Best wet food for keeping cystitis away?

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
What you did say was "I said that it wouldn't be appropriate to feed the
food to kittens since it doesn't provide for their nutritional
requirements. Wouldn't that be considered harmful tests on
animals--something Hill's doesn't do, btw."

No, I doubt it would be "harmful" to feed an adult nutrient profile to a
kitten. However, it wouldn't be "appropriate", like I said.

What I get from this is that the REASON that Hill's doesn't feed its
product to 8 kittens for 10 weeks is because it's CRUEL. I don't see any
other way to read your statement. If it's CRUEL to feed to them I
presume it would cause them some BODILY HARM--which would cause the food
to fail the 10-week feeding trial.

Oh, please. You don't like Hill's, so that's the big leap that you make? A
reasonable person wouldn't logically assume such a thing. Why would Hill's
test an adult food on a kitten when the purpose of the food is to meet a
different nutrient profile--adult maintenance?

I think that formulating a food to meet the profiles without conducting
a feed test is ridiculous at best.


Then we absolutely agree on that point!

I think that the AAFCO feed test profiles are the barest minimum level
of quality assurance, and pretty much any food that deserves to be on
the market should be able to pass them blindfolded, so to speak.

I agree w/ that, as well.

Yet Hill's Adult Maintenance can't. That's a ****-poor performance in my
book.

This is where you go wrong. You're totally taking your opinion out of context.
The food doesn't FAIL for sustaining growth of kittens. That's not what it
has been tested for. It has been tested for the specific "adult maintenance"
profile.

You claim that because Wellness cat food, for example, doesn't cause
nutritional deficiency in kittens over the course of 10 weeks, it
shouldn't be fed to adult cats.

I'm saying that the "all life stages" nutrient profile (which has to meet the
most demanding or higher requirement for certain nutrients) is more appropriate
for the growth of kittens and since adult cats don't have the same nutritional
needs as kittens, then to feed excessive levels of fat, protein, phosphorus,
calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc. etc. etc. (found in kitten foods) is not in
the best interest of the adult cat.

That's ludicrous. By logical extension of your argument, we should feed
to adult cats only those foods which cause nutritional deficiency in
kittens...within a window of ten measly weeks, no less.

You're making that argument, not me.

Neither of us has the guidelines sitting in front of us.


yes, that's true.

We are equally on shaky ground.

I suppose so. That's why I would prefer to hear from someone (like a Steve
Crane who should know exactly the rules based on his years of experience) who
can explain exactly the points we are each trying to make.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.


That's the way you read it. I will defend Hill's against the Hill's bashers
since they have nothing to go on but rumours and innuendo. I have done my
research on various companies (that may be dated as the months and years roll
on) and am simply expressing why I would or would not purchase a particular
product. Excuse me for sharing what I've learned. There is so much misleading
and outright wrong information being spread by so many that I figure from time
to time it would be helpful to present the other side of the story.


What have you "presented" that hasn't been disproven? Feces in
Wellness foods? No. Wellness doesn't use feeding trials? No. Both were
disproven. Just keep feeding what you're feeding and we'll do the
same. Okay? Ok.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
What you did say was "I said that it wouldn't be appropriate to feed the
food to kittens since it doesn't provide for their nutritional
requirements. Wouldn't that be considered harmful tests on
animals--something Hill's doesn't do, btw."

No, I doubt it would be "harmful" to feed an adult nutrient profile to a
kitten. However, it wouldn't be "appropriate", like I said.

What I get from this is that the REASON that Hill's doesn't feed its
product to 8 kittens for 10 weeks is because it's CRUEL. I don't see any
other way to read your statement. If it's CRUEL to feed to them I
presume it would cause them some BODILY HARM--which would cause the food
to fail the 10-week feeding trial.

Oh, please. You don't like Hill's, so that's the big leap that you make? A
reasonable person wouldn't logically assume such a thing. Why would Hill's
test an adult food on a kitten when the purpose of the food is to meet a
different nutrient profile--adult maintenance?

I think that formulating a food to meet the profiles without conducting
a feed test is ridiculous at best.


Then we absolutely agree on that point!

I think that the AAFCO feed test profiles are the barest minimum level
of quality assurance, and pretty much any food that deserves to be on
the market should be able to pass them blindfolded, so to speak.

I agree w/ that, as well.

Yet Hill's Adult Maintenance can't. That's a ****-poor performance in my
book.

This is where you go wrong. You're totally taking your opinion out of context.
The food doesn't FAIL for sustaining growth of kittens. That's not what it
has been tested for. It has been tested for the specific "adult maintenance"
profile.

You claim that because Wellness cat food, for example, doesn't cause
nutritional deficiency in kittens over the course of 10 weeks, it
shouldn't be fed to adult cats.

