Science Diet Dog Food.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by inluvwithfluff

Yes, one vet did tell me he didn't recommend allergy testing if the allergies were indeed caused by food. We were considering both food and environmental allergies at the time but I do think it's primarily a food issue. We tried different ingredients. Corn, chicken and soy appear to be the worst culprits. We switched him to a food without those ingredients and the improvement was considerable. Even so, we still limit his time outside. This is hot and humid Miami after all, and I suspect environmental allergens too.

As for bringing up the prescription diet, corn is found in I/D which is why I initially worried about a flare-up. He is scratching and biting again, most noticeably his feet. His follow-up is tomorrow so I'll take the chance to ask the vet about possible medications and a dermatologist. Thank you for the advice.

Re: the corn in i/D diet. It also has egg product in both the dry and canned versions. I know egg causes my Daisy to bite at her feet like crazy. We used to think it was corn, but she is ok with corn but gets crazy on egg.

[inluvwithfluff]

Originally Posted by 107barney

Re: the corn in i/D diet. It also has egg product in both the dry and canned versions. I know egg causes my Daisy to bite at her feet like crazy. We used to think it was corn, but she is ok with corn but gets crazy on egg.

Ah, thank you! This is definitely something else to consider. I hate catching him biting his feet, poor guy.

[Ellie May]

Even if people don't intend to group SD Rx with regular SD, the people reading these threads do get other ideas. That is evident in Sick and Injured.

I used to have very similar feelings about feeding food from the majors companies and my opinion has changed somewhat.

If you don't like corn in dog food, there is no reason to feed it to a healthy dog. Nobody has any proof to indicate that years down the road a dog fed a holistic food is going to be healthier than a dog fed SD. Less people feed holistic foods than major brands and yet there are still a large number of reviews of the "better brands" causing issues. Any food can cause an issue and the best food for a dog is one that they thrive on.

I'm not really sure why there has been so much focus on SD lately? There was focus on Iams for awhile which was understandable with the cruelty videos that are circulating. But then, there are probably a lot of companies that treat their animals similarly.

I know that there are untruths about SD on the internet. True: vet students get free SD, Iams, or Purina. BUT also true: Some schools have a Natura program (started before they were bought by Iams). True: Some vets have had good experiences with it, possibly from when they got it for free as a student and that may influence their recommendation. False: Most vets like pushing it, esp. for the money they receive from its sale. False: Most vets try to put most of their patients on it.

If there is some program that SD offers to get massive amounts of money into the hands of vets just for selling the food, I'm sure the vets here would love to be informed about it. In fact, it takes so much room to stock, money to handle it, and the profit margin for a lot of vets is very low. They would rather not have to deal with it.

And also, I've seen "way too many" issues/problems/recalls with a lot of "holistic" foods and wonder how safe most of them really are. Look at the issues awhile back with Diamond (a ton of foods are made there), Merrick and their inability to control salmonella, but a willingness to still sell the treats that the problem occurs in (chews, treats), GO and the pups that died from it, Evangers and the fact that they lie about what is in their food and can't get paperwork straight, Nutro and the massive number of dogs having issues with it, Menu and their inability to report the need to recall in a timely manner (manufacturer of "better" canned foods), etc. Recalls will happen no matter the company, but with some I am seeing things go on that are completely unacceptable and it does not increase my faith in the holistic dog food market.

In the end, to me the reputation of a company and the trust I have in their ability to detect issues with their foods is more important to me than ingredients in most cases. I would feed regular SD over a lot of holistic foods. Of course there could still be issues with the companies, but I feel like they are at an advantage when taking the overall picture into consideration.

If for whatever reason SD NB doesn't work for my puppy, we will be choosing another food. That will be based on what he tolerates.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Linda, your post shows me that we are talking about different things. I don't think I've ever posted in a thread about any Rx food. It's just out of my experience. Luckily, I've never had the need for any Rx food. Any issues mine have had I've been able to treat with resting the stomach and/or feeding chicken w/rice & broth.

