carousel266 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Our dogs used to be on science diet, however after running out of a giant bag we had bought on the internet, I grabbed a supermarket bag one week, and unfortunately weeks turned to a few months. I know that the supermarket stuff is rubbish, and I'm keen to switch back to a premium kibble in conjunction with chicken frames, necks etc. I was wondering if Eukanuba is ok? It works out at about half the price of science diet, royal canin etc Surely it must be an improvement on what I have been feeding them! (Yes I feel bad) Also i was looking over some old posts and a few people mentioned they won't use science diet due to political reasons? What's this all about, someone mentioned the support the RSPCA, I'm confused, is that a bad thing? Anyways just curious if anyone could fill me in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carluke Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Also i was looking over some old posts and a few people mentioned they won't use science diet due to political reasons? No idea, but I can say that I have been visiting 2 dogs in quarantine in Melbourne and they feed Science Diet, I have no issues with there condition. Cheers Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danois Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I think it relates to the fact that Hills are owned by Proctor & Gamble or someone else who also make cosmetics in other areas of their business and they test on animals. The issue which everyone had with Eukanuba related to a PETA visit to the testing facility in the states which showed some pretty horrid things. Give Nutrience a try - it is really good value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carousel266 Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share Posted March 1, 2007 Can you give me an idea of how much Nutrience is? I haven't been able to find any online stores that sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Proctor and Gamble own Eukanuba, not Science Diet. Eukanuba is a great food, don't always believe what you hear from PETA. I feed my four on Euk. and they all do really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I, personally, have a political/economic objection to importing dry dogfood when Australia produces so much meat and meat prices are so low here. Thus I generally settle for a mid-price range domestic dogfood and supplement with high quality chicken frames, mince, eggs, carrots, cabbage, and a fish-based multi-nutrient/trace mineral supplement. Actually, I do the reverse. I feed meat etc. and supplement with dry food. But then, I'm feeding 10 to 50 dogs, so price is a concern. My local vet (who was a breeder before she became a vet) says that the 'digestability' arguement doesn't hold water. Imagine basing your own diet on minimising the amount you deficate ;) . Roughage is part of a natural diet. Wild dogs undoubetedly eat bits of fur, feathers, and other 'rubbish' . . . which just passes through. I'd rather just get a bigger pooper scooper ;) . Because Australia is an old continent and trace mineral deficiencies are ubiquitous, I think that trace mineral supplementation is a good idea. As a scientist I object to any product being marketed as "Science" . In my book that's a joke I don't want to be the butt of ;) . Btw, if you want to read a label that looks really awful, try reading the Eukanuba Veterinary Weight Loss diet bag. If I remember correctly, First ingredient is corn. Second is sorghum. Then there's some chicken by-product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I feed Advance and find it to be excellent for all 4 of my dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 My local vet (who was a breeder before she became a vet) says that the 'digestability' arguement doesn't hold water. Imagine basing your own diet on minimising the amount you deficate ;) . Roughage is part of a natural diet. Wild dogs undoubetedly eat bits of fur, feathers, and other 'rubbish' . . . which just passes through. I'd rather just get a bigger pooper scooper . Because Australia is an old continent and trace mineral deficiencies are ubiquitous, I think that trace mineral supplementation is a good idea. I disagree, no offence to your breeder/vet, but I am yet to meet a vet who knows anything more than the basics of dog nutrition, I'm sure they exist, but they certainly aren't the norm. You cannot possibly compare the GI tract of a canine with that of a human, there is no similarity at all. The teeth, the saliva, the time food remains in the stomach, the strength of the stomach acids and the actual length of the intestines are all totally different, a dog has a carnivore's digestive system which is designed to deal with flesh and bones. That's not to say that they cannot deal with any carbohydrate, but they do have problems processing large amounts which is why cheap dry foods that are full of fillers and have a high cereal content will produce large amounts of poo and occasionally diarrhoea in some dogs. You will also have to feed twice as much as the nutrition derived from the grain content of the food is minimal. A dog is not designed to process carbohydrate whereas we humans deal with starches very well and diets containing large amounts of fibre (roughage) are actually beneficial, in fact humans who consume minimal amounts of fibre are actually predisposing themselves to a variety