 |
 | 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 / February 2006Low-phosphorus cat food
Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? When I first got Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed him special food for urinary tract issues. I have done so faithfully. But he prefers the kibbles over canned food, so I now have a big bag of Wal Mart "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" kibbles, which I have been feeding him. Is this a good enough choice, or should I be getting a better brand? Charlie Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? When I first > got Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Charlie You need to ask? Wal-mart??? ;)  SignatureMargarita Salt "...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or entirely good... motives are often more important than actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt > Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? When I first got > Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Charlie Depends on what kind of crystals he had - there are two types of crystals that form - struvite and oxylate. I don't know anything about Special Kitty brand food but it's probably formulated for struvite crystals. You might want to ask the vet about the type of crystals Tweaker had and if the formulation of the food is sufficient to control them. -L. > Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? No. "Urinary tract health" diets are usually lower in magnesium and higher in acidity to help prevent struvite crystals. Low phosphorus diets may be renoprotective. When I first got > Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed > him special food for urinary tract issues. I assume the crystals were struvite. I'm not aware of any OTC CaOx diets. I have done so faithfully. > But he prefers the kibbles over canned food, so I now have a big bag > of Wal Mart "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" kibbles, which I have > been feeding him. Is this a good enough choice, or should I be > getting a better brand? Store brands are usually the lowest (and worst) quality food on the market. Usually, one manufacturer makes the same food for several different stores- only the labels and bags are different. The manufacturer wins the contract by bidding the lowest- which means they must use the cheapest (and usually the lowest quality) ingredients. You can usually tell if the food is generic by the label. Most generic foods are labeled "Manufactured by XXX for XXX" or "Manufactured For XXX by XXX" instead of "Manufactured By" (Hill's, Nutro, Natura, etc). The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually adapts to the different texture. If he absolutely won't eat canned food, I'd go with Hill's c/d and regular urine checks for crystals if the problem is struvite. For CaOx crystals , I'd go with Hill's x/d. >The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a >little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually >adapts to the different texture. If he absolutely won't eat canned food, I'd >go with Hill's c/d and regular urine checks for crystals if the problem is >struvite. For CaOx crystals , I'd go with Hill's x/d. He's not hard to feed, believe me. He won't refuse anything, but he likes the kibbles better. If I give him a can of FF, he nibbles, but he devours kibbles. I didn't go with the Wal Mart food because it was cheap, but rather because it was the only dry food I've ever found (in a regular store) that specified it was for urinary tract issues. I just got this one bag, but it's a big bag, 8lb. I'll have to ask the vet whether the crystals were struvite or calcium. Sounds like geology class. Charlie >>The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a >>little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because it was the only dry food I've ever found (in a regular store) > that specified it was for urinary tract issues. Who makes the Wal Mart food? Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis? > I just got this one bag, but it's a big bag, 8lb. > > I'll have to ask the vet whether the crystals were struvite or > calcium. Sounds like geology class. > > Charlie > Who makes the Wal Mart food? It will depend upon what part of the country and what week. It could be Heinz, Doanes, or several others > Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis? That probably won't help. First of all it would only apply to that lot of food, the next lot might be different. Typically cat foods are not tested for urine pH values, a critical element in this cats case. >Who makes the Wal Mart food? > >Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis? I hope it isn't Diamond. -mhd Charlie wrote; >>I now have a big bag of Wal Mart >> "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" >> kibbles, which I have been feeding >> him. Is this a good enough choice, or >> should I be getting a better brand? I can't vouch for Walmart cat food but I do use a lot of their "great value" and "equate" products and find them to be very good. Their coffee is especially good. It's possible that their cat food could be good also. ---MIKE--- >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire >> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') --MIKE--- wrote: > I can't vouch for Walmart cat food but I do use a lot of their "great > value" and "equate" products and find them to be very good. Their > coffee is especially good. It's possible that their cat food could be > good also. Wal-wart does sell fairly good products since they can squeeze just about anyone, whether the sad workers or the manufacturers. For low phosphorus, I noticed that the Walls sell Fancy Feast by 12 in a case: *Grilled Chicken Feast in Gravy 0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) 74 kcals 12 cans for $4.50 which is 37.5 cents a can, about 10 cents cheaper than the surrounding supermarkets if purchased singularly. For a mass product in a Wal-mart or supermarket, this is about as good as it gets. These are THREE OUNCE cans. For the best, supermarket see below for a Friskies that is for the urinary tract that is 0.61% phosphorus levels and low pH. This is not what I would call low phosphorus, it is borderline. LOW is less than 0.80% on a Dry Matter Basis. But compared to most canned food and especially to most Fancy Feast which is usually double this phosphorus, it ain't bad. The 0.18% is As Fed and is the usual way Fancy Feast covers the info. This is not a dry matter basis which excludes the water, usually around 78% for Fancy Feast. To get DMB from AS, just divide by 0.78. Why they keep their data so hidden I don't know. For some of their new products, I still cannot get the phosphorus levels from Purina/Nestle which produces all this. After three months, they did call me back for some products. Three months! Who? What? I forgot what I had asked, having given up on Purina/Nestle/FancyFeast. Now Purina does make special for urinary tract, which I rarely see in supermarkets: Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner, 5.5 ounces, 31 kcal/oz. Special for urinary tract. 176.1 kcalories, note this is for the 5.5 ounces, not the 3 ounce cans above. Urinary, low magnesium and low pH, phosphorus is 0.61 DMB, 0.17% phosphorus? In previous formulation Ocean Whitefish was superhigh phosphorus. Have to be careful. This phosphorus is 0.61% which is nice and low, so perhaps look for this but be careful. Many of the names sound the same, use the same words, but are NOT the same. > --MIKE--- wrote: > The 0.18% is As Fed and is the usual way Fancy Feast covers the info. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > products. Three months! Who? What? I forgot what I had asked, having > given up on Purina/Nestle/FancyFeast. This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005 All DMB values Fancy Feast Fish & Shrimp Calcium 1.91% phos 1.56% Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblet Feast Ca 1.74%, phos 1.53% Fancy Feast Savory Salmon Feast Ca 1.45% phos 1.45% Fancy Feast Ocean Whitefish & Tuna Feast Ca 1.68%, phos 1.64% Friskies Prime Filets Turkey Dinner Ca 1.79%, phos 1.23% Friskies Turkey & Cheese Dinner Ca 1.32%, phos 1.01% Friskies Salmon Dinner Ca 1.28%, phos 1.28% Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner Ca 1.53%, phos 1.15% for comparison purposes - all canned Pro Plan Adult Ocean Fish & Crab Ca 2.72%, phos 2.07% Prescription Diet Feline k/d Ca 0.61%, phos 0.34% Prescription Diet Feline x/d Ca 0.69%, phos 0.53% Science Diet Feline Liver & Chicken Entree Ca 0.89%, phos 0.65% > This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005 > All DMB values [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Friskies Salmon Dinner Ca 1.28%, phos 1.28% > Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner Ca 1.53%, phos 1.15% Why did you only post the Fancy Feast and Friskies diets with the highest phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even *lower* in phosphorus than some Science Diets. Fancy Feast Marinated Chicken Feast:.................0.09% (AF) - 0.40% (DMB) Fancy Feast Marinated Salmon Feast:..................0.13% (AF) - 0.59% (DMB) Fancy Feast Seafood Filets Tuna & Oceanfish in Aspic: 0.16% (AF) - 