No doubt that I would not hesitate to use an Rx diet if the need arises. Just from reading on YT, I know that Hill's, Purina and Royal Canin all make prescription foods. Whether there is any difference in them, I don't know. If I had to make a choice among them, I would choose to follow my vet's advice.

My opinion is not just an anti Science Diet one, but I'm against any brand that uses corn in its formula. Again, just talking about regular foods. That being said, it's not something that keeps me up at night. Everyone is free to make their own choice. I do believe we should research and feed a quality food, especially with toy breeds. We all have seen different dogs do well or not so well on different foods, so it really comes down to what an individual dog does well on.

Personally, I now feed my dogs Authority. Based on ingredients, is it a premier brand? No, it's not holistic/human grade, etc., but all mine do very well on it. That's about as far as I would go in making a recommendation.

Since Hill's and others make Rx foods, it probably is a good idea to specify which foods we might be talking about so there is no confusion. I would hate for someone to get the wrong idea and avoid a food their pet may need based on opinions not directed at that food.

Authority foods uses corn and corn gluten in its adult chicken formula dry kibble. Just as Authority does not use corn or corn gluten in all of it's products, Science Diet does not either. For example, SD's Natures Best Nature's Best Chicken & Brown Rice Dinner and its Lamb & Brown Rice Dinner do not include corn or corn gluten in the products.

I'm not advocating for SD and am not anti Authority since I am a home cooker and have only used kibble infrequently over the years. I'm just pointing out that not only do formulas vary among brands, the brands themselves can be questionable unless you study up on who is doing the manufacturing. Not sure who manufactures Authority - pretty sure it's Simmons who acquired Menu Foods.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Even if people don't intend to group SD Rx with regular SD, the people reading these threads do get other ideas. That is evident in Sick and Injured.

I used to have very similar feelings about feeding food from the majors companies and my opinion has changed somewhat.

If you don't like corn in dog food, there is no reason to feed it to a healthy dog. Nobody has any proof to indicate that years down the road a dog fed a holistic food is going to be healthier than a dog fed SD. Less people feed holistic foods than major brands and yet there are still a large number of reviews of the "better brands" causing issues. Any food can cause an issue and the best food for a dog is one that they thrive on.

I'm not really sure why there has been so much focus on SD lately? There was focus on Iams for awhile which was understandable with the cruelty videos that are circulating. But then, there are probably a lot of companies that treat their animals similarly.

I know that there are untruths about SD on the internet. True: vet students get free SD, Iams, or Purina. BUT also true: Some schools have a Natura program (started before they were bought by Iams). True: Some vets have had good experiences with it, possibly from when they got it for free as a student and that may influence their recommendation. False: Most vets like pushing it, esp. for the money they receive from its sale. False: Most vets try to put most of their patients on it.

If there is some program that SD offers to get massive amounts of money into the hands of vets just for selling the food, I'm sure the vets here would love to be informed about it. In fact, it takes so much room to stock, money to handle it, and the profit margin for a lot of vets is very low. They would rather not have to deal with it.

And also, I've seen "way too many" issues/problems/recalls with a lot of "holistic" foods and wonder how safe most of them really are. Look at the issues awhile back with Diamond (a ton of foods are made there), Merrick and their inability to control salmonella, but a willingness to still sell the treats that the problem occurs in (chews, treats), GO and the pups that died from it, Evangers and the fact that they lie about what is in their food and can't get paperwork straight, Nutro and the massive number of dogs having issues with it, Menu and their inability to report the need to recall in a timely manner (manufacturer of "better" canned foods), etc. Recalls will happen no matter the company, but with some I am seeing things go on that are completely unacceptable and it does not increase my faith in the holistic dog food market.