of diseases including cancer of the bowel. Fur, feathers and other 'rubbish' are still parts of an animal and are not carbohydrate, I doubt that you will ever see a wild dog grazing in a wheat field or trying to raid a silo. If the OP wishes to feed a dry food as the basis of her dog's diet then I would recommend Eagle Pack Holistic or Nutro, personally I have never found an Australian product that gives the same results as either of the aforementioned products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog_Horse_Girl Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) I'd suggest either a raw, whole foods diet, or a better quality kibble than Euk. The good choices include Royal Canin, Eagle Pack, Nutro, Nutrience, or Dick van Patten's Natural Balance. I have no problem with imports - they're superior in quality as compared to all the locally produced stuff. If you've ever been past a Bush's knackery or Pedigree facility...you'll know THAT smell. That's the quality of the pet food we make here. Utter crap. P.S - Why do you have to buy online? ;) ETA - HSD is a huge sponsor of RSPCA...the organisation that kills around 50% of the dogs that go into their "shelters" among other atrocities. Edited March 2, 2007 by lillysmum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 My dogs don't get a lot of kibble food in comparison to their other foods and i have no idea of the ethics behind the varieties available but after switching to Dick Van Patten's Natural Balance thats where we'll stay. Its good stuff, and they love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff'n'Toller Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 ETA - HSD is a huge sponsor of RSPCA...the organisation that kills around 50% of the dogs that go into their "shelters" among other atrocities. Just on the flip side, apart from the PTS numbers etc etc. I believe that a multi-national company that is quite obviously rolling in it should be supporting shelters, and it can only be good for those dogs who were eating the lowest of supermarket crap before this, or whatever was donated so their food was constantly changing which IMHO is worse. Royal Canin sponsor Animal Aid Trust down here in Vic. If Animal Aid or RSPCA are going to be selling super-premium foods then I think the company should at least be supporting those dogs in care. But anyhow that is off topic. You will get heaps of different opinions here My senior dogs are on hills as they look fantastic on it, my younger dog is on Eagle Pack Holistic because EP seems to suit him more than hills. Also I would say beware of estimating the cost of each based on the amount you would feed each dog regardless of the brand because if I fed my dogs the amount hills recommended- they would be huge! ;) Mel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmoo Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Hills is owned by Colgate Palmolive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 (edited) My local vet (who was a breeder before she became a vet) says that the 'digestability' arguement doesn't hold water. Imagine basing your own diet on minimising the amount you deficate . Roughage is part of a natural diet. Wild dogs undoubetedly eat bits of fur, feathers, and other 'rubbish' . . . which just passes through. I'd rather just get a bigger pooper scooper . Because Australia is an old continent and trace mineral deficiencies are ubiquitous, I think that trace mineral supplementation is a good idea. I disagree, no offence to your breeder/vet, but I am yet to meet a vet who knows anything more than the basics of dog nutrition, I'm sure they exist, but they certainly aren't the norm. You cannot possibly compare the GI tract of a canine with that of a human, there is no similarity at all. The teeth, the saliva, the time food remains in the stomach, the strength of the stomach acids and the actual length of the intestines are all totally different, a dog has a carnivore's digestive system which is designed to deal with flesh and bones. That's not to say that they cannot deal with any carbohydrate, but they do have problems processing large amounts which is why cheap dry foods that are full of fillers and have a high cereal content will produce large amounts of poo and occasionally diarrhoea in some dogs. You will also have to feed twice as much as the nutrition derived from the grain content of the food is minimal. A dog is not designed to process carbohydrate whereas we humans deal with starches very well and diets containing large amounts of fibre (roughage) are actually beneficial, in fact humans who consume minimal amounts of fibre are actually predisposing themselves to a variety of diseases including cancer of the bowel. Fur, feathers and other 'rubbish' are still parts of an animal and are not carbohydrate, I doubt that you will ever see a wild dog grazing in a wheat field or trying to raid a silo. If the OP wishes to feed a dry food as the basis of her dog's diet then I would recommend Eagle Pack Holistic or Nutro, personally I have never found an Australian product that gives the same results as either of the aforementioned products. 1. Dogs are 'designed' (I would prefer to say, 'evolved') to scavange. I didn't say they did well on carbohydrates. My dogs get fat on carbos . . . and on food with too high of fat content (how odd, so do I ). Nor did I say that a human gut would be happy with bones, fur, feathers, herbivore droppings, and other things an omnivore/scavenger canine is happy to eat. Some dogs have been bred to specifications well outside the evolved generic Canis design, and I would not assume that all breeds have the same nutritional requirements. 