 |
 | 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 / January 2005Wellness Cat Food
I know there has been some discussion on Wellness Brand cat food before, but I would like to hear people's opinion's on it. I am thinking of switching my cats to it (they've tested it out - the canned food - and love it!!). I have one cat with CRF - he is currently on Hills x/d (dry mixed with canned). He's been eating this for about a year. We have episodes with him where he will pee outside the box - in fact just had him at the vets last week for this very problem. They could find nothing medically wrong with him. It's looking like it's behavioral...We trying to keep logs and such to see what could be causing this. Anyway, I don't want to get into his inappropraite unination problems... Do you have any opinions on the harm it might cause to take him off the x/d and switch him to the Wellness (dry and canned mixed...I like giving them something a little crunchy to eat - they have tartar problems). The other 3 cats are currently on Hills c/d prescription (canned + dry also). The vets feel this will keep their urinary tracts healthy. They don't have any medical problems. I think they would love to be switched to the Wellness. Any experiences with cats who have switched from c/d to Wellness. Looks like the price is all the same, so that isn't a deciding factor for me. Of course, the vet doesn't recommend anything but prescription for all the cats. Thanks for any info!! -Janet > The other 3 cats are currently on Hills c/d prescription (canned + dry > also). The vets feel this will keep their urinary tracts healthy. They [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for me. Of course, the vet doesn't recommend anything but > prescription for all the cats. If the vet recommends the prescription food, I would feed the prescription food. My Nickleby had FUS and whenever I would try switching from the c/d all hell would break loose -- once I reconciled myself to feeding him the c/d, he remained healthy (and lived to be 17.5 years old). --Catherine & Rosalie the calicohead >From: "default" default@u.washington.edu >Looks like the price is all the same, so that isn't a deciding factor for >me. Of course, the vet doesn't recommend anything but prescription for all >the cats. Just curious, but does he sell this prescription food at his practice? I don't feed my cats Wellness but there are several in the group who do, and they report their cats are doing great on it. ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm Lauren, You are amazing. Your attempt to insinuate that becaasue the vet sells the food at her practice that Default should therefore be suspicious is hilarious. You know damn well that Prescription Diets are ONLY sold at vets clinics. Feeding a CRF cat a non CRF food will shorten the lifespan of that kitty by half or more. There are now 2 peer reviewed published Grade 1 Evidence based studies which clearly illustrate this. Allowing your own mis perceptions to taint your advice here is dangerous and foolish. >From: "Steve Crane" eodemolay@cox.net >Date: 12/16/2004 3:35 PM Ea >Lauren, >You are amazing. Your attempt to insinuate that becaasue the vet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >illustrate this. Allowing your own mis perceptions to taint your advice >here is dangerous and foolish. I'm not talking about her CRF kitty, Mr. Sciece Diet salesman, aka Steve Crane. I'm talking about her other 3 cats who don't have any health problems but yet the vet wants them on prescription food. That to me seems very suspicious! Now why would a vet prescribe prescription food for 3 healthy cats? As a sales rep for Hill's, Steve, do you have an answer? Is that the usual protocol? I know my vet doesn't prescribe prescription foods for healthy cats as it could cause a serious imbalance. IMO, her cats have a better chance of urinary tract health if they were on a better food than Scie Die. This is from the OP: "The other 3 cats are currently on Hills c/d prescription (canned + dry > also). The vets feel this will keep their urinary tracts healthy. They > don't have any medical problems. ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >As a sales >rep for Hill's, Steve, do you have an answer? Huh, sales rep? I don't think so. -mhd Nonsense, Do you know the genetics of the cats in question as well as the attending vet does? Are you cognizant of the what breeds these cats are? Have thier parents or siblings been FLUTD kitties? You know none of this information but still presume to suggest you know more than the OP's vet who has actually seen the cats and knows them. To suggest that "serious imbalances" might be the result of feeding a cat Prescription Diet c/d is just plain goofy. Please let us know what nutrient level in c/d would be innapropriate for an adult cat. > Nonsense, > Do you know the genetics of the cats in question as well as the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > know what nutrient level in c/d would be innapropriate for an adult > cat. Indeed, I have two cats who both get c/d because it is impossible to separate them at feeding time. One has had FLUTD, the other hasn't. They have been eating c/d as their main food for about 18 months now, with about once-a-week treats of other low-magnesium foods because they do crave variety (and yes, vet says that's fine). Both are thriving, healthy 10yos. >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >I'm not talking about her CRF kitty, Mr. Sciece Diet salesman, aka Steve >Crane. > I'm talking about her other 3 cats who don't have any health problems but >yet >the vet wants them on prescription food. That to me seems very suspicious! Why? Are you a veternarian? Do you know anything about c/d?? Then shut up! >Now why would a vet prescribe prescription food for 3 healthy cats? Tell me, your highness....what is the pH urinary output for a healthy cat and what is the pH urinary output of c/d?? Not to mention that fact that you don't even know how old the other 3 cats are. That does make a difference, or didn't you know that? >I >know my vet doesn't prescribe prescription foods for healthy cats as it could >cause a serious imbalance. A serious imbalance of what? >IMO, her cats have a better chance of urinary tract >health if they were on a better food than Scie Die. The discussion here is about Prescription Diet, not Science Diet. Please try to stay focused here. >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Date: 12/16/04 12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Just curious, but does he sell this prescription food at his practice? Why does that matter? Default, Taking a CRF cat and placing it on a non CRF food will unquestionably shorten the cats life tremendously. There are several critical factors involved. Phosphorus levels, sodium levels, N3 fatty acid levels etc. The Wellness products contain 3-10 times as much phosphorus, substantially more sodium and nowhere near high enough levels of N3 fatty acids to be considered appropriate for a CRF kitty. Your veterinarian knows more about the needs of your animal than anyone here. That is the person to talk to, not internet gossip from people who have no training whatsoever in small animal clinical nutrition, - ask her what she thinks of such a move. one reason I never liked wellness cat food is they include garlic as an ingredient. Garlic is harmful to cats > I know there has been some discussion on Wellness Brand cat food before, but > I would like to hear people's opinion's on it. I am thinking of switching my [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -Janet > one reason I never liked wellness cat food is they include garlic as an > ingredient. Garlic is harmful to cats Garlic in extremely huge quantities is harmful to cats, but not the small amount that's in Wellness. Don't some holistic people use garlic supplements for their cats? Every time there's a Wellness ingredients question, my cats get all excited because I have to go to the pantry and look at a can. They think it's feeding time! To the OP: I am a big believer in Wellness food, but with a cat who has CRF, I would be scared to change foods. I think it would be OK for the cats on c/d, but I am not a vet. My cat Bartleby had issues with becoming blocked and once we switched foods, he was fine.  Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG I checked the can and yes, it does say garlic. I called their 800 number and talked to the man who answered the phone (no recording thank God), and he said there was just a small amount of garlic for flavor. He said that large amounts could be harmful but not the amount that's in Wellness. He added that he has a 18 year old cat that is doing just fine on Wellness. ---MIKE--- > I checked the can and yes, it does say garlic. I called their 800 number > and talked to the man who answered the phone (no recording thank God), and > he said there was just a small amount of garlic for flavor. He said that > large amounts could be harmful but not the amount that's in Wellness. He > added that he has a 18 year old cat that is doing just fine on Wellness. When I bought Wellness a week ago or so for the first time, I also noticed the garlic in the ingredients list. But the stuff is way far down, like at the end of the second or third line. After blueberries, for cripes' sakes! I just have trouble believing that a cat food company would put poison in their food; therefore I tend to believe they've done their research and that such a small amount isn't a problem. Maybe I'm naive. Signaturemonique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude! >> I checked the can and yes, it does say garlic. I called their 800 number >> and talked to the man who answered the phone (no recording thank God), and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >their food; therefore I tend to believe they've done their research and that >such a small amount isn't a problem. Maybe I'm naive. garlik? blueberries? why god, why would they put this into cat food? -L >>I just have trouble believing that a cat food company would put poison in >>their food; therefore I tend to believe they've done their research and that >>such a small amount isn't a problem. Maybe I'm naive. > > garlik? blueberries? why god, why would they put this into cat food? Well, I am sure the cranberries are there to help prevent UTIs, just as they do in humans. I kind of assume that blueberries do something similar. Or you can read the website blurb: http://www.omhpet.com/cats/wellness_overview.html "As rates of feline allergies, cancers and diseases continue to rise, the link between pet nutrition and health is being examined more closely than ever. Healthy thoughtful ingredients in Wellness, like fresh fruits and vegetables, provide essential antioxidants that protect and strengthen your cat's immune system for a healthy, long life." Also, you can contact them if you really do have questions. Signaturemonique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude! >From: "Monique Y. Mudama" spam@bounceswoosh.org >Well, I am sure the cranberries are there to help prevent UTIs, just as they >do in humans. I kind of assume that blueberries do something similar. There is not enough cranberries in there to do ANYTHING! The cat would probably have to eat about 25 bushels of cranberries to move the pH meter a hundreth of a point! It's simply a marketing tactic designed to push the emotion button with consumers. >Or you can read the website blurb: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >provide essential antioxidants that protect and strengthen your cat's immune >system for a healthy, long life." Wellness talks a good game but has absolutely nothing in the way of research backing up their products. Science Diet (for example) has levels of antioxidants that are significantly higher than Wellness. Also, Wellness tends to be quite high in calcium and phosphorus, generally speaking. Interestingly enough, the "healthy, thoughtful" (??) ingredients that Wellness uses are the same ingredients found in Science Diet and other premium cat foods. >>From: "Monique Y. Mudama" spam@bounceswoosh.org > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hundreth of a point! It's simply a marketing tactic designed to push the > emotion button with consumers. That's bullcrap. I get UTIs, or used to, and I can tell when my body's working towards one. I keep cranberry juice on hand, and a single diluted glass will relieve the symptoms that I know indicate the very beginnings of a UTI. It doesn't need to do a lot; just help clear out the bacteria in the urinary tract. I suppose you don't believe that eating yoghurt helps human women prevent yeast infections, either? If less than a cup of cranberry juice can make the difference in a human, a cat won't need nearly as much as the ridiculous 25 bushels of cranberries you quote. >>Or you can read the website blurb: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wellness uses are the same ingredients found in Science Diet and other > premium cat foods. Make up your mind; do you find their ingredients offensive and incomplete, or do you find them to be just the same (ie, just as good) as the "other premium cat foods"? Signaturemonique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude! >From: "Monique Y. Mudama" spam@bounceswoosh.org >> Wellness talks a good game but has absolutely nothing in the way of >research [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >do you find them to be just the same (ie, just as good) as the "other premium >cat foods"? Gaubster constantly posts lies about Wellness food. He is a Science Diet freak. Any food that's not Hill's is bad in his narrow minded opinion. He lives for posts about food so he can slam any brand except Scie Die. He forgets to mention all that crap ingredients in Hill's foods like corn gluten meal, artificial ingredients and flavors, more corn and grains, etc. From all the people who have switched to Wellness, I have heard nothing but good things about how well their cats do on it. 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Gaubster constantly posts lies about Wellness food. He is a Science Diet >freak. Any food that's not Hill's is bad in his narrow minded opinion. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >things >about how well their cats do on it. More lies from you. If you can't back up your argument with facts, I guess that's all you have to resort to? And you must not be reading this ng very closely, because I've seen at least 2 different people on this ng within the last 2 weeks, state that their cats didn't like it or had runny stools. Another thing....WHY do you continue to persist in believing that nutrition is ALL ABOUT INGREDIENTS?? Your limited and narrow-minded understanding of feline nutrition is sorely lacking. You've still to explain why you hate Hill's Pet Nutrition with such a passion. You also need to update your talking points. Hill's is naturally preserved. ;) You also need to get over the mentality that nutrition isn't as important as what ingredients are posted on a pet food label. Apparently you've yet to learn the many lessons and examples that have been given on this ng for years surrounding the games that pet food companies play with the ingredient label. I guess it's just easier for you (and your seeming limited capacity for understanding) to "emote" or "feel good" about pet food labels, rather than actually delve into a complex and evolving discussion around feline nutrition. <shrug Monique, Cats are not small humans. The effects of cranberries, or any other berry type in cats is NOT the same as