Dog Food Chat banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
If you're a raw feeder who includes organ meat into the diet that would mean you feed by-products. There is nothing wrong with that. In a recently locked thread (too much politics I assume), we find some quotes from JJ that I found interesting.

JJ: I don't see how. Dogs can't live on meat by-products. They need meat, bones, and organs, not carcasses.
Well, they lived on by-products for many millions of years before we intervened. By-products is not exclusively 'carcass'. Chicken Meal would be just the carcass with most all the meat scraped off for the human consumption market. By-products meals would be the carcass in addition to some of that nasty stuff like that those yucky parts up to and including organs, heads, and feet. A carcass is in fact bone, with the same benefits as another other bone in the body.

JJ: There is a market near me that a lot of African-Americans (is that the current, PC term?) shop at where I get turkey necks, pork ribs and brisket. Also near by is a Chinese supermarket where I get pork roasts, ribs, organ meat, chicken feet, and ox tail. There is a Korean market near me too that has a lot of the same type of meats the Chinese place has but I always price-shop between them
Organ meat, chicken feet and Ox tail are in fact by-products. Anyone see the irony in these statements. Trash the by-products in one breathe, and feed them in the next. It does not make sense, but this is what has been caused and the damage done when influenced by popular sources of misinformation. WDJ rhetoric, veterinary science, dog food analysis, AFFCO statements, and the mentality not worthy of our own dinner tables, has done its damage witnessed in posts exactly like the one I am discussing here, trash by-products in one sentence, feed them in the next. Owners are confused, don't know up from down, all they really know is that is the yucky stuff humans don't typically eat so why feed it to my dog (unless of course we pick some up at and ethnic market). Some raw feeders really need to open their eyes, and minds, and look at the reality of the situation. Dogs and cats have been eating by-products for eons of time, despite whatever you may read from those popular sources of misinformation.

I eat by-products in one particular food I happen to like, and I would eat it every single day if I could. The food is called 'scrapple' and it is a breakfast item, popular in the Philadelphia area where I was born and raised. It is pork offal. All that nasty yucky stuff leftover after the pig is slaughtered like snouts, intestines, brain, meat scraped off the carcass, etc all goes into the blender and comes out as scrapple. 100% pure by-products, pan fried with some butter or oil and smells delicious and taste even better. Yummy! And yes I would feed it to my dog!


scrapple


Habbersett

Pork Scraps: Best Out Of Waste - Foodmall

carnivore
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
If you're a raw feeder who includes organ meat into the diet that would mean you feed by-products. There is nothing wrong with that. In a recently locked thread (too much politics I assume), we find some quotes from JJ that I found interesting.
Yes, we feed organs. We feed what is known as by-products. The big difference is that MOST of the items known as by-products that we feed are not processed AND they are fed pretty much in porportion to the amount in which they occur in the prey animals. Many of the kibble companies use A LOT of by-products and very little meat. WAY out of porportion.

Some things that some people think of as by-products aren't. Liver is not a by-product. Heart is not a by-product. Kidney is not a by-product. By-products are stuff like heads, intestines, feet/hooves, lungs, trachea, pancreas, etc. Many of those things is practically devoid of nutrition.

Well, they lived on by-products for many millions of years before we intervened.
Actually, no they didn't. They lived on meat, bones, and organs. By-products were naturally included but made up a relatively small part of the diet. By no means could you stretch it to say they "lived on" by-products.

By-products is not exclusively 'carcass'.
Exactly ... by-products are bout 10% to 15% by-products.

Chicken Meal would be just the carcass with most all the meat scraped off for the human consumption market.
Correct except to say the by-products have also been removed.

By-products meals would be the carcass in addition to some of that nasty stuff like that those yucky parts up to and including organs, heads, and feet.
That's not exactly correct. By-product meal would be made up of the stuff that was removed from the carcass in the paragraph above. The only way carvasses end up in by-product meal is if something happened to them to make them no longer human quality food.

Organ meat, chicken feet and Ox tail are in fact by-products.
Not all organ meat as explained above. You see, organ meat such as liver can fetch a much higher price being sold on the human food market so it will not usually find itself in the ultracheap by-product meal.

Anyone see the irony in these statements. Trash the by-products in one breathe, and feed them in the next.
I think there is some confusion here as to what actually constitutes by-products. Something that is normally eaten by humans, such as liver, heart, kidney are not by-products. I would guess that in some parts of the country, things that are normal eaten by humans are by-products in another part.

It does not make sense, but this is what has been caused and the damage done when influenced by popular sources of misinformation. WDJ rhetoric, veterinary science, dog food analysis, AFFCO statements, and the mentality not worthy of our own dinner tables, has done its damage witnessed in posts exactly like the one I am discussing here, trash by-products in one sentence, feed them in the next.
I think this is a case where "I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong." :smile:

Owners are confused, don't know up from down, all they really know is that is the yucky stuff humans don't typically eat so why feed it to my dog (unless of course we pick some up at and ethnic market).
I don't think owners in general are so much confused as they are just ignorant. They have never taken the time to learn about dog food, whats in them and how they are made. They just assume, "here is a bag. It says dog food on it so it must be good to feed dogs. I've seen it on tv and the dogs in the commercial looked great." At least this is the case of most of the people I talk to about feeding our dogs.

Some raw feeders really need to open their eyes, and minds, and look at the reality of the situation. Dogs and cats have been eating by-products for eons of time, despite whatever you may read from those popular sources of misinformation.
I don't think you understand most raw feeders. Most of us will feed any part of most any animal that we can buy at a resonable price. Generally we all feed meat, bones, AND ORGANS. You also have to realize that a lot of the by-products aren't all that nutritious. Those low in nutrition are what make up a large part of the by-product meal.

I eat by-products in one particular food I happen to like, and I would eat it every single day if I could. The food is called 'scrapple' and it is a breakfast item, popular in the Philadelphia area where I was born and raised.
In the Philadelphia area, it's not a by-product. I would guess in most of the rest of the country, it is. :smile:

You should. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
RFD....your salivating like Pavlov's dogs over those scrapple pics, get a napkin!
Yeah, it does look good but I think I'd prefer sausage patties. Thats probably a cultrial thing. Sausage patties are very popular in my part of the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
If you're a raw feeder who includes organ meat into the diet that would mean you feed by-products. There is nothing wrong with that.
Wrong.
I feed liver and kidney, neither of which are considered by-product. I do NOT feed intestines and other junk that canines would generally not eat out of their prey.

Well, they lived on by-products for many millions of years before we intervened.
Wrong.
They did not "live on it." they may have eaten some of it, not much, but some, but it is not accurate to say they "lived on it" because thqt would indicate they ate nothing else.

Organ meat, chicken feet and Ox tail are in fact by-products.
Wrong.
Not all organ meats are classified as by-products. Those found in your everyday grocery store and thrive on the human food market, are not going to be thrown into the ultra-cheap by product found in crappy dog feeds. Liver, Kidney, ox tail... all thrive on the human food market.

WDJ rhetoric, veterinary science, dog food analysis, AFFCO statements, and the mentality not worthy of our own dinner tables, has done its damage witnessed in posts exactly like the one I am discussing here, trash by-products in one sentence, feed them in the next.
Wrong.
Find me one person that raw feeds their dogs, and takes ANY of these sources to heart? Show me a raw feeder that abides by the WDJ. Show me one raw feeder that listens to veterinary science's push of Hills mumbo jumbo. Show me one raw feeder who would feed a "six star" kibble on dogfoodanalysis over a species appropriate raw diet. Show me one raw feeder who gives their dogs only meats and organs they would eat. I for one can say I would not eat liver or kidney if you paid me $100 bucks a pop, but I know it's great for my dogs.

Some raw feeders really need to open their eyes, and minds, and look at the reality of the situation. Dogs and cats have been eating by-products for eons of time, despite whatever you may read from those popular sources of misinformation.
Small bits in amounts unavoidable as a canine tears into the dead prey, yes. But you can not convince me if my dog was digging into a dead... let's say... pig... that he would go straight for the feet and intestines and leave the meat and liver behind. It doesn't happen. You are trying to make an argument that just isn't there. No one is claiming that they never ever would eat any of thoe parts, but you are under the impression that your processed, cooked, rendered by-products found in your dog food are superior than our fresh meats sold on the human food market.
And yes, you're right, all the raw feeders are so ignorant, right? That's why tonight my dogs will be tearing raw meat straight from the bone before crunching down on an uncooked, unprocessed bone, and yours will be eating little cooked, processed rice nuggets. Wow, I better wake up soon, sounds like my dogs are getting short changed in the nutrition department!