In the end, to me the reputation of a company and the trust I have in their ability to detect issues with their foods is more important to me than ingredients in most cases. I would feed regular SD over a lot of holistic foods. Of course there could still be issues with the companies, but I feel like they are at an advantage when taking the overall picture into consideration.

If for whatever reason SD NB doesn't work for my puppy, we will be choosing another food. That will be based on what he tolerates.

Now I don't feel so bad about feeding Jilly Science Diet Sensitive. After joining YT, I had gotten the impression that only certain more expensive brands were actually good for our dogs. Now I see another side. Thanks, Crystal.

[DJDB]

I agree with Ellie May. My b/f's brother feeds his dog a "raw" diet that he thinks is the only way to feed your dog. His dog is only about 7 yrs old and has now been dealing with a tumor in its stomach for the last several months. His dog also seems to be at the vets every other week for some reason or other.

Find out what your pup tolerates best and eats happily and stick with it. If they develop issues with it, try something else. Simple.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by 107barney

Authority foods uses corn and corn gluten in its adult chicken formula dry kibble. Just as Authority does not use corn or corn gluten in all of it's products, Science Diet does not either. For example, SD's Natures Best Nature's Best Chicken & Brown Rice Dinner and its Lamb & Brown Rice Dinner do not include corn or corn gluten in the products.

I'm not advocating for SD and am not anti Authority since I am a home cooker and have only used kibble infrequently over the years. I'm just pointing out that not only do formulas vary among brands, the brands themselves can be questionable unless you study up on who is doing the manufacturing. Not sure who manufactures Authority - pretty sure it's Simmons who acquired Menu Foods.

Well, danged if you're not right. I went and looked and sure enough, they do. Seems like the last time I looked at the label, they didn't. The first 2 ingredients are meat though, and that's what I focused on. I've got a little egg on my face over this one LOL.

The thing about corn is that I always see it as the first ingredient on 'cheaper' foods. I think that's true of SD on most non Rx formulas, and it's not cheap. It kind of seems like you're feeding a dog cereal then (saying this as I wipe egg off my face).

I won't be changing brands because it works well for all mine and they differ in age and size, and it's a good thing to find one food for all of them. I don't homecook, but do regularly buy beef liver and chicken leg quarters to add to their food. I like to know they're getting a good amount of meat and they prefer the meat as treats, too. I've had no luck with them liking any store bought treats. Meat is just as economical as most treats anyway, so that's what I go with.

[tem_sat]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I don't homecook, but do regularly buy beef liver and chicken leg quarters to add to their food. I like to know they're getting a good amount of meat and they prefer the meat as treats, too. I've had no luck with them liking any store bought treats. Meat is just as economical as most treats anyway, so that's what I go with.

That is good!

[Ellie May]

Feeding a little bit of meat is fine. When giving it regularly, there is a risk of unbalancing the already balanced calcium/phosphorus ratio in dog food (because meat is high in phosphorus). That can lead to severe medical issues involving the bones, blood, etc.

Whether or not one cares about food being balanced is their business. I do, however, and so does my dog's nutritionist.

I see far too many unbalanced diets fed to pups on YT. To each their own. I'll stick with what the experts recommend.

Again, lean meat as treats is usually fine, but completely unnecessary. It's not fine to overuse it.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Feeding a little bit of meat is fine. When giving it regularly, there is a risk of unbalancing the already balanced calcium/phosphorus ratio in dog food (because meat is high in phosphorus). That can lead to severe medical issues involving the bones, blood, etc.

Whether or not one cares about food being balanced is their business. I do, however, and so does my dog's nutritionist.

I see far too many unbalanced diets fed to pups on YT. To each their own. I'll stick with what the experts recommend.

Again, lean meat as treats is usually fine, but completely unnecessary. It's not fine to overuse it.

Just to add a few things...

You have a nutritionist for your dog. Now that would be an expert. But, you could probably use a different nutritionist and get at least somewhat different feeding advice. There is little consensus among experts. Really, there's little consensus on what an expert is. It's really enough to confuse most people.