I'm saying that the "all life stages" nutrient profile (which has to meet the
most demanding or higher requirement for certain nutrients) is more appropriate
for the growth of kittens and since adult cats don't have the same nutritional
needs as kittens, then to feed excessive levels of fat, protein, phosphorus,
calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc. etc. etc. (found in kitten foods) is not in
the best interest of the adult cat.

That's ludicrous. By logical extension of your argument, we should feed
to adult cats only those foods which cause nutritional deficiency in
kittens...within a window of ten measly weeks, no less.

You're making that argument, not me.

Neither of us has the guidelines sitting in front of us.


yes, that's true.

We are equally on shaky ground.

I suppose so. That's why I would prefer to hear from someone (like a Steve
Crane who should know exactly the rules based on his years of experience) who
can explain exactly the points we are each trying to make.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.


That's the way you read it. I will defend Hill's against the Hill's bashers
since they have nothing to go on but rumours and innuendo. I have done my
research on various companies (that may be dated as the months and years roll
on) and am simply expressing why I would or would not purchase a particular
product. Excuse me for sharing what I've learned. There is so much misleading
and outright wrong information being spread by so many that I figure from time
to time it would be helpful to present the other side of the story.


What have you "presented" that hasn't been disproven? Feces in
Wellness foods? No. Wellness doesn't use feeding trials? No. Both were
disproven. Just keep feeding what you're feeding and we'll do the
same. Okay? Ok.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ...
What you did say was "I said that it wouldn't be appropriate to feed the
food to kittens since it doesn't provide for their nutritional
requirements. Wouldn't that be considered harmful tests on
animals--something Hill's doesn't do, btw."

No, I doubt it would be "harmful" to feed an adult nutrient profile to a
kitten. However, it wouldn't be "appropriate", like I said.

What I get from this is that the REASON that Hill's doesn't feed its
product to 8 kittens for 10 weeks is because it's CRUEL. I don't see any
other way to read your statement. If it's CRUEL to feed to them I
presume it would cause them some BODILY HARM--which would cause the food
to fail the 10-week feeding trial.

Oh, please. You don't like Hill's, so that's the big leap that you make? A
reasonable person wouldn't logically assume such a thing. Why would Hill's
test an adult food on a kitten when the purpose of the food is to meet a
different nutrient profile--adult maintenance?

I think that formulating a food to meet the profiles without conducting
a feed test is ridiculous at best.


Then we absolutely agree on that point!

I think that the AAFCO feed test profiles are the barest minimum level
of quality assurance, and pretty much any food that deserves to be on
the market should be able to pass them blindfolded, so to speak.

I agree w/ that, as well.

Yet Hill's Adult Maintenance can't. That's a ****-poor performance in my
book.

This is where you go wrong. You're totally taking your opinion out of context.
The food doesn't FAIL for sustaining growth of kittens. That's not what it
has been tested for. It has been tested for the specific "adult maintenance"
profile.

You claim that because Wellness cat food, for example, doesn't cause
nutritional deficiency in kittens over the course of 10 weeks, it
shouldn't be fed to adult cats.

I'm saying that the "all life stages" nutrient profile (which has to meet the
most demanding or higher requirement for certain nutrients) is more appropriate
for the growth of kittens and since adult cats don't have the same nutritional
needs as kittens, then to feed excessive levels of fat, protein, phosphorus,
calcium, sodium, magnesium, etc. etc. etc. (found in kitten foods) is not in
the best interest of the adult cat.

That's ludicrous. By logical extension of your argument, we should feed
to adult cats only those foods which cause nutritional deficiency in
kittens...within a window of ten measly weeks, no less.

You're making that argument, not me.

Neither of us has the guidelines sitting in front of us.


yes, that's true.

We are equally on shaky ground.

I suppose so. That's why I would prefer to hear from someone (like a Steve
Crane who should know exactly the rules based on his years of experience) who
can explain exactly the points we are each trying to make.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.


That's the way you read it. I will defend Hill's against the Hill's bashers
since they have nothing to go on but rumours and innuendo. I have done my
research on various companies (that may be dated as the months and years roll
on) and am simply expressing why I would or would not purchase a particular
product. Excuse me for sharing what I've learned. There is so much misleading
and outright wrong information being spread by so many that I figure from time
to time it would be helpful to present the other side of the story.


What have you "presented" that hasn't been disproven? Feces in
Wellness foods? No. Wellness doesn't use feeding trials? No. Both were
disproven. Just keep feeding what you're feeding and we'll do the
same. Okay? Ok.

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:
Your posts are full of strawman arguments, you
have a huge reading comprehension problem and you're too hard
headed to have an open enough mind to discuss things. Why would
I
waste my time?