0.72% (DMB) Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast:..........................0.17% (AF) - 0.77% (DMB) Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast:...........................0.17% (AF) - 0.77% (DMB) Fancy Feast Marinated Beef Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Fancy Feast Grilled Chicken Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Fancy Feast Grilled Tuna Feast:..........................0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Fancy Feast Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast:......... .0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Fancy Feast Grilled Turkey Feast:......................0.21% (AF) - 0.95% (DMB) Fancy Feast Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast: 0.21% (AF) - 0.95% (DMB) Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Chicken in Gravy...............................0.15% (AF)-0.68% (DMB) Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Fish With Ocean Whitefish & Tuna....0.19% (AF)-0.86% (DMB) Friskies Fine Cuts With Tuna In Sauce...........................................0.19% (AF))-0.86% (DMB) Friskies Prime Filets With Chicken In Gravy...................................0.17% (AF)- 0.77% (DMB) Friskies Seared Filets With Salmon................................................0.19% (AF))-0.86% (DMB) Friskies Seared Filets With Turkey & Giblets..................................0.15% (AF))-0.68% (DMB) Friskies Shredded Chicken & Salmon Dinner in Gravy....................0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Friskies Sliced Gourmet Grill..........................................................0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) Friskies Special Diet Sliced Chicken In Gravy................................0.17% (AF)- 0.77% (DMB) Phil asked- >>Why did you only post the Fancy Feast >> and Friskies diets with the highest >> phosphorus content? Because he is trying to promote Science Diet! ---MIKE--- >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire >> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') > > This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005 > > All DMB values [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even *lower* in > phosphorus than some Science Diets. Because those are the only ones Purina lists in the veterinary product guide - you'd have to ask them why they only put those products in the guide. I did not pick and choose but listed every one of the foods that Purina puts in the veterinary product guide book. > > Why did you only post the Fancy Feast and Friskies diets with the highest > > phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even *lower* in > > phosphorus than some Science Diets. > > Because those are the only ones Purina lists in the veterinary product > guide - But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets are high in phosphorus. > But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus > diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets > are high in phosphorus. That's a toughie. On one hand, he works for Science Diet, a rather small company compared to Nestle[Purina] that specializes in food for felines and canines. That company actually provides listings that almost all the others cannot be bothered to. So if he wishes to advocate, well, okay, a little provocation may be good. And you are here to point out any questions about all of this. And it's good, also, in a way, that Science Diet has Steve here. At least they care enough to squawk. On the other hand, I cannot see how a handful of their many product constitute *many* lower phosphorus diets. I don't know much about this stuff. But I counted up, just once, all the varieties of Fancy Feast, and I counted somewhere around 60. Out of that 60, I found 5, based on your posts and my readings, that I would consider acceptable phosphorus levels for a feline diet. 5/60 = 1/12 which is, wait, 8.3%. That's not a lot. For the average uninformed consumer, there is a 1 in 12 chance of picking up a Fancy Feast that is reasonably safe in phosphorus levels. That's not good. See later. I biased this counting because I discounted beef products. See below. If people only buy Fancy Feast for one meal a week, then, okay, not much of a problem. If buying for everyday, well, what happens to a cat on a diet where the phosphorus levels go start around usually 1% to 2%? And the recommended or better levels are less than 1%, maybe around 0.7% for most cats, to be on the safe side? Friskies has about 44 varieties. Maybe 9 are okay with 4 below 0.8%. Fancy Feast has about 9 okay too. I count only 5 since I discard all those with beef in it. Don't laugh. Mad cow disease and all that and my cat won't touch the beef. Smart kitty. But 9/60 is a better count, so that's 3/20 or 15% chance, almost double my original number of 8.3%. In any case, the odds are against picking cans that are low in phosphorus. A very good chance to pick cans that are high. Does it matter? It might and some seem to think so. I might have miscounted Fancy Feast now. They may have less varieties than they used to. They are repackaging the brand. I will search for the brands you list that are low. But it's all a hassle since most of these products are high in phosphorus. I have to inspect each can and most of the cans are very high in phosphorus. Does it matter? I keep remember one vet when I discussed this with him briefly. He said that all this is quite complex. But he does not see at the vet hospital, [and this was a huge 24 hour/7 day vet hospital with many vets and a trauma unit], does not see cats with urinary problems who are fed Science Diet or Iams. I remember that. We were discussing weight loss and not urinary tract problems. This was just an aside that came out of our brief discussion at a pet show. He was representing the animal hospital, not Science Diet or Iams. But who knows. He seemed sincere and that is his impression based on his experience, which may have been extensive. I don't know. But after trying to get information from Nestle/Purina, I come back to an old cliche: If information is difficult to obtain or not readily available, then that's a clear sign, all by itself, of something that is not good and necessitates further scrutiny. > > But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus > > diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets > > are high in phosphorus. > > That's a toughie. No, its actually simple. On one hand, he works for Science Diet, a rather > small company compared to Nestle[Purina] that specializes in food for > felines and canines. That company actually provides listings that > almost all the others cannot be bothered to. I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the nutrient profiles of their diets if you ask for them. You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you? They're only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't you every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same? > On the other hand, I cannot see how a handful of their many product constitute *many* lower phosphorus diets Must be a pretty big hand! About 20 of NP diets are lower to acceptable phosphorus levels-- that's more diets than most companies' entire product lines. <Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Actually I just noticed on Hill's site that the phosporus in the canned Gourmet Beef formula for Seniors has risen from .52 DMB to .69 DMB. Wonder why? Must have had a formula change. I know that their canned foods are now supposed to be juicier but I don't see how that could cause the phos. to be higher now. Anna > <Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never > change? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > higher now. > Anna I noticed that their formulae change as their product line changes. That's good because it implies testing was done. My uneducated guess is that phosphorus goes up as proteins levels go up. They might be using beef that is higher in protein or extracted in such a way that proteins go up or just using more beef. I just looked at the USDA and different cuts have different phosphorus values. Maybe they are keeping out the mad cow parts and using more of the muscle parts? But your main question is a good one. If more liquid, one would expect less phosphorus. Assuming that the essay methods remain the same. But that's a big jump, .17/.52 = 33% increase. Anybody know the answer? > <Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never > change? > > Actually I just noticed on Hill's site that the phosporus in the canned > Gourmet Beef formula for Seniors has risen from .52 DMB to .69 DMB. Are you sure about that? I don't ever remember Senior Gourmet Beef being that low in phosphorus. Wonder > why? Must have had a formula change. I know that their canned foods are now > supposed to be juicier but I don't see how that could cause the phos. to be > higher now. Could be if Hill's used digest as a flavor enhancer. > I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient > profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do > you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same? I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's would be. Why? Am I wrong here? Are both companies really the same in their accuracies or inaccuracies? And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of Nestle/Purina or NP? I cannot find anything published. Anywhere. I went to their web site. Useless. I went to their vet web site. Almost useless. I spent about 5 hours on the telephone. Tedious and varied answers. I can get some sort of printed material but that is unpublished. Publishing means in a public forum, certainly for a company. A private snail mail is better than nothing but closer to unpublished than published. And nothing easily viewed and digitized so far for the public. Is there some vet forum where you find this published? I did ask. For their new Marinated Morsels, I could not get anything for three months and then only by a phone call. I have yet to see this in published or even printed format. I trust them but I wish they would publish where I, as a mere consumer, can see the stuff without having to pull teeth. And even then, it's quite uneven. I just do not know what is true. True at a real level, not a talking head get rid of the consumer level.I was interested in their dry food for weight management. They have two versions, one old and one new. It took a long, long discussion to figure out kcals/gram. I tried to explain to the talking head how this could be inferred but the Purina person did not understand conversions. I tried to explain that for weight management it helps to know things down to the gram. That's the way in science. I gather you have trust then in NP? That's good to know. I feel they are just too big and well, like most big companies, they are not too interested in putting out the details. And when I talked to them by phone, the details were not the same for the same product. They are just not geared up for public dissemination. Do you have special privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get the information better? > Must be a pretty big hand! About 20 of NP diets are lower to acceptable > phosphorus levels-- that's more diets than most companies' entire product > lines. That's true. But 75% are not lower and most people do not understand about phosphorus levels. Well, most people I talk to don't know about it. After medical problems, then they know about it. I was delighted that you pointed out their good products. That helps a big deal. I see your point. For a big company, they make an effort. But it's not in the same class as Royal Canin, Science Diet, and so forth, at least not for me in finding out info. I even participated in groups giving suggestions to Purina. They were not pleased I suggested putting real info on the labels. When things quiet down for me, I might look into making my own food. If I go by the USDA data base, and vitamin/minerals bought specifically and listed, I probably could do better. I have access to the software, free to all by the way, which lists about what, 82 nutrients for maybe 2000 foods? Now that's thorough. And I can discuss with the USDA scientists the methods of their analyses. This is good. The amino acids, the essential amino acids, the vitamins, the minerals, the fatty acids broken down by carbon chains. Not bad. In fact, wonderful for a government agency. And every year they improve and add more nutrients to be analyzed. Will this help my cat? I bet, and I wish, that when done, I will know those phosphorus levels very well. Not perfectly since chickens vary. But it will be a big undertaking for me. Currently I have software that can sort and maximize or minimize about 60 nutrients of any recipe for about 1500 foods. In other words, you want more luteins in your diet, no problema. I appreciate your answering my post. You probably disagree? About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's. Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance. Later I saw this was silly since if they meet AAFCO, it's probably a reasonable balance. Knowing the absolute amounts besides the proportions was not possible to get. > About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's. > Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance. > Later I saw this was silly since if they meet AAFCO, it's probably a > reasonable balance. Knowing the absolute amounts besides the > proportions was not possible to get. I have gotten nutrient profiles from both PetGuard and Newman's and never had any problems. Nature's Variety and Wysong also were very forthcoming with info (and even sent me food samples). In fact, I can't think of any petfood company that didn't want to supply such information. I don't know, maybe you're contacting the wrong departments or something? > > About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's. > > Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > information. I don't know, maybe you're contacting the wrong > departments or something? I am not that dumb, close though. I did contact PetGuard and I know it because they sent me a free sample, Rabbit as I recall. Which my Cat-hy HATED. But it was not possible to get locally so interesting to see if she would like "game." Nope, they did not supply me the levels of phosphorus and calcium. Can you put that here if you got it? I'm just fed up with trying. I asked several times. At least once or twice by telephone. And about the same by emails. They said they would talk to the "lab," but nothing. Maybe in the last year or two, they got their act together and are now giving out the nutrient profiles. And by this I mean calcium and phosphorus levels at a minimum. With Newman's, it was the same story. It could be I asked these companies when they were just starting up. Certainly Newman's was in the beginning of their operation. Not sure when PetGuard ramped up. But they never got back to me when they got their acts together. If they published as you say, then maybe my asking did some good. I could not ask the wrong department because there was only one department :( 877-PETGUARD wait, let me try right now... nutrient analysis, can go to web site, "turn it over to the technical department, phosphorus, calcium..." says the lady answering the phone. same answer as before, ask the tech department... give me a call back. maybe this time they will call back. i went to the web site. those nutrient profiles are minimal. they do not list calcium or phosphorus levels. they do not even list the kilocalories!!! Your post gave me paws for thought. Am I that stupid... Sometimes. If you meant the web site for the nutrient profiles, that is not good enough for me by a long shot. I was specifically discussing phosphorus levels. Did they send you the phosphorus levels then? I'll stand by my original statement so far. Except for Science Diet and maybe Royal Canin, almost all these other companies do not publish their nutrient profiles to any useful degree. They leave out even the kilocalories and phosphorus contents! I guess we have different standards for nutrient profiles. For me, a nutrient profile actually lists the nutrients. And phosphorus is an important nutrient since it has been fingered as connected to renal disease in felines. So to not list phosphorus is not good. A big no-no :) And why does the talking head not have this info at her fingertips? Why have to ask the tech department? Hmmm, maybe it changes from batch to batch? Thanks for trying to help with your post. But it's hopeless. I can't get any intelligent info here. Beam me up Scotty... http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657 AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from AAFCO. There's about 41 nutrients listed, including phosphorus among the minerals. And 12 amino acids. Now that's not too shabby. But to get this info from the companies. Yeah right. Send me your complete AAFCO profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the nutrients rather than one? When Paws..., you asked for the nutrient profile, did you get the entire AAFCO profile then? Maybe I am asking for not enough then? I should say the entire AAFCO profile, please? Now nobody then publishes the entire AAFCO nutrient profile. I would never have guessed that the AAFCO nutrient profile was rather complete from all the web sites and sources so far. They seem to publish just the few nutrients that make them look good. If the companies maintain they meet the AAFCO guidelines, should not this information be readily available? How can they meet the guidelines but not publish how they are meeting the guidelines, ie, the actual lab results? Are they bluffing? Don't know. Wonder now what exactly are these "meetings of guidelines." One sample per year of one product? And too much is not done. Like 0.8% phosphorus is fine for a growing cat, and 0.5% phophorus minimum for a regular cat, but what about 2.5% phosphorus? as too much? Something is wrong. Is it me? Or is business as usual? http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657 AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from AAFCO. There's about 41 nutrients listed, including phosphorus among the minerals. And 12 amino acids. Now that's not too shabby. But to get this info from the companies. Yeah right. Send me your complete AAFCO profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the nutrients rather than