it is in humans. The primary action of cranberries in humans is NOT in reducing urine pH, but rather in making it difficult for bacteria to attach to the bladder wall. There is NO data whatsoever that even suggests the same activity ocurrs in cats. The use of cranberries etc in cat foods is pure marketing glitz, Madison Ave conceived marketing ploys playing on your emotions and attempting to persuade you that what "conventional wisdom" holds true for human females also holds true for cats. Unfortunately it just does not work that way at all. It is very important to recognize their are massive differences between one species and another. While humans can eat chocolate with immunity dogs will die from it. While cats are obligate carnivores - humans are not. It is not a good idea to allow Madison Ave marketing gimmicks to control the way you treat your cat. Especially something as totally wrong as the cranberry etc issue with cats. That simply does not work. > Monique, > Cats are not small humans. The effects of cranberries, or any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wall. There is NO data whatsoever that even suggests the same activity > ocurrs in cats. Is there data against it? Actually, iirc, UTIs aren't about bacteria in the bladder, but bacteria in the urethra, which is very short in human females because we don't have dangly bits. Hence urinary tract, not bladder, infection. UTIs are caused by bacteria building up in the urethra. I am no vet or biology expert, but it seems to me that the bacterial response would be the same, whether in a human or a cat. We don't say "well, this disinfectant works for humans, but it doesn't kill the germs that affect cats ..." And for that matter, an *awful lot* of the medical discussions here and in other cat newsgroups make it sound like the medical treatments for cats are in many cases very similar to those for humans. I wouldn't go trying a human remedy on a cat without clearing it with my vet, but it seems that in many cases, the vet would prescribe a familiar remedy. IIRC, I knew people who had a diabetic cat when I was a kid, and they bought human-grade insulin because it was cheaper for them. Cats aren't aliens. You may or may not be right about the usefulness of cranberries, but while they do have different nutritional requirements than we do, I am suspicious of over-emphasizing the difference. > The use of cranberries etc in cat foods is pure > marketing glitz, Madison Ave conceived marketing ploys playing on your > emotions and attempting to persuade you that what "conventional wisdom" > holds true for human females also holds true for cats. Unfortunately it > just does not work that way at all. References? You've said there's no evidence that cranberries help cat UTIs. Have there been studies? Have there been studies showing that it *doesn't* help? Have there been studies showing that it's harmful? Again, thousands to millions of cats eat dry food exclusively, and even with all the extra carb crap they are eating, the cats live long and happy lives. > It is very important to recognize their are massive differences > between one species and another. While humans can eat chocolate with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as totally wrong as the cranberry etc issue with cats. That simply does > not work. Actually, I haven't paid any attention at all to whatever marketing dweebs have been doing. I've been talking to cat owners about how their cats responded to Wellness. The fact that cats who eat Wellness seem to typically be healthier cats -- that's why I switched. Signaturemonique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude! > Monique, > Cats are not small humans. They aren't big humans, either. Or aliens from the planet Magical Spoon-Head. (...) > but rather in making it difficult for bacteria to attach to the bladder > wall. There is NO data whatsoever that even suggests the same activity > ocurrs in cats. Has this actually been investigated? (...) > It is very important to recognize their are massive differences > between one species and another. While humans can eat chocolate with > immunity dogs will die from it. Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no problems, would need to eat a few bars of milk choc (depending on size of dog) to be at risk, and would be at serious risk if they ate even a small amount of cooking chocolate. (Theobromine concentrations vary greatly between the different chocolate types). (...) > gimmicks to control the way you treat your cat. So, you think this sort of site (http://naturesbest.sciencediet.com/more/reports.asp) would be unprincipled, then? Steve. >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk >> gimmicks to control the way you treat your cat. > >So, you think this sort of site >(http://naturesbest.sciencediet.com/more/reports.asp) would be >unprincipled, then? LMAO - no kidding! Steve Crane thinks if Hill's does it, it's fine. But heaven forbid any other pet food company does it, then of course it's a gimmick. ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >>So, you think this sort of site >>(http://naturesbest.sciencediet.com/more/reports.asp) would be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >heaven forbid any other pet food company does it, then of course it's a >gimmick. At least Hill's contributes mightily to the continued research and progress of feline and canine nutrition. If they want to play the same marketing game as others, then so what? The difference is that "holistic", "organic", "all natural" foods made by other companies generally don't do anything in the way of research.....they only sell dog food. > At least Hill's contributes mightily to the continued research and > progress of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > way > of research.....they only sell dog food. I have been feeding my cats Science Diet with "supplements" of other food they're willing to eat, such as Sensible Choice (hard to find but worth getting), Wellness, and my two kittens are hooked on Nutro canned food (but also eat Wellness & SD). AFAIK they're all getting a good diet. I personally wouldn't eat ANY cat food, no matter how good it looks or smells! I wouldn't kill and eat a mouse, either, but that's just me. :) Well, ok, maybe fried with some chocolate sauce... I had three cats I acquired in 1985, a stray, a Siamese and a Burmese. The Burmese, youngest by about 6 months, lived the longest, almost to 19 years, despite having epilepsy and being on phenobarbitol for the last 3 years of her life. She's also the only cat I've had who died of something other than kidney failure. Her diet the final years consisted primarily of Hills K/D and Sensible Choice Senior. Both are low in phosphorus. I wish I had known about that for the other two cats who died earlier (ages 15 & 16). Now I stay away from any food that's really high in phosphorus, except for kitten food, of course, but that's available only to the kittens. My feeling is as long as the cats are getting some variety (different premium brands, and different "flavors" within brands), they're probably getting a good, healthy diet. And I do appreciate a scientific approach to cat nutrition, even if it does lead to sales of cat food. <g> Gail >Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no >problems White chocolate is not chocolate. -mhd >>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no >>problems > >White chocolate is not chocolate. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary it is. >-mhd > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:343873 >>>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no >>>problems >> >>White chocolate is not chocolate. > >According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary it is. No it's not. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-16,G GLD:en&q=define%3AWHITE+CHOCOLATE or http://tinyurl.com/56pzb -mhd >>>>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate >>>>with no problems >>> >>>White chocolate is not chocolate. Technically not, because it contains no chocolate liquor which is probably why dogs can eat a truckload with no problems. >>According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary it is. > >No it's not. >http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-16,G GLD:en&q=define%3AWHITE+CHOCOLATE >or http://tinyurl.com/56pzb Congratulations, you win "Best Semantics in Thread". Chocolate and cocoa butter (the stuff white chocolate is made from) come from the same seed/bean. Dictionaries refer to white chocolate as a confection instead of a chocolate. >-mhd >From: John Doe jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing >>>>>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate >>>>>with no problems [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >come from the same seed/bean. Dictionaries refer to white chocolate >as a confection instead of a chocolate. Sounds right to me, lol ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >>>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no >>>problems >> >>White chocolate is not chocolate. > >According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary it is. Dictionaries don't define words (never have). They give commmon usage of a word (there's a difference). White chocolate is not chocolate. (semantics) >>>>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate >>>>with no problems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Dictionaries don't define words (never have). In that case. When I suggested that "save" means "spend less" I wasn't helping dictionaries define advertising's use of the word. >They give commmon usage of a word (there's a difference). What you call "giving the common usage of a word" is defining the word. Unless, heheh, you don't accept the dictionary definition of "define". More semantics, for what it's worth. What the author is referring to is the fact that dictionaries define words based on usage. In order for a new sense to appear in the dictionary, the meaning must be used by speakers. The sense of a word isn't produced by a dictionary maker. Lexicographers keep huge databases of word usage. The Usenet archives are very interesting to me because (I guess) they represent a similar database. >White chocolate is not chocolate. If you're trying for Best Semantics in Thread, you are a day late and a dollar short. >Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsswing.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail >From: Charles M <no@where.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:32:22 GMT >Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:343923 >(semantics) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >word. Unless, heheh, you don't accept the dictionary definition of >"define". No, for instance take 'ring' in the mathematical sense. It is rigorously defined mathematically. Now a dictionary may mention 'ring' as being used as a mathematical object, but it won't define it. Same with more common words, 'cat'. A dictionary won't precisley tell you what being a 'cat' means. Same with chocolate. So to say that 'white chocolate' is chocolate because it matches the dictionary definition is wrong. Dictionaries don't give definitions per say, that's not their purpose. They present common usage of a word, and do so in the order of most common usage to least (in the case of multiple usages). >More semantics, for what it's worth. What the author is referring to >is the fact that dictionaries define words based on usage. In order [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If you're trying for Best Semantics in Thread, you are a day late >and a dollar short. Well, I just ran across this thread. >>Path: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsswing.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail >>From: Charles M <no@where.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:32:22 GMT >>Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:343923 >>Well, not entirely. Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no >>problems > >White chocolate is not chocolate. > >-mhd it's not? what's in it? is it just a ploy? it tastes like chocolate. sort of. -L (...) > White chocolate is not chocolate. I can just imagine your trip to the local confectioner: "You, boy! Hand me that linear extension of congealed bovine-lactose product, void of aqueous matter extracted from Theobroma Cacao. No I do not mean a fuckin' bar of white choccy, you monkey-sucking prole. And while you're about it, gi'us a six pack of special brew." Anyway, although some people or authorities may classify white chocolate as something other than chocolate, as far as Joe Public is concerned, white chocolate is chocolate because it's called chocolate. It does contain cocoa butter (at least decent white choc does). S. >Anyway, although some people or authorities may classify white >chocolate as something other than chocolate, as far as Joe Public is >concerned, white chocolate is chocolate You made the point that cats can eat safely white chocolate therefore it was necessary to explain why. I could care less about spoiling Joe Public's fantasy, it wasn't the point. >because it's called chocolate. Well I've got some road apples you may want to chew on. -mhd >>Anyway, although some people or authorities may classify white >>chocolate as something other than chocolate, as far as Joe Public is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it was necessary to explain why. I could care less about spoiling Joe >Public's fantasy, it wasn't the point. Actually, he made the statement that "Dogs can eat a truckload of white chocolate with no problems" eq >>because it's called chocolate. > >Well I've got some road apples you may want to chew on. > >-mhd (...) > You made the point that cats can eat safely white chocolate therefore > it was necessary to explain why. I explained why: theobromine concentrations vary greatly between the different chocolate types. Plus, you did not explain the 'why' anyway, all you said was 'white chocolate is not chocolate' which isn't in my list of 100 Most Helpful Answers Seen On Usenet. > I could care less about spoiling Joe > Public's fantasy, it wasn't the point. Now, not only is white chocolate unchocolate, it's a fantasy of the hoi polloi! (...) > Well I've got some road apples you may want to chew on. Thanks! Hey, would you like to taste my giant steaming salami? S. > >Anyway, although some people or authorities may classify white > >chocolate as something other than chocolate, as far as Joe Public is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -mhd I enjoyed this exchange. (...) > You made the point that cats can eat safely white chocolate therefore > it was necessary to explain why. I explained why: theobromine concentrations vary greatly between the different chocolate types. Plus, you did not explain the 'why' anyway, all you said was 'white chocolate is not chocolate' which isn't in my list of 100 Most Helpful Answers Seen On Usenet. > I could care less about spoiling Joe > Public's fantasy, it wasn't the point. Now, not only is white chocolate unchocolate, it's a fantasy of the hoi polloi! (...) > Well I've got some road apples you may want to chew on. Thanks! Hey, would you like to taste my giant steaming salami? S. Now in stereo! Steve, At this point there is no published data on the use of cranberries, or other berry producst in cats. I am aware of one study underway and the results so far are dismal - no value at all. My concern here is UN-proven claims. You point to the Hill's website on Nature's Best products. If you find a claim there