Cheryl, the same can be said of you.

Of course it "can" be. But it's just not true. BTW, another
strawman.


Well, of course you wouldn't think so, but it's true. You've
proven that here, time and time again.

LOL Amazing.

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:
Your posts are full of strawman arguments, you
have a huge reading comprehension problem and you're too hard
headed to have an open enough mind to discuss things. Why would
I
waste my time?

Cheryl, the same can be said of you.

Of course it "can" be. But it's just not true. BTW, another
strawman.


Well, of course you wouldn't think so, but it's true. You've
proven that here, time and time again.

LOL Amazing.

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:
Your posts are full of strawman arguments, you
have a huge reading comprehension problem and you're too hard
headed to have an open enough mind to discuss things. Why would
I
waste my time?

Cheryl, the same can be said of you.

Of course it "can" be. But it's just not true. BTW, another
strawman.


Well, of course you wouldn't think so, but it's true. You've
proven that here, time and time again.

LOL Amazing.

From: (Karen M.)

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

snip

You defend Science Diet because you believe they provide pet foods that
do a good job of making diets that meet your animal's needs. That's
great. As I've stated time and again, you are putting your pets' health
in the hands of that company. I certainly hope you can cheerlead for
them.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.

-Alison in OH

Alison,

Thank you for very eloquently stating what I became to tired to say
(because talking to this guy is like talking to a brick wall). I
noticed in G2's next post he stated once again that "all life stages"
diets are to rich in nutrients for an adult cat, he failed to
acknowledge that such formula are, with a few exceptions, lower in
such nutrients than an actual kitten formula. You'll just keep going
round and round with him, which is why I stopped. Don't give yourself
an aneurysm.

Karen

It sure is like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? I have a very strong
suspicion that Chris aka is another Hill's rep posting here.
Check this out:

URGENT - food problem
Date: 20 May 2003 17:37:55 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
Size: 1,836 bytes

Tara email-address-deleted wrote in message news:email-address-deleted...
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
It wasn't a good analogy.

Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy. The intentions might
be good, but that is what it boils down to.


I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
don't think you're being realistic.

And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
that is.
Tara, I don't know what kind of experience you've had working for vets,
maybe it's different in your part of the world. I've spent over 20
years in veterinary clinics all over the Northwest. Out of the 3,500
vets that practice in that part of the world there aren't but a
handful that would fall into the category you describe. And, I know
exactly which ones they are. A good example is one in a sizeable (for
north Idaho anyway) Northern Idaho city. This particular practice
sells whatever they can, to anyone they can, regardless of need. They
push heartworm tests in an area where there has never been a
non-transient case of heartworm in a dog yet. Efficacy of products is
not important to this clinic, although they sure make it sound that
way to clients. I know these clinics exist, but they are by far and away the
extreme
rarity in veterinary medicine. Over the 20 years I've been in and out
of clinics from Fairbanks to Cheyenne there aren't a dozen clinics
that would agree to sell a diet without proof in the way of clinical
studies to back it up. What food does this Northern Idaho clinic sell?
Not Hill's, because Hill's wouldn't agree to give the vet and the
staff free food for their pets."



________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: (Karen M.)

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

snip

You defend Science Diet because you believe they provide pet foods that
do a good job of making diets that meet your animal's needs. That's
great. As I've stated time and again, you are putting your pets' health
in the hands of that company. I certainly hope you can cheerlead for
them.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.

-Alison in OH

Alison,

Thank you for very eloquently stating what I became to tired to say
(because talking to this guy is like talking to a brick wall). I
noticed in G2's next post he stated once again that "all life stages"
diets are to rich in nutrients for an adult cat, he failed to
acknowledge that such formula are, with a few exceptions, lower in
such nutrients than an actual kitten formula. You'll just keep going
round and round with him, which is why I stopped. Don't give yourself
an aneurysm.

Karen

It sure is like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? I have a very strong
suspicion that Chris aka is another Hill's rep posting here.
Check this out:

URGENT - food problem
Date: 20 May 2003 17:37:55 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
Size: 1,836 bytes

Tara email-address-deleted wrote in message news:email-address-deleted...
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
It wasn't a good analogy.

Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy. The intentions might
be good, but that is what it boils down to.


I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
don't think you're being realistic.