I eat by-products in one particular food I happen to like, and I would eat it every single day if I could. The food is called 'scrapple' and it is a breakfast item, popular in the Philadelphia area where I was born and raised. It is pork offal. All that nasty yucky stuff leftover after the pig is slaughtered like snouts, intestines, brain, meat scraped off the carcass, etc all goes into the blender and comes out as scrapple. 100% pure by-products, pan fried with some butter or oil and smells delicious and taste even better. Yummy! And yes I would feed it to my dog!
Disgisting, but great for you! Give it to your dog, it's much better than the processed by product served on a mound of rice you've been feeding. :wink:



I think your first mistake here is you are trying to compare your feed to a raw diet, and you just can't do that, there is no comparison. Compare kibbles to kibbles, and your argument will be much more valid. COmparing kibble pumped full of rice, to a species appropriate raw diet is like comparing an apple to a steak. There is no comparison.



What I DON'T understand is that you are so die hard "dogs are carnivores, feed animal products only" yet the food you feed is very very grain heavy. There is no logic to any of it. None. At all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
CB...it doesn't even matter if organs are considered by-products one way or the other. We raw feeders are going to feed them regardless of what their label might be. Why? Because we know that a raw diet is not complete without them. So, there really isn't any grounds to your "discussion" here.

The difference with the by-products in processed foods is that they are processed, whatever they might be. The by-product meals are 100% variable in their content from one batch to another. That is why the minimum, no maximums actually, percentages of minerals and vitamins in kibbles are so variable.

Go ahead and continue to feed your dogs processed rice nuggets like Linsey said previously. I am sure they will thank you for it by dropping a huge pile of stinky goodness for you to clean up later.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
You folks crack me up...dogs never ate by-products...LOL. Yea right, Frank Perdue was out there hand trimming cuts of beef for them wearing a white glove I suppose....wooo hooo...get real people! They probably ate more of what is none as by-products as opposed to muscle meat being that don't have to try to work the hair/fur off the meat. Why raw feeders (WPM) are so squeamish about by-products is beyond comprehension. I'm sure Whole Prey feeders wouldn't give it a second thought.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
What I DON'T understand is that you are so die hard "dogs are carnivores, feed animal products only" yet the food you feed is very very grain heavy. There is no logic to any of it. None. At all.
That is because you along with your pals here don't understand what makes a carnivore ration (in the commercial field) and what does not. If an ingredient does not jeopardize the protein core of the food from being animal source, it's harmless then in the ration. Nothing at all wrong with carnivores eating white rice, it by no means harms them and does not compromise the protein core of the food. It's all so very confusing for you I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
Good 'ol Claybuster. I love how you twist things around to meet your agenda

I'm tired of it dude. Your argument is tired and weak at this point. You talk in circles in stead of addressing the argument at hand.

What we can't comprehend is that you ADMIT that dogs are carnivores yet you choose to feed YOUR carnivores processed white rice with some "meat" added in...

It's ok though. We know we're feeding the most species appropriate diet that's available to us. We choose not to feed our carnivores carbohydrates because we realize they have no need for them and can cause more harm than good.