that you feel is not true and cannot be proven I would be interested in taking a look at it. I don't ever bother to look at the website so I don't have any idea what is on it. I do know what anyone in Hill's has to go through to place a cIaim of any kind on any literature or packaging. Those claims have to get through a series of individuals/departments. From Science & Tech, to legal, to technical nutrition. All of which have to agree that supportive data exists to satisfy the legal folks regarding any claim made. I see a lot Madison Ave marketing glitz around claims for which there is absolutely no data whatsoever anywhere in the clinical trials or published studies. I would think that most pet owners would like to believe that when a company includes some ingredient and then makes a claim for that ingredient - that the company actually has some modicum of proof that the finished product will perform as claimed. Such is not always the case. Certainly with respect to cranberries and or any other berry product and cats UTI's. > Steve, > At this point there is no published data on the use of cranberries, > or other berry producst in cats. There you go. Incidentally, I could not find any claims on the OMH website that cranberries were added to improve urinary health (in cats). I do recall seeing such a claim made somewhere in relation to Wellness food, but buggered if I can recall where. (...) > You point to the Hill's website on Nature's Best > products. If you find a claim there that you feel is not true and > cannot be proven I would be interested in taking a look at it. 'A natural line of premium pet food for the health and happiness of pets' I don't think even OMH claim that their food provides for the 'happiness' of pets! What's in the stuff, MDMA? Now, which of these claims is from Wellness (http://www.omhpet.com/cats/wellness_overview.html) , which from SDNB? No peeking now... "Real garden vegetables, like carrots and peas, as a natural source of vitamins, minerals, and fiber to help maintain your cat's optimal health" "In addition, these top-of-the-line cat foods contain fresh fruits and vegetables, healthy grains, and vitamins and minerals" "Real ocean fish or chicken as a source for high quality protein to help promote strong muscles and a healthy body " "The primary protein source in the xxx is human grade deboned chicken" (ha - that's an easy one to ID). "The superior ingredients of xxx include..." "ingredients in xxx, like fresh fruits and vegetables, provide essential antioxidants that protect and strengthen your cat's immune system for a healthy, long life." "The Right Ingredients Make the Difference." (gosh, surely this one can't be from SDNB, can it?) "a natural line of premium ... pet food with vitamins and minerals made from some of nature's high-quality ingredients" Frankly, the SD and Wellness sites are so chock full of vague and unprovable guff that I hardly know where to start. 'Natural' - what's that,anyway? A more concrete bit of vagueness among the touch-feely language is the 'Superior Antioxidant Formula', which seems to be the only USP - superior how? Do the (allegedly) higher levels of vitamins C and E actually lead to a significantly healthier immune system than the levels in other foods? On the SDNB site, the claims that SDNB is preferred over other 'natural' foods requires us to again trust 'data on file'. Nothing like trusting the fox to guard the chicken, eh? > I don't > ever bother to look at the website so I don't have any idea what is on > it. What's on it is pretty much what's on any other touch-feely food advertising blurb - lots of tree-hugging language and a few naked hippies copulating in a ditch. (well, some of that's true). Bottom line is that Hill's and every other company is about shifting units. If more boxes fly out of the door when the package has 'luvly fluffy and natural' printed on it, then luvly fluffiness it is. > I do know what anyone in Hill's has to go through to place a cIaim > of any kind on any literature or packaging. Those claims have to get > through a series of individuals/departments. From Science & Tech, to > legal, to technical nutrition. All of which have to agree that > supportive data exists to satisfy the legal folks regarding any claim > made. In-house 'supporting data' is all too often worth little or nothing in genuine scientific terms - I am very well aware of what companies must to do be able to make product-based claims. If the in-house research actually gets to journal publication, well that's another cauldron of guppies. > I see a lot Madison Ave marketing glitz around claims for which > there is absolutely no data whatsoever anywhere in the clinical trials > or published studies. (...) > Certainly with respect to cranberries and or any other > berry product and cats UTI's. I don't know physiologically why the claim would be implausible, but I agree it should ideally be properly tested if the claim is explicitly made as part of the advertising glurge. Steve. Steve, I'll take a couple of these anyway. As far as "happiness" you've got me. I guess if the cat is healthy (from eating a healthy diet) it would then be "happy". That sounds like one of those consumer tested things they do in focus groups and where they guage consumer appeal etc. Completely out of my area of expertise. >Frankly, the SD and Wellness sites are so chock full of vague and >unprovable guff that I hardly know where to start. 'Natural' - what's >that,anyway? Regarding "natural" - that term is now defined in law. Up until mid 2001, anybody could claim a food was "natural" regardless of what they put in it. When the law finally caught up to the marketing messages, only those foods who qualified under the AAFCO definition of "natural" are permitted to make that claim. About 45 different foods in the US had to change labels and drop the term "natural" from their description of the food. I expect to see the term "human grade" get similar attention in the near future. It's kind of fun to go back in time and watch how some manufacturers have migrated from one term to another as the definition of any given term was finally codified in law. Holistic and human grade are probably the next two terms that will get a legal definition. They are certainly the most abused meaningless descriptors in the industry today. It will be kind of fun to see what companies using those terms today continue to use them after the terms are codified and standards are in place. It's also interesting to try to figure out what the next meaningless term will be that will get used in place of human grade and holistic. >A more concrete bit of vagueness among the touch-feely language is the >'Superior Antioxidant Formula', which seems to be the only USP - >superior how? Do the (allegedly) higher levels of vitamins C and E >actually lead to a significantly healthier immune system than the >levels in other foods? Hill's has been working on atnioxidants for a bit over 20 years. Research dealt with cancer issues and the introduction of Canine n/d for dogs with cancer. The antioxidant levels in Hill's products are indeed quite different. The "cocktail" of antioxidants has been proven in both the dogs and the cat to reduce the oxidative effects of free radicals. That proof has been published in various peer reviewed medical journals. The methodology was to create a set of antioxidants that could be measureably shown to reduce the damage caused by free radicals in the body. Waltham has also done similar work and used what they call the 'Comet Assay". The Superior Antioxidant levels claim gets substantiated every year by testing nearly 200 common competitive foods for the levels of vitamins e, c, beta carotene, and selenium. No other company has yet produced a food with the same or similar levels of these antioxidants. The method of proving efficacy was to measure the alkenals present in the blood. Alkenals are a by product of reactive oxygen species interaction within the body. The cocktail of antioxidants used by Hill's has been proven to reduce the alkenal levels by 50-70% over a typical non supplemented food. The activity of the cocktail of antioxidants is nearly linear in nature. Thus the the effects of vitamin e, c etc can be shown to be linear in relationship to the presence of alkenals in the blood. The work on such antioxidants yielded dietary products for cancer in the mid 90's, changes in renal diets in the late 1990's, a new canine arthritis diet this year, better efficacy on FLUTD diets and oral care diets in regards to UTI's, FLUTD and gingivitis respectively. The biggest gain was certainly in the area of canine Alzheimers, where a special cocktail of antioxidants were gain proven to bring +70% of old dogs back from the dementia problems they had. >On the SDNB site, the claims that SDNB is preferred over other >'natural' foods requires us to again trust 'data on file'. Nothing like >trusting the fox to guard the chicken, eh? Data on File means we will an must provide that proof to any other company (or governmental agency) who asks for it. It happens every day. We make similar demands of other companies who do the same thing. If the data provided is not substantial enough to satisy the competitor then they have the option of filing suit, taking the claim to various governmental entities responsible for advertising etc. On very rare occasions this might even end up in court. You can bet that anytime a company - at least one of the big 5 pet food producers make a claim with "Data on File" the other four companies demand the data immediately. The other four companies will review that data and attempt to find ways to counter the claims. If there is anyway the competitor can force the retraction of the claim they will indeed do so. Again it happens everyday. No competitor is going to allow claims like that to stand if they the proof hasn't been provided to them. In this case the "data on file" has the added strength of knowing that the companies competitors will do anything they can to force a retraction of the claim. If the claim stays out there more than 3-6 months you can be assurred that the other companies have examined the "data on file" and found no holes in the data. As you note publication rules. Many claims are made with "Data on file" to protect the ability of the researcher to get the work published. If the study that proved the effect was made public immediately, the original researcher would be unable to publish the findings. In the world of science - publish or die isn't much different than it is in academia. It is no longer good business practice to wait until the research works gets published before releasing a new food product. The "speed of business" makes that very impractical. You can expect to see "data on file" moe and more as companies rush to beat competition to the market place. >What's on it is pretty much what's on any other touch-feely food >advertising blurb - lots of tree-hugging language and a few naked >hippies copulating in a ditch. That one made me look - but darn it all, I couldn't find it anywhere. >From: "Monique Y. Mudama" spam@bounceswoosh.org >>>Well, I am sure the cranberries are there to help prevent UTIs, just as >they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the bacteria in the urinary tract. I suppose you don't believe that >eating yoghurt helps human women prevent yeast infections, either? Well, apparently you think you have the same physiology as your cat! Cats and humans ARE NOT THE SAME!! The presence of an ingredient on a label does not indict a pet food one way or the other. Obviously you disagree. >If less than a cup of cranberry juice can make the difference in a human, a >cat won't need nearly as much as the ridiculous 25 bushels of cranberries you >quote. Again, you are not the same as a cat. >Make up your mind; do you find their ingredients offensive and incomplete, or >do you find them to be just the same (ie, just as good) as the "other premium >cat foods"? I've never stated that the ingredients on Wellness are "offensive and incomplete". I have questioned why they market themselves based on ingredients rather than nutrition. I've also questioned what research they've ever contributed. (...) > There is not enough cranberries in there to do ANYTHING! How do you know? Has this actually been investigated? > The cat would > probably have to eat about 25 bushels of cranberries to move the pH meter a > hundreth of a point! It's simply a marketing tactic designed to push the > emotion button with consumers. Quite possibly. I suppose your beloved Hills, arbiters of Truth and Light, are above such tactics? Ooops, then why the epithet 'gourmet' on some of the cans? Sounds a bit like a marketing tactic. And oftentimes it's not cat food, but an 'entree'. Heavens! We could also speak of SD Nature's Best, replete with the warm glow of marketing (http://naturesbest.sciencediet.com/more/reports.asp). Aah, I can practically feel the warmth from the hand-knitted hemp underpants from here. (...) > Wellness talks a good game but has absolutely nothing in the way of research > backing up their products. Science Diet (for example) has levels of > antioxidants that are significantly higher than Wellness. Which antioxidants? What levels? Significantly higher? How are you measuring this significance? There's a suspicious lack of citations on the Hill's website regarding antioxidants. Or maybe it's "Unpublished data. Hill's Science & Technology Center, Topeka, KS, 2003" (see the Hill's web site, m/d dry food). Fuckin' convincing, that one. Funny too how you often babble that Wellness has 'too much' nutrition (e.g., too calorific) and in the same breath you will laud excess in Hills' products. I guess too much is not enough under the Sign of the Great H, eh? > Also, Wellness tends > to be quite high in calcium and phosphorus, generally speaking. 'Quite', 'generally'. Let's stop arsing around with such vagueness. The phosphorous numbers are c.0.7%DMB for most Hills' products (canned) and c.0.9% for most Wellness products (ditto). > Interestingly > enough, the "healthy, thoughtful" (??) ingredients that Wellness uses are the > same ingredients found in Science Diet and other premium cat foods. Well, both foods contain meat, although only the Hill's stuff contains corn gluten meal et al. Food for thought, indeed. Steve. >(...) \] >> Wellness talks a good game but has absolutely nothing in the way of >research [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >data. Hill's Science & Technology Center, Topeka, KS, 2003" (see the >Hill's web site, m/d dry food). Fuckin' convincing, that one. ok, i have a question. which brands are Hill's ? -L Laila, Hill's produces only two brands, Science Diet and Prescription Diet. In Europe Science Diet is called Science Plan. >Laila, >Hill's produces only two brands, Science Diet and Prescription >Diet. In Europe Science Diet is called Science Plan. oh, ok. i just got a bag of Science diet dry food. -L >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk >Funny too how you often babble that Wellness has 'too much' nutrition >(e.g., too calorific) and in the same breath you will laud excess in >Hills' products. I guess too much is not enough under the Sign of the >Great H, eh? Steve, you've got me confused w/ someone else? I've never stated that Wellness has "too much" nutrition or that is "too calorific". >Which antioxidants? What levels? Significantly higher? How are you >measuring this significance? There's a suspicious lack of citations on >the Hill's website regarding antioxidants. Beta Caroetene, Selenium, Vitamin C, Vitamin E. Perhaps it's proprietary information? <shrug > >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Steve, you've got me confused w/ someone else? I've never stated > that Wellness has "too much" nutrition or that is "too calorific". You might not have said those exact phrases, but you've said plenty of remarkably similar things... "Any food that makes the "all life stage" claim has higher levels of nutrients more appropriate for growth foods." (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/9e7ea8359f407477) "A food that is "all life stages" is a growth food...READ KITTEN FOOD! We're talking nutrients here, please try to keep up" (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/21953ab532d0df3d) "what's wrong with shooting for the precise amount of nutrients, neither excessive nor deficient" (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/14420b0614cebba6). Seems that you are a one-trick pony in dog groups, too: "[Innova] is a puppy food (designated for all life stages) that could have levels of phosphorus, protein, calcium, fat, etc. that aren't as appropriate for an adult dog" (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.pets.dogs.health/msg/fba0f120be67fa5b) (...) > Beta Caroetene, Selenium, Vitamin C, Vitamin E. Perhaps it's > proprietary information? <shrug> So, we supposed to believe in the utility of higher levels of C etc., without any evidence? When OMH et al. use similar tactics, your head practically explodes with indignation! Steve. >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk >> >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.pets.dogs.health/msg/fba0f120be67fa5b LMAO! looks like he copies/pastes his posts from the dog group and just inserts cat. ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >LMAO! looks like he copies/pastes his posts from the dog group and just >inserts cat. No, unlike you I actually think for myself. I also see that you completely ignored about 3 or 4 of my posts holding your feet to the fire about comments you made. Again, typical of you to dish it out and then not be able to take it! ;) I don't see you or anyone else refuting the substance of what I posted! >From: "Steve G" news@stevethepsycho.co.uk >> >Funny too how you often babble that Wellness has 'too much' >nutrition [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Steve, you've got me confused w/ someone else? I've never stated >> that Wellness has "too much" nutrition or that is "too calorific". Steve, once again in your quest to be completely indecipherable, you're confusing your terms. Let me ask you this...what is *your* definintion of a food that has "too much nutrition"? >"Any food that makes the "all life stage" claim has higher levels of >nutrients more appropriate for growth foods." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >could have levels of phosphorus, protein, calcium, fat, etc. that >aren't as appropriate for an adult dog" Yes, I've said those things. Care to prove me wrong on any of those statements? Hmm? >> Beta Caroetene, Selenium, Vitamin C, Vitamin E. Perhaps it's >> proprietary information? <shrug> > >So, we supposed to believe in the utility of higher levels of C etc., >without any evidence? When OMH et al. use similar tactics, your head >practically explodes with indignation! It seems to work for you when it comes to other foods! And I'm sure there is plenty of evidence supporting the synergistic qualities of Vitamin C and Vitamin E! If I believe the earth is round, but don't give a website to back it up, will you take just as cynical view as well? >From: Laila illyria@hotmail.com >garlik? blueberries? why god, why would they put this into cat food? Because it makes people want to buy it. In other words, it sounds good to the person buying the food so they think it must be good to feed their cat. It's a pretty stupid way to feed a carnivore, but hey.....people who buy their cat food based on emotion fall for marketing tricks like that all of the time. :( >>From: Laila illyria@hotmail.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pretty stupid way to feed a carnivore, but hey.....people who buy their cat >food based on emotion fall for marketing tricks like that all of the time. :( they must indeed be idiots, although Murka does eat blueberries. i guess they are fun to bat about and then eat. to me, a combination of garlic and bluberries sounds nauseating. yak. -L > they must indeed be idiots, although Murka does eat blueberries. i > guess they are fun to bat about and then eat. to me, a combination of > garlic and bluberries sounds nauseating. yak. > > -L Well people who feed their cats food that is mostly made of corn must be idiots. My cats love Wellness, and I like that it is made of quality ingredients. I thought the addition of blueberries and such was a little odd, but it rounds out the food. I would rather have blueberries in there than some of the other crap that's in other cat food. I admit, Wellness appeals to the granola part of me, but so what? It's quality cat food and my cats are all very healthy. Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG >> they must indeed be idiots, although Murka does eat blueberries. i >> guess they are fun to bat about and then eat. to me, a combination of >> garlic and bluberries sounds nauseating. yak. >Well people who feed their cats food that is mostly made of corn must be >idiots. My cats love Wellness, and I like that it is made of quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >appeals to the granola part of me, but so what? It's quality cat food and >my cats are all very healthy. i didn't look at the ingredients, but when i opened a can i thought the food looked nice and smelled nice, compared to everything else that i fed Shaina. i prefer "natural" foods for myself too, but they are bloody expensive, so i get them for myself as treats, but i really want to feed her well. lol, i am a starving student. i bought her fancy feast once and i felt horrible feeding it to her. it didn't even look like food. -L >>From: Laila illyria@hotmail.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pretty stupid way to feed a carnivore, but hey.....people who buy their cat >food based on emotion fall for marketing tricks like that all of the time. :( Hi Just curious -- Do you actually own a cat? Because, you never seem to contribute a single thing to this group except for pushing Hill's products or picking apart their competitors. You never post a condolence to someone who's cat passed on, or contribute anything else other than thinly veiled Hill's trumping. Why is that? It's almost as if you have a vested interest in Hills doing well. Do you actually care about cats, or are they simply a resource to be harvested for the money? eq >From: ">equalizer <> >>>From: Laila illyria@hotmail.com >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >interest in Hills doing well. Do you actually care about cats, or are >they simply a resource to be harvested for the money? Oh yeah, it's quite obvious what Gaubster's game is, LOL. He will deny working for Hill's but we know better. You're right, he has never posted in any other threads except ones where he can push Scie Die. ________ 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Oh yeah, it's quite obvious what Gaubster's game is, LOL. He will deny >working >for Hill's but we know better. You're right, he has never posted in any >other >threads except ones where he can push Scie Die. >________ Lauren, you're simply lying again. More lies from you. That seems to be par for the course for you and your profession. I've posted in many threads over the years, but that never seems to matter to you, now does it? >From: ">equalizer <> >Hi > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >interest in Hills doing well. Do you actually care about cats, or are >they simply a