2. I would be grateful for any evidence from peer reviewed literature saying that a diet that reduces foecal volume is better for a dog. There was a time that human dieticians promoted digestable foods and thought roughage had no nutritional value. Now, after millions of dollars of studies of a sort that are rarely conducted on dogs they tell us to eat fibre cause it's good for the gut and the heart. I am not saying dogs should eat bran . . . although the enthusiasm with which mine go for horse manure suggest to me that undigestable plant matter may be a natural thing for them to eat. It seems plausable that some meat byproducts are very good for the dog, though not highly digestable. But, so far as I can find, the research as not been done and we cannot say whether undigestable matter is good or not good or neutral for a dog. It does mean more pooh to pick up. And more food ingested. But if the price of the 'highly digestable' is three times that of the other food, the 'savings' effect of super premium is lost. 3. I do know that vets make a bundle selling high end dogfood. . . and that vet surgeries themselves consider the cost of picking up dog pooh large in comparison to the cost of feeding dogs. I do know that price of super premium brands reflects additional middlemen and import/export + advertising. I would guess that more than half the price difference between domestic brands and super premiums is due to things that do absolutely nothing for the dog. I wish some Ozzie company would spend a few bob more per kg to make a super premium food . . . but if they did, I'll bet a lot of people would still by the imports due to image factors. 4. If you intelligently fill out a mid-range food with a high protein source and some supplements, you end out with something that is VERY similar in ingredients to a super-premium food. Edited March 3, 2007 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carousel266 Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 I'd suggest either a raw, whole foods diet, or a better quality kibble than Euk. The good choices include Royal Canin, Eagle Pack, Nutro, Nutrience, or Dick van Patten's Natural Balance. The problem is we can't afford to feed them any of these, which all seem to work out twice as expensive as Euk I thought that feeding them a better quality food than what the supermarket offers would be preferable. P.S - Why do you have to buy online? Because its generally considerably cheaper than buying from a pet shop or the vet. My vet actually tried to convince me it would be cheaper to feed them on Royal Canin than supermarket food... I've done the calculations and its not!! Unless I only have to feed them a third of what is recommended ETA - HSD is a huge sponsor of RSPCA...the organisation that kills around 50% of the dogs that go into their "shelters" among other atrocities. I'm not trying to start a war or anything.... and please inform me so I know. But what are they supposed to do? If they have limited funding there's only so many dogs they can care for, feed and shelter at one time? Are they supposed to just start turning animals away? And if there is a company sponsoring them, then wouldn't it be so they could increase funding, therefore decreasing deaths, and also providing the animals with a better quality food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I'm not trying to start a war or anything.... This battle has been going for a long time. Some people 'wear gloves' and others don't. If you're feeding lots of dogs, you can't use the same logic (or illogic) as people feeding one or two pets (for whom a price of $100 or so for a 15 or so kg bag seems like a good deal because the bag lasts for a few months) . . . but you can take advantage of bulk buying and -- for rescue people -- goodwill. I get chicken frames directly from the wholesale outfit that supplies filets to restaurants. Cheap and nutritious. (The local dogfood manufacturers are buying from the same source). I also pick up a few cartons for local rescue people and sell the frames on at cost. If you can pick up some sort unprocessed industrial waste from the meat industry before so company adds a lot of cost and decreases the nutritional value (by heating, drying, grinding, etc. and diluting with grain/soy/what have you). you will probably be doing a favour to your dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carousel266 Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 Hmmm well although I still don't know the conditions surrounding the RSPCA's shelters. if they're treatment of and endorsement of battery hen eggs is anything to go by... then I understand why people are so against them. And the fact that an RSPCA watchdog has been established speaks volumes as well. Pretty sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog_Horse_Girl Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I'd suggest either a raw, whole foods diet, or a better quality kibble than Euk. The good choices include Royal Canin, Eagle Pack, Nutro, Nutrience, or Dick van Patten's Natural Balance. The problem is we can't afford to feed them any of these, which all seem to work out twice as expensive as Euk I thought that feeding them a better quality