see in Science Diet are Chicken By-Product Meal and Animal Fat. The two best I see in the "Prescription" dry choices are Pork Fat (lard) and Chicken By-Product Meal. The CBPM makes a few of the diets far better choices then even some of the high end kibbles out there, but there are also huge drawbacks. Beep Pulp and Flaxseed and Soybean Meal are just a few of the ingredients I don't like to see. The diets fall short of being a carnivore type ration due to a combination of both dangerous high fiber diets and a reliance of Gluten source proteins. In that class of dry feeds, again, they are better than most because of a few ingredients, but still fall short for being an omnivore ration. That is how the industry as a whole feeds dogs. It is very difficult to find a true carnivore type feed (ridiculous low fiber, and no reliance on gluten proteins) in dry ration.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

claybuster said:


> After looking at both ingredient profiles of the dry adults, the two best things I see in Science Diet are Chicken By-Product Meal and Animal Fat. The two best I see in the "Prescription" dry choices are Pork Fat (lard) and Chicken By-Product Meal. The CBPM makes a few of the diets far better choices then even some of the high end kibbles out there, but there are also huge drawbacks. Beep Pulp and Flaxseed and Soybean Meal are just a few of the ingredients I don't like to see. The diets fall short of being a carnivore type ration due to a combination of both dangerous high fiber diets and a reliance of Gluten source proteins. In that class of dry feeds, again, they are better than most because of a few ingredients, but still fall short for being an omnivore ration. That is how the industry as a whole feeds dogs. It is very difficult to find a true carnivore type feed (ridiculous low fiber, and no reliance on gluten proteins) in dry ration.


Er...okay, something has been lost in translation here. The original post asked about Prescription Diet CANNED, not Science Diet or any dry food from Hills. I posted the actual ingredients from the product in question here:

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dry-canned-dog-food/1451-hills-prescription-diet.html#post11698

There is no "Pork Fat (lard) and Chicken By-Product Meal" in it. While your generalizations are probably true, they are not relevant to the original question. But thanks for playing! :biggrin:


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> CorgiPaws, for once we are on the same page. I know my rescue was on premium kibble before I got her, but I was told she had problems with it. I forget which one now but when I fostered her originally, they gave me a couple pounds so I could mix it with her new food for the transition, which I did. Still, like you say, the first premium kibble I had her on did not agree with her (Innova) even after 10 weeks of varying quantities. When she first went on Prescription Diet, the positive results were immediate, which shocked me. But she was only on it for about 10 days then back to the kibble.


I definately understand the frustration here. Innova is a great food, so you'd assume all dogs would do great on it. If only it were that easy. 



JayJayisme said:


> This happened with my shelter pup too. I'm sure he was eating crap in the shelter but that was the least of his problems when we got him. He came home with Coccidia and kennel cough, which quickly turned into antibiotic-resistant pneumonia. It was horrible and from the day he arrived, we had him quarantined so he couldn't get my other dog sick. Then eventually he was hospitalized and the vet didn't give him much of a chance for survival but when there was nothing more he could do, we brought him home and did everything we could to try to nurse him back to health, or at least make his final days as comfortable as possible. It was horrible but after a few days of 24-7 care, he turned around and made a complete recovery. My vet was pleasantly shocked!


Well I'm glad he made it through that! Sometimes after going through such illness, it can take quite a while for their systems to settle no matter WHAT you feed them, ESPECIALLY if they're on medication, primarily antibiotics. Antibiotics are generally entirely uncalled for. Topical ointments for topical infections, sure, but pills do more harm than good, generally. IMO. 



JayJayisme said:


> Since then, I've been playing with different foods to see what works not just for him, but (hopefully) for both of them.


How long are you leaving him (them?) on each food before deciding it doesn't work? I'd give it at least a month to six weeks. It takes at least that long to determine how they are doing. 



JayJayisme said:


> Then when he recently got a nice case of giardia from the local dog park, he was put on the Prescription Diet for 10 days, and again, immediate positive results. I'm sure you can see how this perked my interest.


Again, frustrating. Giardia is pretty nasty and would again cause system upset... 
Just keep in mind that while a food may easily pass through the system (ie. Rice) and come back out solid, it does not mean they are actually getting any nutrition from it. While based off their stools alone they're doing seemingly great, they could be getting deficient nutrients. 