resource to be harvested for the money? EQ, well, well, well....an actual non-trollish question from you! I'm glad to see that from you actually. Yes, I do have a cat. As for sending condolences, I'm done that from time to time but don't make it a habit of doing it for everyone, all the time. In fact, a couple of years ago, I sent my regards to Lauren and she responded with nothing but vitriol and hatred. So, since she seems to be an ingrate, she's off my Christmas list! ;) I lurked here for a long time and got fed up with all of the Hill's bashing. I've fed Hill's for over 6 years to both my dog and my cat (family and friends have as well) and I got tired of people talking out of their *sses. A friend of mine who is a vet is a major resource of info for me, not to mention my previous experiences with the company. Quite frankly, Hill's is not the evil satan that you, Lauren, and a few others make them out to be. That being said, I hope you and your loved ones Have A Merry Christmas! :) >>From: ">equalizer <> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >That being said, I hope you and your loved ones Have A Merry Christmas! :) Actually, I don't believe I've made Hill's into the "evil Satan". If you think otherwise, please feel free to cite the post in which I made them out to be some sort of horror. I for the most part simply point out to people who are new that Steve Crane works for Hill's when he recommends their food, that's about it. Good to see you do in fact own a cat. Strange you never post anything about him/her. You can see that most of the rest of us on here talk about ours every chance we get. Hey -- how about posting some pictures and a little info? You might not look quite so much like a Hill's troll/sock puppet if you do! It might even end up being a good marketing angle, so what've you got to lose! Happy Holidays to you as well (and your cat) from Eq, Floppy, Daisy, Robocat, and Ivan >From: ">equalizer <> >I for the most part simply point out to >people who are new that Steve Crane works for Hill's when he recommends >their food, that's about it. Well, you also like to egg on Lauren when she is in the middle of one of her Hil's Hating rants! ;) >Good to see you do in fact own a cat. Strange you never post anything >about him/her. You can see that most of the rest of us on here talk >about ours every chance we get. Hey -- how about posting some pictures >and a little info? You might not look quite so much like a Hill's >troll/sock puppet if you do! It might even end up being a good marketing >angle, so what've you got to lose! I have limited time to spend gaining information (and providing my input) in forums such as these. I simply don't take the time to upload pictures and post them. Not to mention that I haven't taken the time to learn how to do that using AOL's newgroups features. I'm sure it's quite simple. I don't have a webpage either. I'd much rather spend my free time with my wife and 4 1/2 yr old boy!! :) >Happy Holidays to you as well (and your cat) > >from Eq, Floppy, Daisy, Robocat, and Ivan ..and to you and yours! -> Because it makes people want to buy it. In other words, it sounds good to the > person buying the food so they think it must be good to feed their cat. > It's a > pretty stupid way to feed a carnivore, but hey.....people who buy their > cat > food based on emotion fall for marketing tricks like that all of the time. > :( Oh yeah. It's stupid to feed your cat food that's made *primarily* of MEAT, as opposed to other commercial junk cat food. - -Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG >-> Because it makes people want to buy it. In other words, it sounds good >to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh yeah. It's stupid to feed your cat food that's made *primarily* of MEAT, >as opposed to other commercial junk cat food. i bought Wellness food and Old Mother Hubbard food for Shaina a few times and she loved it. what's more, the food smells good to me. i need to fined a place that sells it for less though. -L > i bought Wellness food and Old Mother Hubbard food for Shaina a few times > and she loved it. what's more, the food smells good to me. i need to fined > a place that sells it for less though. I found a place that sells it for 95 cents a can, discounted for a case, plus you get a punch card where some number of case purchases gets you a $20 gift card. That's about the cheapest I've found it; the most expensive is $1.19 a can. The Wellness website has a vendor locator; I used that locator and then called a few of the stores up. Signaturemonique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude! KellyH - What foods do you believe to be "primarily" composed of meat? > KellyH - What foods do you believe to be "primarily" composed of meat? The ones that list a meat as the first several ingredients and I'm not talking about by-products. Honestly, let's not do this by-products are just as good crap. That argument's been done to death. If I want to pay too much money (in your opinion) to feed my cats Wellness, that's my business. I feel good about feeding it to them and they are all very healthy. Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG >From: "KellyH" Kelly@whatever.com >> KellyH - What foods do you believe to be "primarily" composed of meat? > >The ones that list a meat as the first several ingredients and I'm not >talking about by-products. Honestly, let's not do this by-products are just >as good crap. That argument's been done to death. and then some.... If I want to pay too >much money (in your opinion) to feed my cats Wellness, that's my business. >I feel good about feeding it to them and they are all very healthy. Come on, Kelly, now wouldn't you rather feed your cats corn gluten meal, artifical liver flavor, and other crap ingredients (that stink to high heaven)? Afterall, according to Steve Crane, ingredients don't mean squat. 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >>From: "KellyH" Kelly@whatever.com > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Lauren >________ Except if they're cranberries, apparently...... >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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: ">equalizer <> >>>From: "KellyH" Kelly@whatever.com >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Except if they're cranberries, apparently...... LMAO! Apparently indeed :) 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.wholecatjournal.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Come on, Kelly, now wouldn't you rather feed your cats corn gluten meal, >artifical liver flavor, and other crap ingredients (that stink to high >heaven)? > Afterall, according to Steve Crane, ingredients don't mean squat. Lauren, he's never said that. You're putting words in his mouth. Yet you hate it when others' do it to you! What gives? Are you just a liar AND a hyprocrite?? >From: "KellyH" Kelly@whatever.com >> KellyH - What foods do you believe to be "primarily" composed of meat? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >much money (in your opinion) to feed my cats Wellness, that's my business. >I feel good about feeding it to them and they are all very healthy. With all due respect, Kelly, that's just it....you "feel" good about it. Ingredient labels are listed by WEIGHT, not by whether or not it is the "primary" ingredient. And yes, *some* by-products are just "as good". You can't paint with such a broad brush! > With all due respect, Kelly, that's just it....you "feel" good about it. > Ingredient labels are listed by WEIGHT, not by whether or not it is the > "primary" ingredient. And yes, *some* by-products are just "as good". You > can't paint with such a broad brush! Could you please explain what the difference is betwee |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message