I've gotten a lot from the Dog Food Project and also found Dog Food Analysis to have good info. Neither one is a 'bible', but both have good info.

When it comes to the term 'balanced', many look to AAFCO certification on the food bag and assume that's enough. The crude analysis only shows content and doesn't speak to digestibility. In theory, you could grind up an old shoe, toss in some vitamins and minerals and have a food that meets their criteria. And, meeting the AAFCO guidelines only ensures that the food meets the minimum requirements. Just as with humans and the RDA, these guidelines are the minimum to avoid a deficiency and what is needed for optimum benefit is often much higher. Meeting AAFCO guidelines is not the end all/be all for judging a food's quality.

As a for instance, you could have 2 foods with the same crude analysis numbers. One of them could have a much higher or lower meat content than the other. One could have other ingredients that are more (or less) digestible, making the nutrients actually available much different than the crude analysis. So two 'balanced' foods with the same crude analysis can be far from equal.

I like to add some meat to my dogs diet. It's not excessive and I don't worry about throwing things out of whack. Also, though you can get protein from several sources, meat has amino acids that other sources lack. What I feed works well for me with several dogs of different ages, sizes and activity levels. It's certainly not the only way to go, but I won't fix what ain't broke. That being said, I think everyone should do some basic nutrition research when making these decisions. There's no one size fits all answer.

[Taryn0405]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Just to add a few things...

You have a nutritionist for your dog. Now that would be an expert. But, you could probably use a different nutritionist and get at least somewhat different feeding advice. There is little consensus among experts. Really, there's little consensus on what an expert is. It's really enough to confuse most people.

I've gotten a lot from the Dog Food Project and also found Dog Food Analysis to have good info. Neither one is a 'bible', but both have good info.

When it comes to the term 'balanced', many look to AAFCO certification on the food bag and assume that's enough. The crude analysis only shows content and doesn't speak to digestibility. In theory, you could grind up an old shoe, toss in some vitamins and minerals and have a food that meets their criteria. And, meeting the AAFCO guidelines only ensures that the food meets the minimum requirements. Just as with humans and the RDA, these guidelines are the minimum to avoid a deficiency and what is needed for optimum benefit is often much higher. Meeting AAFCO guidelines is not the end all/be all for judging a food's quality.

As a for instance, you could have 2 foods with the same crude analysis numbers. One of them could have a much higher or lower meat content than the other. One could have other ingredients that are more (or less) digestible, making the nutrients actually available much different than the crude analysis. So two 'balanced' foods with the same crude analysis can be far from equal.

I like to add some meat to my dogs diet. It's not excessive and I don't worry about throwing things out of whack. Also, though you can get protein from several sources, meat has amino acids that other sources lack. What I feed works well for me with several dogs of different ages, sizes and activity levels. It's certainly not the only way to go, but I won't fix what ain't broke. That being said, I think everyone should do some basic nutrition research when making these decisions. There's no one size fits all answer.

[Ellie May]

Nutrition is always chaning; however, the "experts" in the field (DVM, PhD, DACVN) seem to agree pretty closely with each other. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition has contributors that are specialists from different areas of vet med. The main editors have their DVM and PhD while also being diplomats of the ACVN. They wrote/edited a textbook together, so I highly doubt their views on nutrition are too far apart.

I have no idea what each company uses in their food. I'm sure a lot of it is incredibly disgusting and I wouldn't want to see it. I don't see how that makes Science Diet any less digestible than a holistic brand though. If we are talking about shoe leather, then leather is skin. Skin is part of meat meal, right? So who's to say SD uses shoe leather in their food and holistic company X does not? Any company can make it sound good on the ingredients list.

Meat, poultry, and fish can have good amino acid profiles. That doesn't mean a combination of other ingredients can't accomplish the same thing. Whether or not somebody wants to feed corn as a first ingredient is personal preference (I happen to not want to), but to say other foods richer in meat are superior, well, I don't really see anything to back that up?