one? PetGuard called me back. The lady seemed irritatated so I did not ask for more nutrients. For Turkey and Rice, the phosphorus level is 0.17% as fed. Since it's 76% moisture, that's 0.23% dry matter basis. Maybe this is why it's not published. It's actually lower, too low, way too low but? I was worried about too high but too low is also something to consider. The minimums from AAFCO are 0.5% for a cat not needing growth and 0.8% if growth is needed. But AAFCO or Drs. Foster and Smith, can't say if this is their thought or AAFCO's, says phosphorus being too low is no problema for carnivores: ["Phosphorous deficiency is a significant problem in herbivores and is probably the most common mineral nutrition deficiency present in animals worldwide. However, phosphorous deficiency occurs very infrequently in cats and dogs. In fact, excessive dietary phosphorous which accelerates the progression of renal failure is much more common."] are not a problem for meat eating cats and dogs so don't worry. Still, I guess this is one problem from natural foods, their levels might be different from AAFCO as opposed to those who combine things or use by products, like Science Diet. It's a tough choice. Natural stuff or go for a diet that is more regulated? So my original idea is possibly correct. Whenever information is difficult or tedious to get, maybe there is a good reason for that which is to obfuscate, ie, you get the idea. > http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657 > AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the > nutrients rather than one? That's how I did it. I remember one company did ask what was I exactly looking for? I said phosphorous and calcium (because I wanted to see that they had the correct ratio of phos to calc). Nature's Variety sent me about 45 or 50 nutrients in a nice chart. There was one company though that refused to give me the information, saying they only supply it to vets. What a bunch of b.s. I thought. Wish I could remember which company it was. > When Paws..., you asked for the nutrient profile, did you get the > entire AAFCO profile then? Maybe I am asking for not enough then? I > should say the entire AAFCO profile, please? Yeah I would ask for the AAFCO profile, and hopefully they will give it to you. > Now nobody then publishes the entire AAFCO nutrient profile. I would > never have guessed that the AAFCO nutrient profile was rather complete [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > phophorus minimum for a regular cat, but what about 2.5% phosphorus? as > too much? I do know the AAFCO are the bare minimums. I honestly don't understand why petfood companies don't just put real nutrient information on the label, instead of the guaranteed analysis which is pretty meaningless. Here's some info to give you an idea about AAFCO's testing: "The Testing Protocols For Providing An Unqualified Representation of Nutritional Adequacy For A Dog Or Cat Food" are spelled out in the book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test: 8 dogs older than 1 yr. must start the test. At start all dogs must be normal weight & health. A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of the test. For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested. The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body weight. During the test, none of the dogs used are to die or be removed becasue of nutritional causes. 6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test. Their protocols require blood tests which screen only four different blood values: RBC number, hemoglobin, packed cell volume and serum albumin. The average veterinary "basic blood profile" screens over twenty-five blood values." > I do know the AAFCO are the bare minimums. I honestly don't understand > why petfood companies don't just put real nutrient information on the > label, instead of the guaranteed analysis which is pretty meaningless. > Here's some info to give you an idea about AAFCO's testing: I'm shocked - we're actually going to agree completely on something :-) I would also much prefer it if the laws permitted and required manufacturers to list at least the top 15 or so nutrients on a DMB basis so comparison was simple for everyone. I emailed Newman's last year re: phosphorus and they replied either the same day or the next. I think they said .9 DMB. That's what it says too at www.webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm too. I remember being impressed by their quick response as I had also emailed Dick Van Patten's Natural Balance the same day and they never replied to me at all. I've since found out their phosphorus is a whopping 1.6 DMB by phoning them - that's okay for a kitten but not for an adult and definitely not a senior! Don't know why that company thinks all cats, both kittens and adults should be fed the same food; they do it with the dog food too. I think that they go by that old belief that things should be the same way it was in "the wild" where animals all ate the same thing no matter what age they were, but how long did animals live in the wild? Not too long. I shudder to think of all the seniors with undiagnosed kidney disease eating that high phosphorus food. Anna I am not that dumb, close though. I did contact PetGuard and I know it > because they sent me a free sample, Rabbit as I recall. Which my Cat-hy > HATED. But it was not possible to get locally so interesting to see if > she would like "game." I don't think you're dumb at all. You seem to have more interest than probably most petowners. I tried rabbit with my cats and they didn't care for it either (this was whole rabbit though but they still didn't like it and it grossed me out having to cut it up :( > Nope, they did not supply me the levels of phosphorus and calcium. Can > you put that here if you got it? I'm just fed up with trying. > > I asked several times. At least once or twice by telephone. And about > the same by emails. They said they would talk to the "lab," but > nothing. I contacted Petguard several years ago so perhaps they've changed. Back then they just mailed me the information and it looked pretty complete. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore or I'd be more than glad to send it to you. > With Newman's, it was the same story. It could be I asked these > companies when they were just starting up. Certainly Newman's was in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could not ask the wrong department because there was only one > department :( Newman's also mailed me the information. It was maybe a year ago or so. Nature's Variety emailed me their info. I don't know, sometimes these companies have employees who aren't well-versed in supplying information. You would think that it wouldn't be so hard to do. > If you meant the web site for the nutrient profiles, that is not good > enough for me by a long shot. I was specifically discussing phosphorus > levels. Did they send you the phosphorus levels then? They did. > Thanks for trying to help with your post. But it's hopeless. I can't > get any intelligent info here. Beam me up Scotty... LOL. That's one of the reasons I make my own catfood, so I don't have to deal with these companies. Lauren > > I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient > > profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's > would be. Why? My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true- I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising gimmick. > And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of > Nestle/Purina or NP? NP. I called NP and asked them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of their diets... and they did! > I cannot find anything published. Anywhere. Try calling them and simply ask them to send you the nutrient profiles for their diets. Its really very simple. I spent about 5 > hours on the telephone. If you talk like you post, I believe it! ;) It only took me about a minute to ask them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of their diets. I received the nutrient profiles for all the Fancy Feast, Friskies and Purina, canned and dry diets about a week later. > Tedious I'm sure it was for them. :) > I can get some sort of printed material but that is unpublished. No, that *is* published. N/P publishes nutrient profiles for all of their diets. All you have to do is ask. > Publishing means in a public forum, No, "publish" means "To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale." Books are published, newspapers are published, magazines are published, N/P nutrient profiles are published- IOW, prepared for public distribution. I think I know what publish means since I'm a printer and most of my clients are publishers. > I gather you have trust then in NP? As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their advertising gimmick. Do you have special > privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get > the information better? No. I just ask short and simple and direct questions. If I have technical questions, I don't ask receptionists or telephone operators. > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's > > would be. Why? > My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably > the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true- > I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising > gimmick. That seems contradictory on your part. Are not the SD the best formulated diets because they take the time to test the batches? It would seem they go hand in hand although it's possible to have one and not the other. I guess I could start testing the pH as that's easiest. If they published their test results from batch to batch, now that would be WONDERFUL. Are you listening Science Diet? Also, SD may be doing a gimmick but they still publish in a public arena, called the internet :), for all to see and provide far more info than any other company. So the Science in Science Diet is somewhat justified to me. It's not all talk but there is some walk the walk also here. They act like a Science Diet company! Additionally, I have had at least one vet tell me SDs give far fewer diseases [one said none back in 2002] of the urinary tract than well, other companies, with the exception of IAMS [same vet I mentioned in another post]. I have never had any vet suggest this was the case with Purina. Since Purina makes many products, in fact the majority of their Fancy Feast and Friskies have too much phosphorus in those cans for felines. There is a real risk that an arbitrary selection of Purina foods will increase the chances for urinary disease, the opposite of SD's canned foods. This is my genuine conclusion concerning SD and NP. Am I incorrect? Tell me if I am wrong in my suppositions. > > And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of > > Nestle/Purina or NP? > > NP. I called NP and asked them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of > their diets... and they did! I know now what to ask for. I was sent the nutrient profiles but still it was missing for months a product released before the profiles were released. Marinated Morsels. I do not see why they cannot put this up on their website. I absolutely do not see any reason for their not putting this information up on their veterinarian/professional web site. Do you? Tell me why you would agree, if you do, with not publishing on the web this vital and important information. > If you talk like you post, I believe it! ;) It only took me about a minute > to > ask them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of their diets. I > received the nutrient profiles for all the Fancy Feast, Friskies and Purina, > canned and dry diets about a week later. It's very kind of you to point out I have trouble communicating. Why don't you point out my mistakes, in your opinion, that I am making in this particular post's communication style? > > Tedious > I'm sure it was for them. :) Of course it was. They, as a rule, are not pleased that I am asking for information they do not have and do not comprehend. This is very stressful for both of us. And I can be impatient trying to form the words and sentences to get through the barriers. Do you remember your saying you don't have the patience any more in a post today or yesterday? Even customer service reps do not understand the differences between As Fed and Dry Matter Basis. I try to explain that it's simple division, As Fed/Dry Matter, but I gather simple division was skipped in their job's education. I feed badly that this key fact cannot be made plain. In fact, one of my posts contains an error because I reported what PetGuard told me. But they divided incorrectly, using the moisture instead of the dry matter. The correct answer is 0.7% phosphorus in PetGuard's Turkey and Rice on a Dry Matter Basis. They do not have low or high phosphorus, but right in the middle. 0.17/0.24 = 0.7 [0.24 or 24% is dry matter if 76% is moisture so the proper denominator to use was 0.24, and not 0.76] > No, "publish" means "To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale." > Books are published, newspapers are published, magazines are published, N/P > nutrient profiles are published- IOW, prepared for public distribution. I > think I know what publish means since I'm a printer and most of my clients > are publishers. I see what you mean. And you are correct from a legal point of view, well, certainly from the copyright point of view. Once it's on paper, then it's published and copyrighted to some degree. But in research, it is often said this is not so unless it's in a formal publication. Papers are "unpublished" unless formally done by a press or magazine. That's what I was referring to. But that's not true for non-research items? However, I think results put out in snail mail and never in a public place in the internet nor in a library accessible place is not quite "publishing" for a major manufacturer of foods. I gather you are running the presses or doing the preparations for publishers then? Do you give any discounts for feline posterities? > > I gather you have trust then in NP? > > As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if > not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their > advertising gimmick. That may be. But the matter still stands that the bulk, the majority of products by Purina in the supermarkets contain high, way too high, amounts of phosphorus. This cannot be said of Science Diet. I am referring to Fancy Feast and Friskies canned foods. I have not looked much into NP's dry foods but the dry foods seem much better in this regard. > Do you have special > > privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get > > the information better? > > No. I just ask short and simple and direct questions. If I have technical > questions, I don't ask receptionists or telephone operators. Then can you enlighten me to your secret method for jumping over the operators? Do you ask for the vets or technicians? Since you run a web site and a facility for cats for a long time, I would assume you have the right to do so. I am just a one cat person who asks too many questions. Royal Canin did connect me to a vet after I exhausted the operators with questions they could not conceivably entertain. I think I was asking about the formula for energy requirements or such. So they quite pleasantly referred me to the vet who seemed delighted to discuss formulae at an "advanced" level. That was good for me too. I found talking to a vet a comfortable experience and pleasant for both of us since I did not have to choose my words and phrases beforehand. > > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That seems contradictory on your part. No it isn't. Wellness's, Innova's, California Natural's, Flint River Ranch's advertising gimmicks are " human grade ingredients" (implying human grade ingredients are inherently better for cats), Nutro's is "no by-products" (implying by-products are a bad thing); Science Diets's is "scientifically formulated" (implying other brands aren't). *Every* pet food in the world is "scientifically formulated". Are not the SD the best > formulated diets because they take the time to test the batches? What makes you so sure SD tests every batch? Pet food manufacturers aren't required to test every batch. The company is only required to test the *lead* diet of a *product family* of diets. You don't seem to understand that the published nutrient profile for a particular diet you buy off the shelf may not be the actual nutrient content of *that* particular diet. IOW, my naive friend, the actual nutrient levels in a diet you buy off the shelf may vary by as much as 50% from the diet that was actually tested. Without having the diet analyzed by an independent lab, its virtually impossible to be reasonably sure that the diet actually contains the nutrient levels- or even the ingredients, or absence of ingredients- that the company says it does. > Why don't you point out my mistakes, in your opinion, that I am making in this particular post's communication style? About 7 kb. lol. As usual, you're over complicating a very simple issue. All you have to do is call all the pet food companies that you're interested in and ask them to send the nutrient profiles of their diets. Then simply choose the diets whose nutrient levels meet your requirements. That's it. > My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably > the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true- > I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising > gimmick. Certianly there is some very limited truth to that. But the source of the name might be of interest. In the late 50's and early 60's pet research facilities had a problem. If they were going to test a vaccine or a drug they had to insure that all else in the animals life didn't change over the course of the test. In those days that was not possible for any food then available. At the request of companies like Eli Lilly and Pfizer Hill's produced brown bag products which they guaranteed would be precisely the same during the duration of the test period. Eventually the "science" diet used in these test facilities was made available to vets for retail purposes. I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising "gimmick". No other company does the research Hill's does, and has done, for over 50 years. No other company has anywhere near the number of "Firsts" on the market of a therapeutic food. Nobody - not even Mars/Waltham/Royal Canin/IVD and Purina and IAMS/Eukanuba COMBINED have as many therapeutic firsts to market. Those firsts to market don't happen because the research and the science isn't there. Therapeutic "first to markets" happen because the basic research and science is there and continues to be there. > As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if > not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their > advertising gimmick. Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical trials on ANY of their foods. Purina has exactly 2 products in the therapeutic arena that can be considered firsts - DM which was identical to canned Science Diet Feline Growth and Purina HA - the first hydrolyzate on the market. There isn't any parameter that I can think of where Purina could even remotely be considered "equal". Unless development of marketing campaigns and TV advertising is your measure of equality. > > My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably > > the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Eventually the "science" diet used in these test facilities was made > available to vets for retail purposes. Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and eventually bought him out. > I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising > "gimmick". Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet" certainly is an advertising gimmick. >No other company does the research Hill's does, Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as Hill's does? > > As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if > > not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their > > advertising gimmick. > > Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical > trials on ANY of their foods. Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy. We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for balance. ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :) ----- > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message > > Certianly there is some very limited truth to that. But the source of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and > eventually bought him out. > > I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising > > "gimmick". > Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the > man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet" > certainly is an advertising gimmick. > >No other company does the research Hill's does, > Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as > Hill's does? > > Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical > > trials on ANY of their foods. > > Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy. > > We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for balance. That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. I asked for phosphorus levels from both the vets and nutritionists listed in Purina's list of four experts on their web site. I never received any factual reply. I received one reply that someone would get back to me, but that person never did. I sent another reply which was never answered. I went to an Expo where Purina was the main event. Very nice. But could not extract any real info but the performing felines, using Clicker Training techniques, were too cute in their circus routines. This is part of the Friskies thing. Quite pleasant. Purina had at least one vet there and some techs, but not any real info but lots of free samples. As I said before, at this same expo, 2002 or 2003, a vet from the extremely large vet hospital in my area, mentioned that he does not see urinary problems from cats fed Science Diet or Iams. Just an observation, no more, no less, but interesting to me. At this point, I would prefer to see a company fund clinical diet explorations than nothing at all. At least it's a start. And the interesting science that has come out of food and drug companies in regards to caloric restriction [kind of related here but this is something we quibbled about before] also was by serendipity and drug companies and animal feeding. Very interesting. The life of the animals was doubled. That's right. DOUBLED for emphasis ;) But it was kind of by accident in the beginning or so said the lab animal coordinator at the Penn vet school to me. The animals, rats or mice, I forget which now, had their feed cut in half so they would live long enough to finish the drug companies' experimental trials. Not anything noble. Just coincidental. But that's the name of the game. Life expectancy. Can't do much if dead or so I'm told, regardless of those who believe in paradise. Yeah right. You mentioned dogs or someone did. Who made the diet for the rats or mice that I am talking about? It's a standard lab rat diet, as I recall, but it's been 20 years since I read the details. Would this work on dogs or cats? Why not. So far, any cat that I have seen who is over 21+ years of age was not fat, but au contraire, very light in bodyweight. What have been your observations in this regard? Anybody? The animals survived twice as long as expected on half the kilocalories. They were fed every other day or received roughly half the food. The drug companies got their results and were delighted, with results, not with uncovering a field of science about life expectancy. Well, maybe there were excited. If people were to live longer, then they can take more drugs, longer, and make more money for the drug companies. But cutting kilocalories does not make drug companies rich, so maybe they were not that interested in the serendipitous finding. And that's the way it is... or was... Just read that the "average height of an American woman, for example, is 5 feet 4 inches, and the average weight is 164.3 pounds, according to a study released in 2004 by the National Center for Health Statistics." I don't think caloric restriction will go over well now in the USA. For me to become "average" I would have to gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline will have slim corpses :) > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts by petfood salesmen that have an agenda to push their product. That's what tv commercials are for, or their websites, or telephone contact. I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's just me. > > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's > just me. Lauren, there's a big difference between providing information and "spamming" newsgroups. You didn't have a problem with it last summer when a Solid Gold rep came into one of the ngs and posted a statement. IIRC, you were glad that it was a "clarification". If I took your POV, I could consider that "spam". Similarly, I recall you being quite pleased when that vicious Ann Martin came into the ngs and started cussing and swearing about commercial pet food companies. It all depends on your perspective. You are anti-Hill's, so you take one point of view. Another person who wants information so that they can make up their own mind, may appreciate having someone who knows what they're talking about BECAUSE they work for a specific company. > Lauren, there's a big difference between providing information and > "spamming" newsgroups. You didn't have a problem with it last summer > when a Solid Gold rep came into one of the ngs and posted a statement. > IIRC, you were glad that it was a "clarification". Against my better judgment of replying to you, I am posting this so TreeLine can see just why I was happy to see the Solid Gold rep post. She/he can check out the pertinent posts at: http://tinyurl.com/8xg87 Here's Steve Crane's post, followed up by a Solid Gold rep, whose only purpose in posting was to defend the outlandish crap Steve Crane was posting: 8. Steve Crane Mar 9 2005, 10:48 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "Steve Crane" <eodemo...@cox.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 9 Mar 2005 19:48:56 -0800 Local: Wed, Mar 9 2005 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Wellness and who is is actually made by? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Solid Gold no less! That's an interesting one. Many years ago when I was a kid working in a grocery store the owner of Solid Gold was having an affair with the owner of the store. We ended up with a stack of the stuff that eventually went buggy. Not the foods fault, the cost was just too high for the grocery store clientele. Many years later I was in court when the owner faced charges of frauduluent labelling. A couple weeks ago I stopped by the "global headquarters" in Santee California. It was really sad. The place used to be spotless and clean. Today the headquarters looks like the most run down back alley pet store you ever went into. Paint peeling off the windows, trash everywhere, old raggedy papers stacked in the corner. It really is a shame. " 25. Solid Gold Mar 11 2005, 5:44 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "Solid Gold" <d...@solidgoldhealth.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 11 Mar 2005 14:44:19 -0800 Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 5:44 pm Subject: Re: Wellness and who is is actually made by? Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Steve, I work for Solid Gold and this post was brought to my attention by a few of our customers. 