And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
that is.
Tara, I don't know what kind of experience you've had working for vets,
maybe it's different in your part of the world. I've spent over 20
years in veterinary clinics all over the Northwest. Out of the 3,500
vets that practice in that part of the world there aren't but a
handful that would fall into the category you describe. And, I know
exactly which ones they are. A good example is one in a sizeable (for
north Idaho anyway) Northern Idaho city. This particular practice
sells whatever they can, to anyone they can, regardless of need. They
push heartworm tests in an area where there has never been a
non-transient case of heartworm in a dog yet. Efficacy of products is
not important to this clinic, although they sure make it sound that
way to clients. I know these clinics exist, but they are by far and away the
extreme
rarity in veterinary medicine. Over the 20 years I've been in and out
of clinics from Fairbanks to Cheyenne there aren't a dozen clinics
that would agree to sell a diet without proof in the way of clinical
studies to back it up. What food does this Northern Idaho clinic sell?
Not Hill's, because Hill's wouldn't agree to give the vet and the
staff free food for their pets."



________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: (Karen M.)

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

snip

You defend Science Diet because you believe they provide pet foods that
do a good job of making diets that meet your animal's needs. That's
great. As I've stated time and again, you are putting your pets' health
in the hands of that company. I certainly hope you can cheerlead for
them.

But attacking other manufacturers on spurious claims that involve
supposedly poor comparisons with Hill's? It's not necessary, it's not
sound reasoning, it's petty and spiteful.

-Alison in OH

Alison,

Thank you for very eloquently stating what I became to tired to say
(because talking to this guy is like talking to a brick wall). I
noticed in G2's next post he stated once again that "all life stages"
diets are to rich in nutrients for an adult cat, he failed to
acknowledge that such formula are, with a few exceptions, lower in
such nutrients than an actual kitten formula. You'll just keep going
round and round with him, which is why I stopped. Don't give yourself
an aneurysm.

Karen

It sure is like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? I have a very strong
suspicion that Chris aka is another Hill's rep posting here.
Check this out:

URGENT - food problem
Date: 20 May 2003 17:37:55 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
Size: 1,836 bytes

Tara email-address-deleted wrote in message news:email-address-deleted...
GAUBSTER2 wrote:
It wasn't a good analogy.

Sure it was. Using a position of authority and power to push a product
in order to make money IS an appropriate analogy. The intentions might
be good, but that is what it boils down to.


I suppose the responsible veternarian prescribes products based on their
efficacy. I realize you're just stating your personal opinion here, but I
don't think you're being realistic.

And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
that is.
Tara, I don't know what kind of experience you've had working for vets,
maybe it's different in your part of the world. I've spent over 20
years in veterinary clinics all over the Northwest. Out of the 3,500
vets that practice in that part of the world there aren't but a
handful that would fall into the category you describe. And, I know
exactly which ones they are. A good example is one in a sizeable (for
north Idaho anyway) Northern Idaho city. This particular practice
sells whatever they can, to anyone they can, regardless of need. They
push heartworm tests in an area where there has never been a
non-transient case of heartworm in a dog yet. Efficacy of products is
not important to this clinic, although they sure make it sound that
way to clients. I know these clinics exist, but they are by far and away the
extreme
rarity in veterinary medicine. Over the 20 years I've been in and out
of clinics from Fairbanks to Cheyenne there aren't a dozen clinics
that would agree to sell a diet without proof in the way of clinical
studies to back it up. What food does this Northern Idaho clinic sell?
Not Hill's, because Hill's wouldn't agree to give the vet and the
staff free food for their pets."



________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: olitter (PawsForThought)

It sure is like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? I have a very strong
suspicion that Chris aka is another Hill's rep posting
here.
Check this out:

THE FOLLOWING REPLY CREDITED TO ME BY LAUREN WAS MADE BY STEVE CRANE AND NOT BY
ME!!!

**************Lauren, quit trying to discredit me by confusing me w/ other
people. It only discredits you (again).************

And how many vets have you worked for? Besides that one friend of yours,
that is.
Tara, I don't know what kind of experience you've had working for vets,
maybe it's different in your part of the world. I've spent over 20
years in veterinary clinics all over the Northwest. Out of the 3,500
vets that practice in that part of the world there aren't but a
handful that would fall into the category you describe. And, I know
exactly which ones they are. A good example is one in a sizeable (for
north Idaho anyway) Northern Idaho city. This particular practice
sells whatever they can, to anyone they can, regardless of need. They
push heartworm tests in an area where there has never been a
non-transient case of heartworm in a dog yet. Efficacy of products is
not important to this clinic, although they sure make it sound that
way to clients. I know these clinics exist, but they are by far and away the
extreme
rarity in veterinary medicine. Over the 20 years I've been in and out
of clinics from Fairbanks to Cheyenne there aren't a dozen clinics
that would agree to sell a diet without proof in the way of clinical
studies to back it up. What food does this Northern Idaho clinic sell?
Not Hill's, because Hill's wouldn't agree to give the vet and the
staff free food for their pets."