JayJayisme said:


> BTW, he won't eat raw meat. The female will, but he won't. I've tried several times. One of several reasons I have not tried to pursue this. Maybe when he's a little older I'll try again.


My Shepherd, Champ, has zero interest in raw meat unless someone else wants it. Lucky for me, my Corgi, Grissom, loves it and thus Champ will eat it just because someone else wants it. (Which is kind of funny, because once he starts eating it he loves it, it's just a matter of getting him interested)

I understand that raw isn't an option for you right now, (though I love raw feeding I'm in a situation that I can't so my dogs are on kibble temporarily right now, too) but keep in mind that illness thrives on carbs. if there is an underlying problem that has not surfaced yet (which sounds like a big possibility) chances are it is thriving off of carbs in the diet. I would look for a food with as little carbs as possible, though all meat is the only way to obtain carb-free. 



JayJayisme said:


> Anyway, the transition to Wellness has been okay. Not great, not bad, just okay. Still, they don't have the vitality and consistency in the quality of their stools that I'd like to see like they both had during those short periods of time they were eating the Hill's stuff. Go figure.
> 
> So next, I am going to try Artemis Fresh Mix kibble. I bought some today since I was almost out of the Wellness and will start the transition tomorrow, putting the canned topper on the back-burner until the transition is complete. When I gave them some Artemis the first time from a sample pack, they liked it so much that I'm thinking I may not even need a wet topper at all. We'll see. Jeez, I hope it works. I had to buy 30 lbs. of it today!


How long has he been on the Wellness? I'd give any food a six week chance, not including the phasing period. Since you've already spent the money I'd say go ahead with the new phasing, but take it really slow, and give the food a good chance before switching again.



JayJayisme said:


> I don't have unrealistic expectations because, as you say, "...just because a kibble is good or bad, doesn't mean that you dog will be great right away...". That is true so I'll be patient, adjust their food volumes if I have to, and hope for the best. But it will be with the understanding that I may have to try something new again until I find the "magic formula".


This would be easier if the magic formula existed! lol. If anyone finds it, let me know!


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> Well I'm glad he made it through that! Sometimes after going through such illness, it can take quite a while for their systems to settle no matter WHAT you feed them, ESPECIALLY if they're on medication, primarily antibiotics. Antibiotics are generally entirely uncalled for. Topical ointments for topical infections, sure, but pills do more harm than good, generally. IMO.


Agreed, but the pneumonia thing was life and death. Not only did I have him on oral antibiotics in the beginning, but when he was eventually hospitalized they were giving them to him via IV. Anyway, that was back in April/May and all he's been on since has been the Metronidazole, which isn't an antibiotic.



CorgiPaws said:


> How long are you leaving him (them?) on each food before deciding it doesn't work? I'd give it at least a month to six weeks. It takes at least that long to determine how they are doing.


No less than 7 or 8 weeks. They were on Innova for 10 weeks and Wellness for about 7 weeks or so.



CorgiPaws said:


> Just keep in mind that while a food may easily pass through the system (ie. Rice) and come back out solid, it does not mean they are actually getting any nutrition from it. While based off their stools alone they're doing seemingly great, they could be getting deficient nutrients.


True, but on the flip side, chronic (daily) loose watery stools are definitely a sign that something isn't right no matter what they are eating. I'm not just after better poop, but I know they experience discomfort and gas when this condition exists so I want to mitigate it while still giving them the nutrition they need. It's a delicate balance.



CorgiPaws said:


> My Shepherd, Champ, has zero interest in raw meat unless someone else wants it. Lucky for me, my Corgi, Grissom, loves it and thus Champ will eat it just because someone else wants it. (Which is kind of funny, because once he starts eating it he loves it, it's just a matter of getting him interested)


Similar here. My Shepard mix female loves the raw stuff but the male shows no interest in it no matter what and if he walks away from it, she will sneak over and gobble up all of his food. The compromise has been good quality kibble and gently cooked meat every couple of days. He'll eat it if it's cooked a little, even if it's rare inside. Surprisingly, he loves a lot of different fruits and vegetables, cooked or raw, but I've avoided feeding them to him on any regular basis while we're trying to sort out this food issue. I don't need ancillary food items in his diet confusing the results. But I think his proclivity to eat produce is interesting. We really have to be careful what we accidentally drop on the floor in the kitchen while preparing meals.