food than what the supermarket offers would be preferable. P.S - Why do you have to buy online? Because its generally considerably cheaper than buying from a pet shop or the vet. My vet actually tried to convince me it would be cheaper to feed them on Royal Canin than supermarket food... I've done the calculations and its not!! Unless I only have to feed them a third of what is recommended ETA - HSD is a huge sponsor of RSPCA...the organisation that kills around 50% of the dogs that go into their "shelters" among other atrocities. I'm not trying to start a war or anything.... and please inform me so I know. But what are they supposed to do? If they have limited funding there's only so many dogs they can care for, feed and shelter at one time? Are they supposed to just start turning animals away? And if there is a company sponsoring them, then wouldn't it be so they could increase funding, therefore decreasing deaths, and also providing the animals with a better quality food? RSPCA is a very wealthy organisation. Hills is a major sponsor but the organisation receives millions in government funding, millions in bequests, and millions in donations from a gullible public. It makes a LOT of money. There are many more organisations that save more dogs than RSPCA that don't get any gov't funding or bequests, and manage to survive and save MORE dogs than does the RSPCA. If the shelters wanted to provide a "better quality food", they could seek corporate sponsorship from Eagle Pack or Nutro, but I don't see that happening...and many of the dogs and cats in RSPCA shelters are sick from eating HSD... As for the "I can't afford a good diet" idea - would you rather spend more money at the vet b/c your dog gets sick, gets foul teeth from eating cheaper foods, or has digestive upsets on a regular basis? Eagle Pack is cheap really - you're feeding about 1/8 of a supermarket brand food to start with...a large bag will last you much longer than a large bag of crap like Euk or HSD. Your dog might do OK on these foods...and so do people that eat mostly McDonalds. But how healthy are they, really? As a much more affordable alternative, can you not afford to buy fresh meaty bones, fresh veg/fruit, organs and yoghurt? This is what I feed, plus canned sardines/mackerel, eggs, and sometimes a bit of cheese! Do some research onto what actually goes into dog food...check out the nutrition information and learn what the ingredients lists really mean. You would be horrified at some of the rancid fats used in many processed foods...fats that cannot legally be used for human consumption so they're sold to the pet food manufacturers instead. There are ingredients that dogs cannot digest such as corn and corn-meal...no good for canines at all! But they're cheap so they get top of the ingredients list in the cheaper foods including Euk and HSD. I know that everyone has a different level of affordability but dogs need good nutrition for optimum health and well-being and it's up to us to feed them the best quality foods possible. I'm sorry but Euk and HSD are no better than the supermarket foods IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 (edited) Eukanuba is ok - I have fed it, Nutrience, Nutro, Advance, Innova, Royal Canin - and the dogs seem to do similarly on all of them. The ingredient list of Euk looks ok, and it is certainly better than most supermarket foods. The people who make Advance also make and sell Pal dry food through the supermarket. They did feeding trials a few years ago. Advance was about $90, and Pal $24. If you fed the same dog each of the foods at the recommended quantities, you actually were $1 odd better off by feeding Advance, because you used so much less per meal. It might be worth looking around for cheap deals on raw food. I buy chicken mince for $1 kg from a pet food wholesaler (same mince is $1.30 from the pet shop), no preservatives, no hormones, no antibiotics, and always fresh and good. The "right" butcher will sell a shopping bag of bones for $2.50 - $3 - about 7 to 9 bones. I feed my dogs raw mince, to which I have added veges/fruit. This works out cheaper than dry food, and I think the dogs do better on it. You do have to shop around to find out where meat etc is cheap. Liver etc is about $4.99 kg at the supermarket, but it is often reduced in price to $1.99 - $2.99. Anyhow, you didn't ask about raw food, so back to the dry!! It doesn't work out too expensive to feed the "better" brands, although it hurts your wallet when you buy it, it lasts for a long time. You can also add table scraps, (as long as you don't live on curries or mexican), which the dogs will enjoy, and it makes the dry go a bit further. Plenty of variety in scraps, and with the dry, the diet should be balanced. Edited March 3, 2007 by Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 lillysmum RSPCA is a very wealthy organisation. Hills is a major sponsor but the organisation receives millions in government funding, millions in bequests, and millions in donations from a gullible public And don't forget their telemarketing!! Wonder how much that makes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShesaLikeableBiBear Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Just to add to lillysmum's good post, with a super premium food it may cost more but you feed a lot less. Have a friend with a 23kg dog and a 15kg bag of Nutro lasts her 4 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now