If AAFCO isn't or shouldn't be the authority on nutrient levels in dog food, I'm not sure who should be. I know of no other group that has done more testing. I guess then each owner decides if the food they feed has enough nutrients or not which is not science. As for digestibility, feeding trials help substantiate that hte food is digestible. Most holistic companies do not do this.

I'm not against the new, "premium" companies. I'm just wondering where a lot of the information online comes from. I assume a lot of it comes from whoever dogfoodanalysis uses are their source and that is not science. The number of stars that some randow person on the internet decided to assign a particular dog food should not influence whether or not I feed said food. (JMO)

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Nutrition is always chaning; however, the "experts" in the field (DVM, PhD, DACVN) seem to agree pretty closely with each other. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition has contributors that are specialists from different areas of vet med. The main editors have their DVM and PhD while also being diplomats of the ACVN. They wrote/edited a textbook together, so I highly doubt their views on nutrition are too far apart.

I have no idea what each company uses in their food. I'm sure a lot of it is incredibly disgusting and I wouldn't want to see it. I don't see how that makes Science Diet any less digestible than a holistic brand though. If we are talking about shoe leather, then leather is skin. Skin is part of meat meal, right? So who's to say SD uses shoe leather in their food and holistic company X does not? Any company can make it sound good on the ingredients list.

Meat, poultry, and fish can have good amino acid profiles. That doesn't mean a combination of other ingredients can't accomplish the same thing. Whether or not somebody wants to feed corn as a first ingredient is personal preference (I happen to not want to), but to say other foods richer in meat are superior, well, I don't really see anything to back that up?

If AAFCO isn't or shouldn't be the authority on nutrient levels in dog food, I'm not sure who should be. I know of no other group that has done more testing. I guess then each owner decides if the food they feed has enough nutrients or not which is not science. As for digestibility, feeding trials help substantiate that hte food is digestible. Most holistic companies do not do this.

I'm not against the new, "premium" companies. I'm just wondering where a lot of the information online comes from. I assume a lot of it comes from whoever dogfoodanalysis uses are their source and that is not science. The number of stars that some randow person on the internet decided to assign a particular dog food should not influence whether or not I feed said food. (JMO)

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Nutrition is always chaning; however, the "experts" in the field (DVM, PhD, DACVN) seem to agree pretty closely with each other. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition has contributors that are specialists from different areas of vet med. The main editors have their DVM and PhD while also being diplomats of the ACVN. They wrote/edited a textbook together, so I highly doubt their views on nutrition are too far apart.

I have no idea what each company uses in their food. I'm sure a lot of it is incredibly disgusting and I wouldn't want to see it. I don't see how that makes Science Diet any less digestible than a holistic brand though. If we are talking about shoe leather, then leather is skin. Skin is part of meat meal, right? So who's to say SD uses shoe leather in their food and holistic company X does not? Any company can make it sound good on the ingredients list.

Meat, poultry, and fish can have good amino acid profiles. That doesn't mean a combination of other ingredients can't accomplish the same thing. Whether or not somebody wants to feed corn as a first ingredient is personal preference (I happen to not want to), but to say other foods richer in meat are superior, well, I don't really see anything to back that up?

If AAFCO isn't or shouldn't be the authority on nutrient levels in dog food, I'm not sure who should be. I know of no other group that has done more testing. I guess then each owner decides if the food they feed has enough nutrients or not which is not science. As for digestibility, feeding trials help substantiate that the food is digestible. Most holistic companies do not do this.

I'm not against the new, "premium" companies. I'm just wondering where a lot of the information online comes from. I assume a lot of it comes from whoever dogfoodanalysis uses are their source and that is not science. The number of stars that some randow person on the internet decided to assign a particular dog food should not influence whether or not I feed said food. (JMO)

I had no idea my last post could be a point of contention. I'll answer your post point by point.

