Talk:Science Diet

NPOV

I'm willing to believe that there are unhealthy ingredients included in dog foods, but the "Questionable Ingredients" section needs wordsmithing and better sources to be appropriate. Plus, once these ingredients have a NPOV and good source(s), it can be applied to the dozens of other dog food brands that undoubtedly also contain these ingredients. --Quintote 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ScienceDiet.jpg

Image:ScienceDiet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there nothing but a press-release blurb on this topic?

Disclaimer - this is a discussion post, not an edit of the stub entry, and would need edit and citation before anything would be added to the entry.

This is a stub entry, but has had a whole lot of activity. Several of its past versions had useful information that Hills would not necessarily like to be general knowledge. Was it removed by them? Why?

There should be information about the product line, of factual, verifiable nature, beyond the press-release blurb that the whole entry now consists of. (citations needed...)

Things like:

• Science Diet was once primarily marketed through veterinarians, who profited by the sales not only by the markup but with premiums from the manufacturer. Now that Science Diet is available in grocery stores,

That is incorrect - Science Diet has never been sold in grocery stores, but is sold in pet specialty - pet stores, farm stores and veterinary clinic.

the void has been filled by a new, more expensive line of specialty foods in the "Prescription Diet(R)" line, only available from veterinarians.

• Science Diet is an over priced, "premium" brand, yet many of their products use the same inexpensive fillers as low-priced grocery-store brands.

Pet foods do not contain "fillers" - there is no AAFCO definition that permits pet food manufacturers to put "fillers" in pet food. You may have an opinion that certain ingredients like corn are "fillers" however that is technically incorrect. By the way, corn is highly digestible by dogs. Murray, Fahey, Merchen, Evaluation of Selected High Starch Flours in Canine Diets, University of Illinois. J Anim Sci 1999 Aug;77(8):2180-6

Such cheap filler ingredients include:

• Ground corn
• Corn meal
• Corn gluten (a "protein content" enhancer)
• Soybean mill run (waste product of soy processing - heat-treated soybean hulls - used to add fiber bulk and protein to cattle feed)

That is also incorrect - soybean mill run is the fibrous outer hulls from soybean and is used in pet foods to add a midrange fiber which is required by pets digestive process. It is a PRE-biotic which feeds gut bacteria necessary for digestion. See AAFCO manual for definition

• Brewer's rice (waste product of adult beverage fermentation processes)

That is also incorrect. Brewers Rice as defined as "broken or chipped" rice grains. It is merely kernel of rice that are broken. Since consumers are not interested in buying bags of rice with broken grains, these end up as "Brewers Rice" - There is zero nutritional difference between broken rice kernels versus unbroken kernels - all of which must be ground to a flour before use anyway. See AAFCO manual for definition

• Chicken by-product meal (consists of skin, beaks, feet, intestines, bones and the occasional feather)
• Wheat
• Wheat bran
• Wheat gluten (another "protein content" enhancer)
• sugar

If you take out the chicken by-product meal, that list sounds a lot like silage. Stuff you feed a frog. Guess what - frogs are herbivores (frogs are not herbivores, they are in fact insectivores, carnivores that eat primarily insects). Their intestinal tracts are made for breaking down all that alge matter. Dogs and cats are carnivores - they should be eating meat, not silage. Corn is easily digested by dogs, and generally speaking, will pass through digested, giving benefit to the dog - that's what makes dog "attidue" hard and aggresive - eating dog foods bulked out with grain fillers. Worse, wheat and barley are grains with a high incidence of "food allergy" intolerance reactions. Dogs aren't meant to subsist on plant proteins, and proteins are the most common allergens - feeding your dog wheat and wheat gluten (gluten is the "protein" part of grain) can actually trigger food allergies. There is so much that is erroneous in the above statements it's impossible to cite them all. Instead - the original author should provide peer reviewed published data that supports such nonsense.

Regarding chicken by-product meal - the pet food industry will say that the internal organs and bone in chicken by-product meal is good for the cat or dog. This may be true, but when the only meat-related ingredient in a food intended for a carnivore is chicken by-product meal, and the majority of the protein content is not from meat, but from grain fillers that the meat-eating animal doesn't digest anyway - and might develop intolerance for (food allergy) - how is that good nutrition for the animal? Again, please cite a peer reviewed published study for such comments.

benifits.

there are alot of things that are not healthy about this food. it messes up there groth and development but in latter life with cause heartattacks or bad behavioer

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.116.188 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kibbles

Prescription Diet file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ee/14/AE903470-E13E-4B80-93AF-38C85F573BA7/IMG_6335.heic Our dogs love these do you have them in small bites we have very small dogs?? 2603:6011:D405:B1AC:F91E:BE17:7C3F:156E (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)