new to the forums but not new to dogs....lots of good info here i'm still digesting, but along that line, i'd like to know from those who DO what they feel about the effectiveness of the mwd nutrition program. the BARF based supporters often cite science diet as a typical "not so good kibble" with types that use peanut shells for filler, etc. etc. and of course i realize it would be a logistical impossibility to standardize and somehow issue rmb's throughout the globe for mwd's. i also know mwd's are on strict diets, and are extremely well cared for by their handlers. this seems to be telling me that SD (active?), if not supported by BARF components "on the sly", may not be the junk that a lot of well intentioned owners are lead to believe when they research the best food for their dogs. i have a BIG interest in every aspect of canine nutrition but hope to keep this thread focused on the mwd-science diet aspect....thnx

Dogs are dogs. Working dogs are working dogs.

Dogs of all persuasions and with all kinds of jobs share the same digestion design.

So, beyond that, you are asking if Science Diet is really a good food, maligned by raw feeders but used by handlers who carefully feed their dogs the best they know?

Hills-SD has some of the worst foods available.

Recently, Hills-SD introduced a new line called "Nature's Best."

Here is one recipe from the new line:
Ingredients: Chicken, Brown Rice, Whole Grain Wheat, Cracked Pearled Barley, Soybean Meal, Chicken Meal, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Dried Egg Product, Natural Flavor, Whole Grain Oats, Apples, Cranberries, Soybean Oil, Peas, Carrots, Dried Beet Pulp, Iodized Salt, Flaxseed, Broccoli, Vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Vitamin E Supplement, Choline Chloride, Taurine, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Calcium Carbonate, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.


See the first five ingredients? There is no question that grain products are more plentiful than meat.

See how far up salt is on the list? Higher than flaxseed. It has more salt than broccoli. What does that tell me? It tells me that this food is (1) loaded with salt, and (2) has broccoli on the list strictly as a marketing ploy, because broccoli in an amount lower than salt (two items lower!) is laughable. (Not that I think dogs need broccoli; I DO think that it looks good to many consumers who don't realize that the weight of the ink spelling it is probably similar to the weight of broccoli per serving.)

There are other problems there, but those are a few super-obvious ones. And this is their new "natural" food with "meat in first place."

On the other hand, this is miles better than some of the SD foods.

Since Hills-SD is carried by and sold by vets, MANY owners and handlers sincerely believe that it IS a good food. It's pricey, it comes in a lovely bag, and -- the biggy -- the vet sells it. And in institutional settings -- well, they won the contract.

The military being what it is, Raw is impractical.

Having just spent a year in Iraq, with MWDs, it would have been a logistical impossibility to feed them raw. There is absolutely no way to ship raw food in quantity to Iraq, with dependable enough timelines to ensure the dogs get fed. Convoys carrying fresh food were frequently attacked, causing major food delays for the human population. The military food chain in Iraq depends heavily on preserved/canned/pre-prepared foods.

I wouldn't feed any dog Iraqi meat.

Science Diet is a poor food, despite the fact that it is fed in a large majority of MWD kennels. It contains corn, artificial flavor and animal fat from an unknown source.

Our MWDs in Iraq were reasonably healthy. However, they could have been healthier. If the Army would have chosen a more quality kibble (Innova EVO, Timberwolf, Orijen, etc), the dogs would have had fewer skin and coat issues, better breath and better overall health.

Yes, dogs get by on Science Diet- but they also have strange "health issues", like recurring hot spots, itchy skin, a tendency to develop ear infections easier, etc- that are tell-tale signs of food allergies, more likely than not, being caused by the wheat, corn and beet pulp contained in Science Diet.

Science Diet is almost entirely comprised of grain and grain by-product, something that isn't healthy for ANY dog, working or otherwise.

The government contracts with the makers of Science Diet.

Contracts in the government, particularly for the Department of Defense, go to the lowest bidder.


But hey, these are the same folks that keep telling me the anthrax vaccine won't hurt me.

 Quote: alyssa myracle

Science Diet is a poor food, despite the fact that it is fed in a large majority of MWD kennels. It contains corn, artificial flavor and animal fat from an unknown source. ... Yes, dogs get by on Science Diet- but they also have strange "health issues", like recurring hot spots, itchy skin, a tendency to develop ear infections easier, etc- that are tell-tale signs of food allergies, more likely than not, being caused by the wheat, corn and beet pulp contained in Science Diet.

I agree that it's one of the worst foods.

And I would add that the stress on the pancreas of producing unnatural amounts day after day, meal after meal, of grain-digesting enzymes in the effort to use the protein in grain (by a system designed to use the protein in meat) is, IMO, a direct trigger of pancreatic tissue derangement.

