Not logged inChampdogs Information Exchange
Forum Breeders Help Search Board Index Active Topics Login

Find your perfect puppy at Champdogs
The UK's leading pedigree dog breeder website for over 25 years

Topic Dog Boards / Feeding / HILLS vs BURNS which is better
- By ginastarr [ie] Date 30.12.04 22:18 UTC
hi the vet put lil on hills science diet puppy small bites but i rather burns and dad agreed with vet so i got no say

i have persuaded dad to leave me change her to burns if i deciede to in the near future

also the hills makes her really thirsty

which do you think is better

lil is a 13 week old tibetan terrier bitch

ginastarr
- By Glenmoray [gb] Date 30.12.04 22:38 UTC
I dont rate Hills at all. If i was forced to feed any i would feed Burns. Many moe people feed Burns anyway, ive heard nothing but bad things about Hills. If i were you i would go with your origional plan and go for Burns. I never take the vets advice on Hills, they're making too much money out of the stuff for me to trust them about it!
- By jenny [gb] Date 30.12.04 23:08 UTC
i would feed burns, mainly for the reason that they do not test on animals. Not sure on hills, but i have also heard bad things about them
- By Wendy J [gb] Date 30.12.04 23:28 UTC
We raised several dogs on Hills with no problems and all were healthy and happy.  However when we started feeding a partially raw diet we decided to research foods and chose one with no corn, no wheat, no gluten and which had some of the supplements raw feeding includes.  We ended up choosing James Wellbeloved, but Burns was right up there with it.

So of the two I would say Burns is better - but with all the negative talk about Hills I just wanted to say my dogs were happy and healthy on it for years.

Wendy
- By ginastarr [ie] Date 31.12.04 12:55 UTC
what have you heard about hills any websites i could look and and show dad

is it tested on animals cos if it is then i will stop giving it to her
- By SharonM Date 31.12.04 13:03 UTC
We have tried both on our cocker spaniels and found Burns definitely better! 
- By spaniel-lover [gb] Date 31.12.04 13:05 UTC
Burns is a company approved by BUAV as not having tested their products on animals-you can see the full list here.  They make mention of Hills on their website which can be seen here.  Hope that helps. :)
- By briony [gb] Date 31.12.04 16:07 UTC
Hi,

I have fed one of my show dogs on Hills yes I had to admit like the results that I got,well impressed but normally feed JWB yet to find another food as good as this to producing good results on my Goldens all year round for me not even Burns comes close.
But rememn=ber what suits one dog may not suit another and everyone has their own way of feeding and their own personal choice of food :-).

Briony :-)
- By briony [gb] Date 31.12.04 16:12 UTC
Hi,

You dont have to buy Hills from a vets and you can buy it cheaper if your prepared to research and source it cheaper than places like pet shops and pet supermarkets ;-)

Briony :-)
- By briony [gb] Date 01.01.05 10:30 UTC
Hi,

Also any dry complete food will leave a dog thirsty they must have acess to water at all times when given these foods.We feed complete not just Hills  but we also add water to the feed so the dogs I dont find are any thirstier than if fed any other food.

Briony :-)
Topic Dog Boards / Feeding / HILLS vs BURNS which is better

Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill

About Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy