 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / November 2003Small Animal Clinical Nutrition book / Mark Morris Institute
Just an FYI - I purchased the SACN, 4th edition recently for some research. A few interesting things popped out (okay, one I checked on Google): 1. Mark Morris Institute (publisher and contributor) is an arm of Hill's Pet Nutrition (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). 2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a whole, and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections work or worked for either Hill's or MMI. 3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - Eukanuba/Iams, Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people interested in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent paranoid dolts. As a whole, I was unimpressed with the pet food section. I was really looking forward to some unbiased, clinical information on different types of pet diets. I won't respond to any flaming posts, but if anyone who has/has read this book wants to rationally discuss their views on this reference book, I would be interested to hear (read) your thoughts. K > Just an FYI - > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > K Heh. Reference book. I haven't read it, but look forward to this thread. *In advance* I will refrain from posting in this thread from here out because it is probably going to be yet another flame war. >>Just an FYI - >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I will refrain from posting in this thread from here out because it is > probably going to be yet another flame war. I hope not, but you're probably right. I would really like other peoples' opinion, and not just those who usually post to these kinds of threads. I'd like some "new angles", so to speak. :) >>> Just an FYI - >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> Hill's Pet Nutrition >>> (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). No, it is not an arm of Hill's. >>> 2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a >>> whole, and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections >>> work or worked for either Hill's or MMI. >>> >>> 3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - >>> Eukanuba/Iams, Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. It makes more sense to pay attention to the industry leaders and the products being consumed by a large base of the feline/canine population. Perhaps in future editions more industry brands will be included that are some of the smaller players. >>> And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people >>> interested in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent >>> paranoid dolts. Take a peek at the AAFCO nutrient chart. How is anyone preparing a homemade diet out of their home going to ensure all those minimum nutrient levels are being met? Along the same lines, how are they going to ensure there are not excesses of nutrients? One item alone, the calcium phosphorus ratio which is very important. I challenge anyone in here preparing a homemade diet to tell me how they ensure the delicate balance between these two minerals is achieved with each batch they prepare. >>> As a whole, I was unimpressed with the pet food section. I was >>> really looking forward to some unbiased, clinical information on >>> different types of pet diets. That implies your opinion was that the information was biased. Is that because you think this whole thing is too closely associated with Hill's... which it isn't. And biased towards what? >>> I won't respond to any flaming posts, but if anyone who has/has read >>> this book wants to rationally discuss their views on this reference [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > peoples' opinion, and not just those who usually post to these kinds of > threads. I'd like some "new angles", so to speak. :) The book was put together by quite a few specialists who know far more about animal nutrition than either you or me who are simply pet owners. This is a book the vast majority of the veterinary community endorses and so I, as a lay person in this case, will accept the information being offered as the best that science currently has. The science, evolving as it does, may change and so the book itself may change in future editions as well.  Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>> Just an FYI - >>>> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > The science, evolving as it does, may change and so the book itself may > change in future editions as well. Thank you Joe. That was a great post, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I appreciate it. :) > Just an FYI - > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people interested > in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent paranoid dolts. Specifically what was it in the book that gave you this opinion? > As a whole, I was unimpressed with the pet food section. I was really > looking forward to some unbiased, clinical information on different [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > K Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >> 3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - Eukanuba/Iams, >> Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. No, that's not true. There are numerous "no name" brands that I have never heard of in the book. Check out the appendix. Anybody else ever heard of Wafcol?? >>>3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - Eukanuba/Iams, >>>Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. > > No, that's not true. There are numerous "no name" brands that I have never > heard of in the book. Check out the appendix. Anybody else ever heard of > Wafcol?? Sure, available in the UK. Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >> No, that's not true. There are numerous "no name" brands that I have never >> heard of in the book. Check out the appendix. Anybody else ever heard of >> Wafcol?? > >Sure, available in the UK. Joe, is it a major brand over there? :) >>>No, that's not true. There are numerous "no name" brands that I have never >>>heard of in the book. Check out the appendix. Anybody else ever heard of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Joe, is it a major brand over there? :) I don't know, I'm over here. :-) I just popped the name into Google and a number of UK links popped up. Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>>No, that's not true. There are numerous "no name" brands that I have >never [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I just popped the name into Google and a number of UK links popped up. I thought you were in Canada vs. the UK. Wasn't sure if you had been over there before (I have not)? Have a good one! > Just an FYI - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1. Mark Morris Institute (publisher and contributor) is an arm of Hill's > Pet Nutrition (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). That is incorrect. It is correct that the founder of the Morris Animal Foundation, the largest animal philanthropy in the US is Dr. Mark Morris. It is also correct that Dr. Mark Morris, who invented Prescription Diet k/d in 1948 to treat Buddy the first Seeing Eye dog in the US, was also was the founder of Hill's - Mark Morris Associates, the publisher of SACN IV and Hill's have ZERO connections. MMA is now operated by Dr. Mark Morris Jr. the son of the founder. The only surviving financial connection of any kind is that Hill's still pays a royalty to the Morris Animal Foundation. That royalty has been in existance since the agreement between Burton Hill and Mark Morris in the early 50's. To state that Hill's in any way has any control or any influence over MMA is a complete laugh. You have to know Dr. Morris to understand what a laughable matter that is. > 2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a whole, > and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections work or > worked for either Hill's or MMI. That is also entirely incorrect. The editors of the book may be MMA employees and some like Dr. Roudebush are employees of Hill's, but they are the editors, not the authors. The authors are listed in the bibliography and I'm quite sure you observed that the bibliography behind each chapter illustrates that the authors are the individuals who know the most about that particular issue. For instance when you look at Chapter 19 about renal diseas you will find a bibliography containing 175 published studies by authors and researchers from around the world. Of those 175 published studies, only 3 were authored by a Hill's or MMA emplpoyee. Many more authors like Chew and Remillard are frequently in opposition to Hill's. > 3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - Eukanuba/Iams, > Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. I think you need to recognize that this book was intended for veterinarians who deal with all the clients who walk in the door. Thus the vast majority of common foods are covered. It would take another 10 pound book to cover the tiny little niche food producers. Nonetheless on pages 1074 - 1082 dozens of pet foods are covered - probably 99% of the foods actually fed to pets. Additionally dealing with specific food producers is not the critical factor in a book of this type, it is designed to provide basic foundational knowledge about small animal clinical nutrition. It is not designed to be a reference book for pet foods, but rather a reference book for nutrition. A veterinarian need not know that brand A has X level of nutrient, s/he needs to know that nutrient X impacts a renal failure animal in some manner. S/he can always find out what level nutrient X is in any given food. > And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people interested > in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent paranoid dolts. I doubt the authors of the book can help you with this problem. The facts are the facts, and the results of homemade diets are factually problematic. You may not like the facts but the authors of the book cannot account for your enmotional decisions. This is a book of facts and science, not emotionally driven ideas from the fringe lunatic arena based on internet fantasies and a goof ball in Australia. > As a whole, I was unimpressed with the pet food section. I was really > looking forward to some unbiased, clinical information on different > types of pet diets. And that is exaclty what you got. I would guess you are dissapointed because you were looking for data to support what cannot be supported in science, but can only be supported by opinions and internet fantasies. > I won't respond to any flaming posts, but if anyone who has/has read > this book wants to rationally discuss their views on this reference > book, I would be interested to hear (read) your thoughts. > > K What I would suggest is that you take some part of the book you disagree with, look at the end of the Chapter for the supporting bibliography materials, review those studies and then see if you can find alternative published studies which support your side of the story. Small animal clinical nutrition is still open to great debate, especially among the Diplomates of the American College of Internal Medicine and American College of Veterinary Nutrition. Often new science uncovers new insights and teaches us new things. Perhaps you can find some published study that is in opposition to SACN IV and we can have an interesting debate. >>Just an FYI - >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in the US, was also was the founder of Hill's - Mark Morris > Associates, the publisher of SACN IV and Hill's have ZERO connections. The Mark Morris *Institute* published the book and they are indeed connected to Hill's. > MMA is now operated by Dr. Mark Morris Jr. the son of the founder. The > only surviving financial connection of any kind is that Hill's still [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > MMA is a complete laugh. You have to know Dr. Morris to understand > what a laughable matter that is. Well, you better inform everyone else about the "laughing matter" because others in the veterinary field believe the exact same thing I do. >>2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a whole, >>and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections work or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > employees and some like Dr. Roudebush are employees of Hill's, but > they are the editors, not the authors. Two of the three editors are Hill's employees, and almost 20 out of 79 contributors works for both Hill's and the Mark Morris *Institute*. Yes, *both* - not one or the other. The authors are listed in the > bibliography and I'm quite sure you observed that the bibliography > behind each chapter illustrates that the authors are the individuals [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nonetheless on pages 1074 - 1082 dozens of pet foods are covered - > probably 99% of the foods actually fed to pets. Are you talking about the appendix area? If you will look, except for a couple of random foods, they all belong to the companies stated above. Additionally dealing > with specific food producers is not the critical factor in a book of > this type, it is designed to provide basic foundational knowledge [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > animal in some manner. S/he can always find out what level nutrient X > is in any given food. They gave nutritional analyses of the nutrients in those foods. I would have liked to see other brands analyzed as a comparison to the conglomerates. >>And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people interested >>in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent paranoid dolts. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in science, but can only be supported by opinions and internet > fantasies. Did you read what I wrote about flames, Steve? Your last two statements fit right in. When you have something interesting and un-insulting to say, I'd be happy to discuss the topic again with you. I don't feed my cats a homemade diet but I know many who do and I know the reason they do. They're not idiots, they're people who care about their pets. But obviously a book edited and contributed to largely by the pet food industry have a bias. You may disagree, but guess what? It's a free country. >>I won't respond to any flaming posts, but if anyone who has/has read >>this book wants to rationally discuss their views on this reference [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can find some published study that is in opposition to SACN IV and we > can have an interesting debate. I doubt it. You're quickly becoming as rude as Phil and Gaubster. >From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com >The Mark Morris *Institute* published the book and they are indeed >connected to Hill's. Why do you continue to believe this? It has already been shown NOT to be the case, yet you cling to it as if it is some sort of lifeboat? Why don't you just call them yourself and find out for yourself? >> To state that Hill's in any way has any control or any influence over >> MMA is a complete laugh. You have to know Dr. Morris to understand >> what a laughable matter that is. > >Well, you better inform everyone else about the "laughing matter" >because others in the veterinary field believe the exact same thing I do. What "others in the veterinary field" would that be? >>>2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a whole, >>>and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections work or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> employees and some like Dr. Roudebush are employees of Hill's, but >> they are the editors, not the authors. >Two of the three editors are Hill's employees, and almost 20 out of 79 >contributors works for both Hill's and the Mark Morris *Institute*. Yes, >*both* - not one or the other. There is a difference between being an editor and being an author. Or perhaps you didn't see that part of the post? >> And that is exaclty what you got. I would guess you are dissapointed >> because you were looking for data to support what cannot be supported >> in science, but can only be supported by opinions and internet >> fantasies. >Did you read what I wrote about flames, Steve? Your last two statements >fit right in. When you have something interesting and un-insulting to >say, I'd be happy to discuss the topic again with you. You think what he said was a flame? Boy do you have a lot to learn! > But >obviously a book edited and contributed to largely by the pet food >industry have a bias. Karen, get real. The book is not at all biased. That book contains cold, hard facts. That's it and nothing more. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there is some sort of conspiracy...which is what you seem to be implying. >> What I would suggest is that you take some part of the book you >> disagree with, look at the end of the Chapter for the supporting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I doubt it. You're quickly becoming as rude as Phil and Gaubster. 2 things Karen...Steve never comes across to me as being rude and he didn't in his post above. It does seem as if you can't handle truth very well. Second, I could be a whole lot ruder if I wanted to be. You just can't tolerate dissent, that's all. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >case, yet you cling to it as if it is some sort of lifeboat? Why don't you >just call them yourself and find out for yourself? I don't know why I'm wasting my time. But yes, it has been proven to be true: 1. Mark Morris Institute (publisher and contributor) is an arm of >>> Hill's Pet Nutrition >>> (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). >> Well well well, isn't that most interesting? It seems that when I >> posted this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Hill’s Pet >> Nutrition which aims to promote nutritional education in small animals." How much clearer does it need to be for you? ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >>From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > case, yet you cling to it as if it is some sort of lifeboat? Why don't you > just call them yourself and find out for yourself? Where? Where was the proof posted? I posted proof. So you show me yours. The rest of your post is insignificant to me. >>>To state that Hill's in any way has any control or any influence over >>>MMA is a complete laugh. You have to know Dr. Morris to understand [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I could be a whole lot ruder if I wanted to be. You just can't tolerate > dissent, that's all. >>>The Mark Morris *Institute* published the book and they are indeed >>>connected to Hill's. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Where? Where was the proof posted? I posted proof. So you show me yours. >The rest of your post is insignificant to me. Steve Crane. Did you call the organization itself for verification of what he said? >>>>The Mark Morris *Institute* published the book and they are indeed >>>>connected to Hill's. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Steve Crane. Did you call the organization itself for verification of what he > said? That's not proof. That's heresay. I want *proof*. >From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com >> Steve Crane. Did you call the organization itself for verification of what >he >> said? > >That's not proof. That's heresay. I want *proof*. In case you haven't figured it out by now, you aren't going to get "proof" in a forum such as this. The only way to find out is to call the organization yourself. But again, I don't think you really want to know, so that'll probably be "too much work" for you. >From: "Karen M." user@account.com >I purchased the SACN, 4th edition recently for some research. A few >interesting things popped out (okay, one I checked on Google): > >1. Mark Morris Institute (publisher and contributor) is an arm of Hill's >Pet Nutrition (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). Well well well, isn't that most interesting? It seems that when I posted this a few weeks ago, Steve Crane called me a liar. "Beginning in 1987, he served a four year term as Vice President and President of American Association of Veterinary Nutrition. From 1994-2000 Dr. Frey served on the Board of Directors for the Mark Morris Institute, an arm of Hill’s Pet Nutrition which aims to promote nutritional education in small animals." Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >>From: "Karen M." user@account.com > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > on the Board of Directors for the Mark Morris Institute, an arm of Hill’s Pet > Nutrition which aims to promote nutritional education in small animals." Hey, enough with the conspiracy theories. :-) Seems to me if nothing else Hill's is very active in the area of feline/canine nutrition. There are *numerous* authors contributing to that book. Are you suggesting that somehow they are ALL getting kickbacks from Hill's to twist their text around in such a way that makes Hill's products look good? I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>From: "Karen M." user@account.com >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I think that may be a bit of a stretch. Joe, you're just too polite to call her the idiot that she is. -mhd In news:puv9sv8ga6sjnfnkegfi5lrsamkvs4ujj3@4ax.com, hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> > Joe, you're just too polite to call her the idiot that she is. > > -mhd Ad hominem posts show what kind of person you are, and are useless. It wasn't even in reply to a post *to* you. See? There you made me break my own pact. pfftt >Ad hominem posts show what kind of person you are, and are useless. >It wasn't even in reply to a post *to* you. Listen you idiot, I am only going to tell you this one more time. A Usenet newsgroup does not consist of private conversations between individuals. How's that for Ad hominem! I'll comment on your posts anytime I feel like it. >See? There you made me break my own pact. pfftt Then you are lacking principals. -mhd In news:09hasv49msl8anfs1n5pj9s4mbbp0p1mlh@4ax.com, hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> composed with style: >> Ad hominem posts show what kind of person you are, and are useless. >> It wasn't even in reply to a post *to* you. > > Listen you idiot, I am only going to tell you this one more time. You told me that before? If so I suppose I wasn't bothered to read your useless psot. A > Usenet newsgroup does not consist of private conversations between > individuals. Of course not. You show that time and time again. I suppose you feel special now that someone answered your useless post since most of your posts aren't even answered at all. Hmm, the name? Ham and cheese between the knees? WTF is that? Sounds like an STD to me. <snicker> How's that for Ad hominem! Not a very good one. > I'll comment on your posts anytime I feel like it. Please do. I enjoy a laugh. >> See? There you made me break my own pact. pfftt > > Then you are lacking principals. If you say so. *rolls eyes* >Ham and cheese >between the knees? WTF is that? Sounds like an STD to me. American diner short order cook jargon for ham and cheese on a kaiser. The thing I like about it, it is like a rorschach test to see what crap lurks in peoples minds. -mhd In news:uppasvggia5m7rske1k7240ratg25loh7n@4ax.com, hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> composed with style: >> Ham and cheese >> between the knees? WTF is that? Sounds like an STD to me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -mhd Ah. So what does your Rorschach test tell you about my comment wrt your name sounding like an std? Keep in mind I've never had need to know diner-waitress talk. > In news:uppasvggia5m7rske1k7240ratg25loh7n@4ax.com, > hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your name sounding like an std? Keep in mind I've never had need to > know diner-waitress talk. I'm breaking out my marshmallows! ;-) Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck > I'm breaking out my marshmallows! ;-) I'm laughing so hard I can barely type..... >Ah. So what does your Rorschach test tell you about my comment wrt >your name sounding like an std? Several things come to mind but I'll defer to your superior knowledge about STDs. In news:re4bsvslq4ge7vunc6g0gclo9n7r9t02qt@4ax.com, hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> composed with style: >> Ah. So what does your Rorschach test tell you about my comment wrt >> your name sounding like an std? > > Several things come to mind but I'll defer to your superior > knowledge about STDs. Heh. Cop out and another ad hominem attack. Just as I expected. >In news:re4bsvslq4ge7vunc6g0gclo9n7r9t02qt@4ax.com, >hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> >> "Cheryl" <jlhshadow@devnull.hotmail.com> wrote:>> >>> Ah. So what does your Rorschach test tell you about my comment wrt >>> your name sounding like an std? >> >> Several things come to mind but I'll defer to your superior >> knowledge about STDs. >Heh. Cop out and another ad hominem attack. Just as I expected. Huh? Read the above drivel coming from you. What response do you expect? As usual another great comeback. -mhd In news:juafsv4cpr012e6l9oqnqvm8tug71k0d87@4ax.com, hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> composed with style: >> In news:re4bsvslq4ge7vunc6g0gclo9n7r9t02qt@4ax.com, >> hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com <hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -mhd I asked what does your Rorschach test tell you about my comment WRT your name sounding like an STD? How hard a question is that to answer? You're the one who claims to be analyzing people based on what they think of your nym. You don't share your findings? >From: Joe Canuck Joe_Canuck@Canada.ca >>>From: "Karen M." user@account.com >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >suggesting that somehow they are ALL getting kickbacks from Hill's to >twist their text around in such a way that makes Hill's products look good? Now did I say that??!!!! I just don't appreciate being called a liar by Steve Crane when what I posted a couple of weeks ago apparently is true. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >>Seems to me if nothing else Hill's is very active in the area of >>feline/canine nutrition. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Lauren Lauren, what you said ISN'T true as refuted factually by Steve Crane. Have you even seen the text? I bet not. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>>Seems to me if nothing else Hill's is very active in the area of >>>feline/canine nutrition. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >you >even seen the text? I bet not. Are you really that stupid????? ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >>Lauren, what you said ISN'T true as refuted factually by Steve Crane. Have >>you >>even seen the text? I bet not. > >Are you really that stupid????? I like how you respond w/ name calling! I'll ask again even though you don't like to answer direct questions put to you...."Have you even seen the text?" > >From: Joe Canuck Joe_Canuck@Canada.ca > > Now did I say that??!!!! I just don't appreciate being called a liar by Steve > Crane when what I posted a couple of weeks ago apparently is true. > > Lauren But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or better yet check with the Secretary of the State of Kansas and find out who owns and controls MMA. It's a 501C3 organization and it's records are publicly available. >But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or >better yet check with the Secretary of the State of Kansas and find >out who owns and controls MMA. It's a 501C3 organization and it's >records are publicly available. Seems to be a common misconception. "Mark Morriss life took another unexpected turn in 1988 when the Colgate Palmolive Company, which had acquired Hills Pet Nutrition as an incidental part of a much larger merger, approached him with an offer to buy Mark Morris Associates and his research laboratory facilities. When someone wants to buy something, he notes, thats the time when you should sell it. So at age 55 he found himself very well fixed financially and faced with quite a bit of free time." http://www.vet.cornell.edu/publicresources/magazine/0311/Recipe.pdf >From: Lorraine lsquared@pobox.takeoutifyoudontlikespam.com >>But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >>about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >http://www.vet.cornell.edu/publicresources/magazine/0311/Recipe.pdf Thanks for posting this, Lorraine. Interesting. I didn't know Mark Morris was actually the person behind Science Diet. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or >better yet check with the Secretary of the State of Kansas and find >out who owns and controls MMA. It's a 501C3 organization and it's >records are publicly available. I'm bored, OK? According to http://www.accesskansas.org/apps/corporations.html?search=number&term=0175620&fr om=get_term http://www.accesskansas.org/apps/corporations.html?search=number&term=1322155&fr om=get_term http://www.accesskansas.org/apps/corporations.html?search=number&term=0303347&fr om=get_term Mark Morris Associates, Inc was merged out of existence while Mark Morris Associates, L.P. was disolved with the last annual report published in 1990. However, the Mark Morris Institue does indeed exist according to http://www.accesskansas.org/apps/corporations.html?search=number&term=2097871&fr om=get_term as a "Not for Profit Corporation" in good standing. The name of Dr. Mark Morris, Jr. does not appear and the address shows 400 SW 8th, Topeka. I haven't worked downtown for a while now, and I don't venture there often, but if I went to find that building, wouldn't I be standing on the corner of 8th and Harrison, and I wouldn't I find a Hill's sign in front of it? I did find a Morris Animal Foundation under charities at http://www.kscharitycheck.org/results.asp?solid=2705556&seqid=1 >>But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >>about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I did find a Morris Animal Foundation under charities at > http://www.kscharitycheck.org/results.asp?solid=2705556&seqid=1 Interesting research, good job. Perhaps there is a connection, even if the only one being they both belong to the same corporate family. How far it extends beyond that only an insider could say for sure. I have to wonder how much communication goes on between companies under a large corporate wing. I imagine at the upper management level there may be some. But really, the bottom line here is that the SACN contains essentially information about nutrition science which would be slammed down if it was totally off the wall and biased towards Hill's products. Out of curiosity I check the PETA site and was somewhat discourged to find the Colgate-Palmolive name under the list of "Companies that test on Animals". <sigh> What are we to do? My cat is doing very well on Science Diet products and I believe Hill's when they say they don't do anything harmful with animals under their care. If it wasn't true, the lawsuits would be flying fast and furious... I would think. <shrug> Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>> But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >>> about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > <shrug> Joe, honestly that's a hard decision. Personally, I wouldn't feed it, but that's the line I'm comfortable with. If your cats are doing well and if you're satisfied with SD's standard of care, then maybe that's okay with you and there's nothing wrong with putting the welfare of yours first. :) >>But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming >>about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I did find a Morris Animal Foundation under charities at > http://www.kscharitycheck.org/results.asp?solid=2705556&seqid=1 Now apparently the foundations of AAFCO were based on Mark Morris's work. So, indirectly Hill's has played a role in the formation of the AAFCO standards that most foods now adhere to. Seems to me they do good work. :-) Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck > >But as USUAL, what you posted is incorrect. Nothing new or alarming > >about that I'm used to it. As I said before, give MMA a call, or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I did find a Morris Animal Foundation under charities at > http://www.kscharitycheck.org/results.asp?solid=2705556&seqid=1 Obviously some basic knowledge is required here. Resident Agent STEVEN K. MORSE 400 SW 8TH 5TH FL TOPEKA, KS 66603-0000 County: SN The resident "agent" of MMI is an attorney, who also works for Hill's. That does not make him the be all, and end all, of the 501c3 entity. Often people choose to use their work addresses for things that are in the public view - simply a matter of safety. You will find me listed as the registered agent for Kansas DeMolay - another 501c3 incorporated entity in Kansas. That organization is the Kansas State division of the world's largest teenage fraternity. Just because I am listed as the resident agent, in no way means I have absolute control over the organization. That resides at International - www.demolay.org. By your way of thinking if Steve Morse is involved with other philanthropic organizations like the Boy Scouts, that would also indicate that Hill's controls the Boy Scouts and DeMolay? Of course not. The Board of Directors of any 501c3 organization holds the control. > By your way of thinking if Steve Morse is involved By my way of thinking? Where did I state what I was thinking? I was thinking was that I might be wrong on the address being the same as that for Hill's offices. I have since confirmed [to myself] that I was correct. The rest of the post was simply what I had found in about 15 minutes of research. I was bored and a bit curious about the discrepancy between what you were saying and what was quoted in articles from KSU and then by Cornell along with the MMA/MMI discrepancy. If one looks at the faculty listed by MMI at http://www.markmorris.org/mmi/main/credentials.jsp one would have to wonder about a Hills/MMI connection. Of ten people listed, nine are currently employed by Hills Pet. The remaining is a former Hills employee. What would be the address for MMI? They only list a PO box on their web site. They do have phone numbers listed there. I wonder where they terminate? 1035 NE 43rd, perhaps? Yes, I'm thinking that they probably do. FWIW, I really don't think there is a big pet food conspiracy involved in SACN. I have not seen the book, and probably never will. I have a 17-year-old cat that was raised on dry SD. She is basically healthy, but has developed a few problems in her old age. I have only looked at other brands because I want to add wet food into her diet and she shakes her paw and walks away from canned SD after just one sniff. So, I read the food threads as painful as they may be. L >>From: Joe Canuck Joe_Canuck@Canada.ca > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Now did I say that??!!!! I just don't appreciate being called a liar by Steve > Crane when what I posted a couple of weeks ago apparently is true. Okay, fair enough. So what is the point then? That Science Diet is somehow connected with the people putting together this book? Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>> From: "Karen M." user@account.com >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I think that may be a bit of a stretch. The point is that Steve is trying to say Hill's and the MMI aren't connected. Well, they are. >> There are *numerous* authors contributing to that book. Are you >> suggesting that somehow they are ALL getting kickbacks from Hill's to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The point is that Steve is trying to say Hill's and the MMI aren't >connected. Well, they are. Karen, do you have any sort of *proof*?? >>>There are *numerous* authors contributing to that book. Are you >>>suggesting that somehow they are ALL getting kickbacks from Hill's to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Karen, do you have any sort of *proof*?? I already posted one. > >From: "Karen M." user@account.com > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lauren I can't recall if I called you a liar, that is not my usual wording. I will once again say exactly the same thing I said before - Hill's has none, zero, zip, nada, zilch control over what MMA (Mark Morris Associates) does. I'd suggest you give MMA a call and ask them yourself. Dr. Mark Morris Jr. who runs the show today would get an amusing chuckle out of such foolish ideas. > Just an FYI - > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > K BTW, this text that you seem to be looking down your nose at is used in most of the veterinary schools for training purposes. What unique qualifications do you have to be essentially trashing a technical text on animal nutrition? Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >> Just an FYI - >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > What unique qualifications do you have to be essentially trashing a > technical text on animal nutrition? I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, accurate information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. I put forth my opinion and am looking for others to civilly give their opinion. I don't see what is wrong with that?? > I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, accurate > information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. I put forth > my opinion and am looking for others to civilly give their opinion. I > don't see what is wrong with that?? Give me a break Karen. You went looking at a factual scientific text book and hoped to find absolution for violating the facts and data that has been developed through years of research and years of scientific study. What you found instead wasn't to your liking as it didn't reinforce emotionally made decisions. The text is not designed to do that, it is designed to provide hard scientific facts that can be backed up by peer reviewed published studies, not internet fantasy and wishful thinking. You will not find more objective and accurate information about small animal clinical nutrition anywhere else. It simply does not exists. The hundreds of authors in this text that are contributors to the peer reviewed and published studies are simply reporting OBJECTIVE and ACCURATE facts, nothing more and nothing less. >>I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, accurate >>information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. I put forth [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > reviewed and published studies are simply reporting OBJECTIVE and > ACCURATE facts, nothing more and nothing less. Steve, you know nothing about me. You don't know why I bought the book (though you could if you read posts with half a thought), you don't know what I was looking for. I actually just recommended the book in an article for sections I thought had some good information. Maybe if you weren't lying right now about the Mark Morris *INSTITUTE* and Hill's being connected, and maybe if you weren't an ass-kissing employee of Hill's I give what you just said about the book's "objectivity" with a bit more truth. But I am developing a lower and lower opinion of you by the second because you're becoming a real a.shole. I asked in my original post, *NO FLAMES*, but you can't do that, can you? So do me a favor. Post for someone else to respond to, because I won't with your shitty attitude. >>> I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, >>> accurate information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > favor. Post for someone else to respond to, because I won't with your > shitty attitude. Karen, you've gone into the flame territory yourself up there. On what basis are you suggesting the book is not objective? Is it because of your view that MM and Hill's are connected. ? Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>> I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, >>>> accurate information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > On what basis are you suggesting the book is not objective? Is it > because of your view that MM and Hill's are connected. ? You're right and I apologize. I had a long, very tiring day and I shouldn't have posted in that kind of mind frame. So I apologize. I will answer your questions, Joe. But you're kind of asking them in too many posts, so forgive me if later I answer them in one. :) >From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com You're really a piece of work, aren't you? Do you treat everybody you deal with in this manner...derision and contempt? Why are you so bitter and mean? Why do you hate yourself so? >>>I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, accurate >>>information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. I put forth >>>my opinion and am looking for others to civilly give their opinion. >Steve, you know nothing about me. You don't know why I bought the book >(though you could if you read posts with half a thought), you don't know >what I was looking for. >Maybe if you >weren't lying right now about the Mark Morris *INSTITUTE* and Hill's >being connected, and maybe if you weren't an ass-kissing employee of >Hill's I give what you just said about the book's "objectivity" with a >bit more truth. >But I am developing a lower and lower opinion of you by >the second because you're becoming a real a.shole. I asked in my >original post, *NO FLAMES*, but you can't do that, can you? So do me a >favor. Post for someone else to respond to, because I won't with your >shitty attitude. You don't like who he works for and so that somehow discredits what he has to say? Grow up. Apparently you don't know what flaming is. Don't be so thin-skinned. You sure can dish it out though, can't you? You would rather throw flames around yourself apparently. >>From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com > > You're really a piece of work, aren't you? Do you treat everybody you deal > with in this manner...derision and contempt? Why are you so bitter and mean? > Why do you hate yourself so? Why do you care? >>>>I am a pet owner who cares about my pets and wants objective, accurate >>>>information. I am well aware of what this book is used for. I put forth [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > thin-skinned. You sure can dish it out though, can't you? You would rather > throw flames around yourself apparently. Actually, G2. I just apologized in another thread. You're right. I posted something while in a bad mood and that wasn't right. I do stand by my comment of not wanting to discuss the matter with him, because his thread was just as bad. >From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com >> You're really a piece of work, aren't you? Do you treat everybody you deal >> with in this manner...derision and contempt? Why are you so bitter and >mean? >> Why do you hate yourself so? > >Why do you care? I think it would be nice if everybody tried to be a little more respectful. It's seems apparent by your post that you are a bitter person and were lashing out. >> You don't like who he works for and so that somehow discredits what he has >to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Actually, G2. I just apologized in another thread. You're right. I >posted something while in a bad mood and that wasn't right. That's big of you. I hope you have a better day! :) > Steve, you know nothing about me. You don't know why I bought the book > (though you could if you read posts with half a thought), you don't know > what I was looking for. I believe you stated you bought the book looking for "objective and accurate" source of information. I actually just recommended the book in an > article for sections I thought had some good information. Maybe if you > weren't lying right now about the Mark Morris *INSTITUTE* and Hill's > being connected, and maybe Again I will repeat the same thing I have said - don't believe me - call them, check with the Secretary of State in Kansas. MMI is wholly owned by Mark Morris Associates, who also manages a wide variety of animal philanthropic organizations like the Morris Animal Foundation. Hill's has zero control over what MMI, Morris Animal Foundation, or MMA choose to do. Give Dr. Mark Morris a call and ask him if he takes his orders from Hill's. That ought to be worth a good laugh. if you weren't an ass-kissing employee of > Hill's I give what you just said about the book's "objectivity" with a > bit more truth. But I am developing a lower and lower opinion of you by > the second because you're becoming a real a.shole. I asked in my > original post, *NO FLAMES*, but you can't do that, can you? So do me a > favor. Post for someone else to respond to, because I won't with your > shitty attitude. I'm a real "a.shole" because *you* are wrong? You started the post with nothing but invective and flames in an attempt to denigrate the single best scientific source of information that exists on small animal clinical nutrition. You did so because you are motivated to denigrate facts and science because they don't fit with your narrow emotionally developed decisions around pet feeding. You began the thread with invective and derision and then expected everyone to be nice and sweet to you? Just who do you think you were going to kid with such garbage. Again I would suggest you find factual errors in the book and report them back to us, rather than attempting to shoot the messenger. It's certainly one sign of losing the debate when you cannot attack the message and can only attack the messenger. You can't attack the facts in the book, nor the credentials of the hundreds of authors in the book. You can't find silly nonsense to support your emotional decisions - so what's your response? You attack the messengers, the hundreds of authors who did the science, did the studies, and reported them in peer reviewed published medical journals around the world. >>> Just an FYI - >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > my opinion and am looking for others to civilly give their opinion. I > don't see what is wrong with that?? Doing a book review on a highly technical book requires that one have a certain understanding of material being discussed in order to comment on it with some degree of authority. Now I accept your comments as your opinion, but when I asked you for specifics from the book as to why you formed the opinion that you did you never responded. So I will ask once again...Specifically what was it in the book that gave you this opinion? Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>> Just an FYI - >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > certain understanding of material being discussed in order to comment on > it with some degree of authority. I do have some understanding of the material. Like a veterinarian? Heavens no! But I can slog around. :) > Now I accept your comments as your opinion, but when I asked you for > specifics from the book as to why you formed the opinion that you did > you never responded. > > So I will ask once again...Specifically what was it in the book that > gave you this opinion? Joe, I honestly have not had time to get that indepth. I promise tomorrow after I gorge myself and get home I will answer this question. :) >>>> Just an FYI - >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > So I will ask once again...Specifically what was it in the book that > gave you this opinion? Joe, I told you I would answer this tonite, and I'm not. I just got back from having Thanksgiving with my family, and part of them are going through a really shitty time right now. And you know what? This stuff doesn't really matter. I don't care what strangers think I do or don't know about nutrition. I started posting on this group because I love animals, not to haggle about veterinary textbooks. I stand by what I posted here, but it's just my opinion. You can think I'm wrong and vice versa. I was probably a masochist for even posting this thread in the first place. I sure know I was frustrated. So I hope you had a good holiday, or just a plain good day, and sorry I broke my promise, though I doubt you'll lose any sleep over it. I'm going to go back to cheering on (and ribbing) my fellow cat lovers. Best to you, K > So I hope you had a good holiday, or just a plain good day, and > sorry I broke my promise, though I doubt you'll lose any sleep over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Best to you, > K I'm glad you did. None of us know enough about cat nutrition otherwise we wouldn't be here. I think the views of some of the posters are what get us going, not just what they say, but how they say it. They are insulting to anyone who doesn't agree and says so. Sorry your holiday sounded trying.. same here hon. Hope it's better today! I hope you didn't attempt :"Black Friday" shopping. lol NOT ME!!! hehehe Rainy day here any way. >>So I hope you had a good holiday, or just a plain good day, and >>sorry I broke my promise, though I doubt you'll lose any sleep over [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > today! I hope you didn't attempt :"Black Friday" shopping. lol NOT > ME!!! hehehe Rainy day here any way. I can put up with the insults to get the good information... then give a few jabs back. ;-) Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>So I hope you had a good holiday, or just a plain good day, and >>sorry I broke my promise, though I doubt you'll lose any sleep over [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > today! I hope you didn't attempt :"Black Friday" shopping. lol NOT > ME!!! hehehe Rainy day here any way. No way!! I've been watching movies on TNT, like "Uncle Buck" and reading. After this I'm taking Bub out for a little exercise (or is it the other way around??). I ate so much yesterday it was gross. :) K I hope you didn't attempt :"Black Friday" shopping. >> lol NOT ME!!! hehehe Rainy day here any way. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > K Most of us didn't really eat that much, surprisingly. Some have been sick (my sis's twin tots) and her hubby, and now my mom who called me just a little bit ago and said she was at the dr today and has a virus. She cooked most of the dinner. lol I hope my immune system is up. YIKES. Between rain storms I got the rest of my christmas lights up outside. I didn't really want to make a big deal out of Christmas this year but I'm trying hard to at least find some spirit. I might even put up a tree if Miss Bonnie can stay out of it. It will be her first. Shamrocks, too, really since last year he was attacking the tree even before ornaments went on so I left it with just lights. This morning I had to put her back in "her" room to try to get a urine sample. She's still acting weird with the litter box and only peeing small amounts frequently even after the ABs. The vet was booked up until Monday so I said I'd try to get a sample and bring it in. They said to line an empty litter box with a trash bag but though I saw claw marks like she was in it scratching, she wouldn't go. After the noon time limit to bring the sample in, I let her out and of course she was running around lookign for a box to go in. I thought maybe I could bring the sample a little past noon so tried to redirect her to the plastic bag lined tray, but no luck. The sneaky girl ran downstairs to use the box there. I guess it'll have to be taken by the vet if I can't get it tomorrow am. She has an appt Monday evening and it'll be a miracle if I can even get her there. > I hope you didn't attempt :"Black Friday" shopping. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the vet if I can't get it tomorrow am. She has an appt Monday evening > and it'll be a miracle if I can even get her there. Vitamins vitamins vitamins!! Take your vitamins! That's what I've been doing so far this season after I got a nasty cough. And since then I've felt fine. You're so good, I haven't done *anything* with decorations yet. I'm trying to tell myself I'm going to get the dining room painted this weekend while BF is away. It's so nice to be lazy. I'm sorry Bonnie is being difficult. Why do cats have to make such a big fuss over their urine? Don't they understand we need it??? LOL! > Just an FYI - > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1. Mark Morris Institute (publisher and contributor) is an arm of Hill's > Pet Nutrition (http://www.vet.ksu.edu/index/awards/2002/frey.htm). ...and? > 2. An interestingly large number of contributors to the book as a whole, > and a majority of the contributors to the pet food sections work or > worked for either Hill's or MMI. ...and? > 3. Only large industry brands were studied in the book - Eukanuba/Iams, > Purina, Hill's, and Nutro. The book wasn't written to critique or evaluate the different brands... > And, on a less factual note (more my opinion) it made people interested > in making homemade diets look largely like unintelligent paranoid dolts. I didn't get that impression... > As a whole, I was unimpressed with the pet food section. I was really > looking forward to some unbiased, clinical information on different > types of pet diets. If you're not satisfied, return it for a refund... or exchange it for Pitcairn, Billinghurst, Yarnell, etc.. Those books will probably tell you exactly what you want hear... You could probably exchange SACN for all the au naturel books put together... Btw, Yarnell's book has a section on astrology for cats... > I won't respond to any flaming posts, but if anyone who has/has read > this book wants to rationally discuss their views on this reference > book, I would be interested to hear (read) your thoughts. Its an excellent book. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.