Hot spots, ear infections, and everything else listed above do indeed have clear connection to inappropriate (grain-heavy, meat-scarce) dog food.

the innova i feed also comes in a very lovely bag, and since i spent 24 yrs w/ uncle i am also familiar with low bidders and logistical problems, etc. and i know how to read and interpret pet food label ingredients. lastly i am VERY well aware that dogs are dogs... :-) i am not trying to debate that sd is better than premium hi priced kibble, but merely asking why if it is such low quality food that no one in the entire dod mwd program seems to agree with the same enthusiasm that BARF components do ? are there any mwd handlers on this forum who have made any efforts to "upgrade" the contract, and if so, what were the results ? do any of them supplement their dogs diet ? are there NO mwd allergy problems that have ever been diagnosed as food related ? has Hills been the dod contractor forever ? i doubt it.... if there are brands that are infinitely more nutritious than sd out there, which imo there are, why are there not hundreds of handlers complaining to get their dogs diet improved ? hot spots, rashes and other allergies decrease the effectiveness of a mwd, which results in a reduced operational capability for the units they are assigned to. the military listens to THOSE types of arguments, so why haven't they been forwarded up the chain ? ....just doesn't make sense to me...in fact it raises more questions the more i think about it :-(

Yup, it DOES raise lots of questions.

Vets carry it in the waiting room. Vets recommend it. Vet nutrition classes (it took a lot for me not to use quotation marks) are funded by Hills. Research into raw feeding versus commercial is funded by Hills. Vet societies have Hills as "Platinum Partners" (or financial backers).

It would not be accurate to think that raw feeders form the majority of the Hills-SD critics. Any dog food analysis site is going to have them way up there on their crap-in-a-bag tables.

Again, the Hills-SD foods pre-"Nature's Best" are worse. WORSE than " Brown Rice, Whole Grain Wheat, Cracked Pearled Barley, Soybean Meal" as the first 5 ingredients.

There are SD foods in the waiting room at my own vet's office whose first ingredient is corn. At least there's no trickery there! "This is a bag of dry cereal with the shelf life of Twinkies made to feed an animal designed to eat meat and bones, and we're proud of it!"

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=1028&cat=all

From
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/family/dog-food/review.html
QUOTE: Some brands with a premium profile that can be found in supermarkets and large pet stores don't fare that much better. Iams (*est. $22 for a 20-pound bag) lists its primary ingredients as chicken, corn meal, chicken by-product meal, ground whole grain sorghum and chicken fat. Science Diet Original Formula (*est. $21 for a 20-pound bag) is much the same, as its ingredient list leads off with chicken, ground whole-grain corn, ground whole-grain sorghum, ground whole-grain wheat, chicken by-product meal, soybean meal and animal fat. END

From
http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html
QUOTE: Another thing to think about when reading labels is that the ingredients are supposed to be listed in weight order. However, "creative" labeling does occur. For example, the Science Diet Lamb Meal and Rice kibble shows Lamb meal first, so you might think that there was more lamb than any other ingredient. Well..... note that the second, third and fourth ingredients are brewers rice, rice flour, and rice gluten. It is quite possible that there are more substandard rice derivatives in this product than lamb. END

From what I have heard, the handlers don't have a choice unless they want to try and pay out of pocket and spend time finding and acquiring a better food.

It does not come down to actual nutrition, it comes down to price. If those in the decision making possition are only concerned with price then that is it, end of story.

There are also many who don't care very much - as long as the dog is alive, why bother with any other food? It is not about thriving it is about surviving. There may be obvious benefits to a higher quality food, but some people honestly just do not care. Dog is alive, dog is able to work, no other considerations are taken.

 Quote: Jennifer Marshal

... There are also many who don't care very much - as long as the dog is alive, why bother with any other food? ...

I agree 100%.

But there are lots of people, I am positive, who care a lot and who deliberately ask their vet (what higher authority?) and then buy the not-inexpensive food that the vet recommends -- and apparently approves of so highly that s/he even sells it.

I am certain that this is the POV of many many people who buy the food at the vet's office.


But back to the MWD aspect....

Yes, sorry Connie I didn't mean to make it sound like everyone who buys these foods is that way. Not from a pet owner perspective. But it ties in more with big buyers, breeders, kennel managers etc. When you have a lot of animals to feed it really does come down to the price of it. If the animal is alive there is no need to change.

There of course are those that do think the food is quality and the intent to keep their pets/stock healthy is there. But I don't think that is the case with the MWDs.