900 Vernon Way is our corporate office, which is located in a new industrial center. We have only been at this address for a year and a half. Before this, we were based at another location in El Cajon. Our Vernon Way office is not a place you would just "stop in" as we do not conduct any physical business with the public in this office. I believe you are probably referring to the small retail store Sissy runs located on Cuyamaca. The retail store is very eclectic and is full of things Sissy has collected over the years such as wall hangings, art, photos of her animals and customer animals, etc. This is only Sissy's retail store. All Solid Gold business in conducted from our corporate offices. I just wanted to clear up the confusion and do not wish to discuss or debate the merits of Solid Gold pet foods or any other pet food on an internet forum. Best regards, Solid Gold " <<snipped>> Here's all that one needs to know. Lauren did not produce one single evidence of Steve Crane "spamming" this ng, as she alleges. Yet she has no problem producing a lengthy post from almost a year ago regarding Solid Gold. Lauren, obviously you can do a search of the archives. Why not post "evidence" of the "spam" that you allege? You can't, because it doesn't exist. This is an instance of "put up, or shut up". BTW, you don't prefer unbiased information, because links that you've posted in the past always refer people to websites that support YOUR point of view (which certainly isn't unbiased). For example, you've posted links to articles that take a favorable opinion of the raw food method of feeding. You've also pointed people into the direction of "holistic" veternarians and sung the praises of such vets who take that particular point of view. Please don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming that you prefer "unbiased" points of view. > > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's > just me. Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one? If you did, reproduce it. I do not recall a commercial post, per se, from him and a rep in a newsgroup is better than no rep when dealing with info that only a rep may have. He's offered info that no one else has and that's helpful. Aside from Phil P., he has offered technical information that I do not see coming from anyone else. That's really important so I want to see him stay and to even invite others to post who represent other food companies. At this point, I cannot get ANY INFO BIASED OR NOT for the most part from most companies. It's a real hassle involving telephoning when it should be just available on a web site. Simple stuff, even, like kilocalories becomes a chore and probably impossible for most people who cannot make personal calls during the day at their jobs. So someone from Science Diet answering my post that I can get quickly is much, much better than a phone call and much jawing during the day. I prefer biased information rather than no information. In research, that is par for the course. So it's fairly trivial for me to separate the wheat from the chaff. And there's not much effort since what we have discussed so far, in my limited experience here, has been obvious and open and easily dissected. So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key posts that came from the rep. Compared to other newsgroups, he has been quite good and helpful. If you find something wrong in your opinion, then like Phil P., take issue with him on that specific post. Fair enough? > Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one? Yes, for the past several years. Obviously you haven't been here that long and you would have seen the posts. I'm not quite that naive > I prefer biased information rather than no information. I see that :) I don't know why you're having such a hard time geting nutrient profiles from these companies. I've never had a problem. Perhaps you need to go past speaking to the company's receptionist? Maybe word your request differently? I don't know. Again, I've never had a problem in the past with getting this kind of information. It was an easy and quick process. > So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key > posts that came from the rep. Hardly angry, just realistic. I prefer unbiased information. you don't. > > Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had a problem in the past with getting this kind of information. It > was an easy and quick process. I checked into the info you last gave me about this and the web site you referred to did not give me the details I needed. If you don't need much in the way of info, then yes, you have a quick and easy process. I wanted specific phosphorus levels and that was extremely difficult. And even something as benign as kilocalories is not that easy. It should be all available on the internet without even having to have a "process" to get to it. I should not have to telephone for something as basic as kilocalories or phosphorus levels for cat food. And then after telephoning the biggest company in the world for this, Purina/Nestle, I definitely should not have to wait weeks for something that is printed. That's plain insane. Especially when the have a veterinarian web site and computer programs, none of which has this information. I checked the vet site of Purina and downloaded their vet programs. IDIOT LEVEL STUFF! Really depressing that this is what they give the vets. If you found the information in the past, fine. But if you cannot reproduce it for me then it's essentially and utterly completely useless for me. I need information not blanket criticisms. A company rep that provides numbers for me is far more valuable than a poster who says the company rep is biased. Don't you see that? You are, so far, just giving me static, no numbers, no info, just noise, and critical noise of me. That gets my attention :) > > So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key > > posts that came from the rep. > > Hardly angry, just realistic. I prefer unbiased information. you > don't. I prefer information. Obviously no information cannot be biased because nothing exists and nothing is always unbiased which seems to be your preference because you are criticizing me or so it seems, hisssssssssss - but not providing any information at all, like phosphorus levels or kilocalories of the products that I have asked about. The correct wording is that I prefer unbiased information over biased information over no information at all. You need to start providing information. That would be a start. To put this in a cliche, if you can't boost, don't knock. Give me fact, just the facts, ma'am............... > > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. > > and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts > by petfood salesmen Biased - of course I am and I haven't ever suggested otherwise. Challenge the information I provide if you disagree with it. Post some clinical trial that refutes what I opine here. I'm more than open to a good debate. Am I biased of course, how could I not be after 20+ years in the industry? But rather than the usual name calling - which is precisely what you have done AGAIN for the umpteenth time - refute my facts, provide us some good data that supports an opposing opinion. That's the value here. Name calling is nothing more than a clear sign that somebody has lost the debate and has no logic left to work with. >>Just read that the "average height of an >> American woman, for example, is 5 >> feet 4 inches, and the average weight is 164.3 pounds, according to a study released in 2004 by the National Center for Health Statistics." I don't think caloric restriction will go over well now in the USA. For me to become "average" I would have to gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline will have slim corpses :) ---MIKE--- >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire >> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') >>Just read that the "average height of an >> American woman, for example, is 5 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline will >> have slim corpses :) It appears that the average woman is obese! ---MIKE--- >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire >> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') > It appears that the average woman is obese! reminds me of something James used to say "I like'm fat! I like'm proud, haaaaay" > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :) Very much snipping on my part. > > We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for balance. > > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. Interesting perception. OTOH, perhaps the other companies feel its inappropriate to fund a salesman to hustle their products in pet newsgroups and denigrate other companies. > I asked for phosphorus levels from both the vets and nutritionists > listed in Purina's list of four experts on their web site. I never > received any factual reply. You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000 words. ;) I received one reply that someone would get > back to me, but that person never did. The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message that he fell asleep before s/he could reply. > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :) > > Very much snipping on my part. and snippety too. > You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000 > words. ;) one word, kilocalories, was too much, garrulous? not at all. i felt bad & badly that i had to explain to a food company that kilocalories per gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories. most of the world uses kcals/gram and purina should too :) > The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message that > he fell asleep before s/he could reply. The message was too short and not at all garrulous since I was using a filled-in form on the web site which did not allow for many words, even if so inclined. Do not make the hasty generalization that how I post here is how I talk on the telephone. I use a different part of my brain for oral communication - one that has different damage. > > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories. most of the > world uses kcals/gram and purina should too :) One word? You just said you "had to explain to a food company that kilocalories per gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories." That had to take you at least an hour! lol. You're not getting the results you want because you annoy the people that you're asking for information. You babble and complicate very simple issues. > > The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message that > > he fell asleep before s/he could reply. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do not make the hasty generalization that how I post here is how I talk > on the telephone. I'd bet your friends answer your calls only from their home phones. > > > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you're asking for information. You babble and complicate > very simple issues. Now, now, just because I annoy you does not mean I annoy everybody. I complicate things because all things are complicated if one looks enough. A kiss is just a kiss, as time goes by, is a song, not reality. A kiss is really... Take for example, the simple question, why is the sky blue? The real answer would a Ph.D. exam answer. But if you keep it at the idiot level, the way you would for a child, you can go into the color blue. But the real answer involves hydrogen bonds and spectral analyses and so on. Or so says a would-be astrophysicist who was asked this question in his Ph.D. examination and he sweated the answer out over hours, yes, hours of talking and chalking. I am not a child. You are not a child. My furry beast is not a child although she has not yet asked me why the sky is blue. > > > The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message > that > > > he fell asleep before s/he could reply. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'd bet your friends answer your calls only from their home phones. Thanks for the compliment :) > > You're not getting the results you want because you annoy the people that > > you're asking for information. You babble and complicate > > very simple issues. > > Now, now, just because I annoy you does not mean I annoy everybody. Maybe you don't annoy people who have nothing better to do than listen to your incessant babbling . But you're obviously annoying the people you're calling since you can't seem to get the information others got very easily, now can you?. > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :) > ----- > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening. One minor correction - nobody funds my participation here either - this is entirely my own personal activity. I got into this long ago because I observed some blatant erroneous comments that I chose to respond to. > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message > Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark > Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription > diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and > eventually bought him out. Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET - which is what I was pretty clearly talking about was as stated earlier. Based on requests from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc. > Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the > man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet" > certainly is an advertising gimmick. Because the food was NOT originally developed for retail sale - it was developed for the "science" industry. In point of fact before Hill's and Dr. Morris entered into a partnership, Burton Hill was already manufacturing a pet food of his own. Long since abandoned in the early 50's. > >No other company does the research Hill's does, > > Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as > Hill's does? Not hardly > Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy. Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless of funding them at various universities or doing them in house. Considering how quick everyone is to dismiss a peer reviewed published clinical study if it's done entirely "in house" why on earth would anyone be surprised that these studies are commonly done in Veterinary University settings? > > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message > > Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription > k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET No, Steve, k/d was the first *Hill's Prescription Diet* product, *not* a "Science Diet" product. The consumer Science Diet line came out years later as a spin off of the Prescription Diet line. Hill's Prescription Diets don't say "Science Diet" anywhere on the labels. - which is what I was pretty > clearly talking about was as stated earlier. Based on requests from > Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc. Lilly doesn't make veterinary drugs. > > Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the > > man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet" > > certainly is an advertising gimmick. > > Because the food was NOT originally developed for retail sale - it was > developed for the "science" industry. That's a stretch! The first Hill's diets were *prescription* diets sold only through vets to pet owners. That's not exactly the "science industry". In point of fact before Hill's > and Dr. Morris entered into a partnership, Burton Hill was already > manufacturing a pet food of his own. Long since abandoned in the early > 50's. Burton Hill owned a *packing* company (Hill Packing Company). Morris and Hill went into partnership because Morris couldn't meet the demand for the prescription diets. Morris was manufacturing and packaging the diets himself. > > >No other company does the research Hill's does, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless > of funding them at various universities The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died. For every dollar Hill's spends on studies, they spend 50 cents telling everybody about it! > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message > Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless > > of funding them at various universities > The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's > forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of > cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died. Very interesting. I was in the dog groups this morning and happened upon this post: 4. Steve Crane Feb 6, 7:27 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "Steve Crane" <eodemo...@cox.net> - Find messages by this author John Wesley wrote: > Does anyone have any recomendations good or bad on Natures Recipe Lamb > and Rice Puppy food? > jw From: "Steve Crane" <eodemo...@cox.net> "You might check the label and make sure they have finally added supplemental taurine to the food. They were one of three companies with lamb based products that were implicated in causing dilated cardiomyopathy. Lamb is intrinsically deficient in taurine and it needs to be supplemented in any lamb based diet. You can tell by looking at the ingredient panel and finding taurine listed as a separate ingredient. 3 Nutro Natural Choice products, Nature's Recipe and Sensible Choice (I think it was Sensible Choice) were all reported as having deficient levels of taurine in a 2003 published report from UC Davis. The ctual study was donein 1999, but publication was 3 years later. At that time I looked at the labels and Nutro had changed only 1 of the foods implicated and the other two companies had made no changes at all. Nutro had changed the Nutro Natural Choice LM&R food but had not yet changed the Lite product and one other food they produced that was implicated. Most companies made changes in the late 90's when the issue first came up." > > "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@cox.net> wrote in message > > Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Very interesting. I was in the dog groups this morning and happened > upon this post: No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted, I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says. > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and > looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted, > I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says. Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should *know* its true! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message