CorgiPaws said:


> I understand that raw isn't an option for you right now, (though I love raw feeding I'm in a situation that I can't so my dogs are on kibble temporarily right now, too) but keep in mind that illness thrives on carbs. if there is an underlying problem that has not surfaced yet (which sounds like a big possibility) chances are it is thriving off of carbs in the diet. I would look for a food with as little carbs as possible, though all meat is the only way to obtain carb-free.


Same for humans. Ironically, some of my own health problems are related to carb intake, particularly high glycemic-index carbs (like refined or man-made foods) so I generally avoid them and we have very little of that in the house. I'm sure the problem is even more dramatic for dogs which is why I originally started to seek out a high-protein dry food for them. Still, the way they responded to the Hill's stuff, corn and all, really baffled me. If I can find a quality food that they react to in the same way, that would be the perfect situation. Obviously, feeding them something like this Hill's stuff long-term is not an option.

Thanks for your comments. Good luck with your temporary kibble situation.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

JayJayisme said:


> No less than 7 or 8 weeks. They were on Innova for 10 weeks and Wellness for about 7 weeks or so.


That should be long enough. Sounds like you're doing everything right.



JayJayisme said:


> True, but on the flip side, chronic (daily) loose watery stools are definitely a sign that something isn't right no matter what they are eating. I'm not just after better poop, but I know they experience discomfort and gas when this condition exists so I want to mitigate it while still giving them the nutrition they need. It's a delicate balance.


most deifinately. I'm having this same issue with my Corgi I just put on Evo. Granted it's only been a week so I am being a little impatient. No kibble is good enough to justify constant discomfort.



JayJayisme said:


> Surprisingly, he loves a lot of different fruits and vegetables, cooked or raw, but I've avoided feeding them to him on any regular basis while we're trying to sort out this food issue. I don't need ancillary food items in his diet confusing the results. But I think his proclivity to eat produce is interesting. We really have to be careful what we accidentally drop on the floor in the kitchen while preparing meals.


My Shepherd male would take a spaghetti quash straight from the garden over a steak any day! I guess it kind of goes along the guidelines of "junk food" to humans. It might taste better to them, but then again ice cream tasts better than health food to me, too!
His new thing is cucumbers.  



JayJayisme said:


> I originally started to seek out a high-protein dry food for them. Still, the way they responded to the Hill's stuff, corn and all, really baffled me. If I can find a quality food that they react to in the same way, that would be the perfect situation. Obviously, feeding them something like this Hill's stuff long-term is not an option.


Sometimes it takes them a little time to get used to the higher protein, even though it's better for them. I know I am going to be attacked by SOMEONE for what I'm about to suggest, but that's ok.
Maybe you need to find something between the Hills and top-shelf foods to use as a stepping stone. I have a Beagle (Max) that has serious issues though no one can figure out what they are. He does best on California Natural. (any of the formulas) I don't consider this absolute best as the protein isn't that high:21% in the chicken and rice which is what I have right now. What I like about it, and why he does well on it, is that it has very limited ingredients. It takes out all the "junk" fillers. You may want to consider using it as a stepping stone to top-shelf foods, and maybe it will help pinpoint whatever ingredient is causing such stomach upset. 



JayJayisme said:


> Thanks for your comments. Good luck with your temporary kibble situation.


Thanks, at this rate, I'm gonna need it. Grissom is not taking to it very well. I never knew a 14lb dog could make such a mess!


----------



## LL Blue (Dec 29, 2008)

My dog has had problems with intestinal upset in the past, at times fairly serious. My vet also prescribed the Science Diet I/D, which I've used to get her through some of those incidents. I've also used plain chicken and rice. I would say that it helps at times because it is a bland diet. I didn't want to feed it to her forever, and I wanted to feed her a food I could feel good about as well. 
I'm not saying that you will have the same result with your dog, but what has helped mine has been grain-free kibble. I fed a high-quality food with some grains for years, and she tended to have soft stools pretty regularly. Since switching to grain free, she's done much better. The first time I tried grain-free though, it was a disaster. It was a good brand, but it didn't work for her. Anyway, it might be something to try once they get older. It has really helped my dog.


----------