I haven't read the book you mention. What I have seen for myself is veterinarians with differing views on dog foods.

On your second point. Any company can say what it wants about its food in its advertising or may may highlight things on the bag somewhere. However, the ingredient list must list the ingredients in descending order, so there is no making it sound good on the ingredient list. It is what it is. Also, I wasn't talking about Science Diet or any particular brand in my last post.

There is ample evidence that meat is preferable to corn as a first ingredient. Digestibility studies would show that and I think we all know from eating corn just how digestible it is/isn't. Also, in looking at vegan protein sources, corn doesn't seem to be on the top of the list.

States are actually the legal authority on food requirements, but the AAFCO closely mirrors most states so manufacturers use that in labeling their products. Here's what the AAFCO says on that...

"AAFCO also does not authorize, certify, test or otherwise approve animal feed. Only the individual states have the authority to approve animal feed to be distributed in their state under the authority of their state feed law. All of the states except for Alaska have a commercial feed law. While each state except for Alaska has their own feed law and regulations, the labeling requirements are similar and closely resemble AAFCO's model regulations; however, some state laws can be very dated and others may be more up-to-date. For this reason, many companies find it easier to label their products according to the AAFCO models than to try to comply with all of the different versions of the feed laws and regulations adopted by the states. If you follow the AAFCO Model Pet Food Regulations, you will probably meet most of all the states' requirements."

Though AAFCO does test in feed trials for digestibility, companies are not allowed to use that info on their labels. Here's something on that..

"The food is fed to a group of dogs or cats for a selected period of time and the level of undigested matter excreted in the feces is measured and used to calculate nutrient digestibility. Although all reputable manufacturers conduct digestibility tests on their foods, the Association of American Feed Control Officials has not yet established a standard protocol for digestibility studies and does not allow the inclusion of digestibility claims on pet food labels."

Also, feed trials can be misleading. Here's something on that.

"the food can be put through a feeding trial in accordance with AAFCO protocols. The feeding trial need take place for only six months in order for a food to claim it can maintain an adult animal�s health, which may not be long enough for certain deficiencies or excesses to show their effects."

So that leaves us with only the crude analysis to go by, which does not speak to digestibility. We have no idea how much of the nutrients actually get into a dogs bloodstream based on that limited information. If we went just by that, we could all just feed Ole Roy, as that food meets AAFCO guidelines.

I think ingredients do matter in judging a dog food. Here's what one Ph.D. had to say about it.

"A food’s digestibility is the collective proportion of all nutrients in a food that is available to the dog or cat for absorption from the gut (intestine) into the bloodstream. Nutrient bioavailability is the proportion of the absorbed nutrients that are carried to target tissues and are available for use by the body. Because a highly digestible food provides a higher proportion of absorbed nutrients than a less digestible food, digestibility provides one measure of a food’s nutritional value and quality. In general, as the quality of ingredients in the food increases, so will the food’s digestibility and nutrient bioavailability."

Like you, I don't think that one should pick a food just by the number of stars given it, either. As I said earlier, Dog Food Analysis and The Dog Food Project are not 'bibles', but are helpful tools. Everyone should do a little basic nutrition research when choosing a food.

Here's the links I used for this post.

General Overview

The Importance of Pet Food Digestibility and Palatability - Cameron County S.P.C.A.

Nutrition

[tem_sat]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Nutrition is always chaning; however, the "experts" in the field (DVM, PhD, DACVN) seem to agree pretty closely with each other. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition has contributors that are specialists from different areas of vet med. The main editors have their DVM and PhD while also being diplomats of the ACVN. They wrote/edited a textbook together, so I highly doubt their views on nutrition are too far apart.

Please keep in mind, the text, Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, was written by the founder of Science Diet (Mark Morris Sr.) and his son (Mark Morris Jr.). That leads me to believe that it is impossible to avoid bias in that book supporting the products they are in business to sell and profit from.