That is because you along with your pals here don't understand what makes a carnivore ration (in the commercial field) and what does not. If an ingredient does not jeopardize the protein core of the food from being animal source, it's harmless then in the ration. Nothing at all wrong with carnivores eating white rice, it by no means harms them and does not compromise the protein core of the food. It's all so very confusing for you I know.
The same could be said for saw dust... would you feed that as a filler as well? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
You folks crack me up...dogs never ate by-products...LOL. Yea right, Frank Perdue was out there hand trimming cuts of beef for them wearing a white glove I suppose....wooo hooo...get real people! They probably ate more of what is none as by-products as opposed to muscle meat being that don't have to try to work the hair/fur off the meat. Why raw feeders (WPM) are so squeamish about by-products is beyond comprehension. I sure Whole Prey feeders wouldn't give it a second thought.
Yep, the whole world is out of step except CB. :biggrin: I don't remember reading anyone saying that dogs don't eat by-products. I think what you may have seen is that our dogs don't eat by-product meal. And no, they don't eat more by-products than muscle. A prey animal is about 10% what is known as by-products, 10% to 20% bone and the rest is muscle and fat. That would be about 70% to 75%. Most carnivores eat pretty much the whole carcass of their kill. By-products are merely a very small part of a carnivores diet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Wrong.
I feed liver and kidney, neither of which are considered by-product. I do NOT feed intestines and other junk that canines would generally not eat out of their prey.
You allowed to think whatever your heart desires! ...even though many would think you are very, very confused. Here's is something I found for you and what a surprise, it is not from Abady! Don't stop feeding those nutritious by-product ingredients for your pets, for by-products are very beneficial!



Meat by-products : are clean parts of slaughtered animals, not including meat. These include lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, liver, blood, bone, and stomach and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth, or hooves.The definition for meat by-products by the Association of American Feed Control Officials is:

The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hoofs. It shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto.

A new category of pet food typically marketed as holistic, wellness, organic, ultra healthy, and/or simply premium pet food often emphasizes the use of human-grade meat sources only, with no animal meat by-products.

AAFCO has declared that using the term "human grade" is "false and misleading" to quote AAFCO in a letter ...
meat by-product

Hey, what do you know, that's AAFCO for ya! Isn't that like gospel to all you raw feeders out there? Don't you all believe in everything they tell you? So, you mind as well believe now you are INDEED feeding by-products when you include liver and kidney.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Yep, the whole world is out of step except CB. :biggrin: I don't remember reading anyone saying that dogs don't eat by-products. I think what you may have seen is that our dogs don't eat by-product meal. And no, they don't eat more by-products than muscle. A prey animal is about 10% what is known as by-products, 10% to 20% bone and the rest is muscle and fat. That would be about 70% to 75%. Most carnivores eat pretty much the whole carcass of their kill. By-products are merely a very small part of a carnivores diet.
Oh whistling a different tune already I see! Next thing you know by-products are no good because thier proooooocessed as opposed to freeeeeeeeesh. We never said by-products are no good....just nasty and yucky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
Hey, what do you know, that's AAFCO for ya! Isn't that like gospel to all you raw feeders out there? Don't you all believe in everything they tell you? So, you mind as well believe now you are INDEED feeding by-products when you include liver and kidney.
Here's what you still fail to grasp...

Us RAW feeders don't care what it's labeled by you or anyone else...

We feed meat, bones, and organs because that is what our carnivores require to thrive.

We don't care what you call it, what AAFCO calls it, who gives a rats ass :biggrin:

MEAT, BONES, & ORGANS

Plain and simple. Doesn't require any other names or descriptions...

meat, bones, and organs...

wash, rinse, and repeat...

meat, bones, and organs

That's what us raw feeders give our carnivores
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
AAFCO Definition: Chicken By-Product Meal
Definition: Chicken by-product meal consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice.
Examples:
Chicken by-product meal is considered an inferior source of protein for cats. Although cats may eat a certain amount of by-products "in the wild," the most nutritious commercial cat foods will show a named meat, such as "chicken" as the first ingredient, rather than "chicken by-product meal."
1. Raw feeders feed raw because we know and understand what being a carnivore really is.
2. Raw feeders know and understand that processing little death nuggets you like to call kibble, destroys whatever nutrients were in the ingredients to begin with.
3. Raw feeders do not abide by what veterinary science tends to suggest, nor what dogfoodanalysis considers acceptable, and while the AAFCO migh be referenced pertaining to the quality of lack thereof of ingredients, it is by no means our "bible"
4. Raw feeders feed raw because it makes sense.
5. Raw feeders feed raw because it is cost effective and you can not get results like this anywhere else.


You can not tell me that white rice is "harmless" Carbohydrates are entirely unnecessary in a canines diet, and often times are the root of trouble. Carbohydrates would have eventually killed Grissom if I did not take him off of kibble and onto a species appropriate diet.


You can call them by-products if you'd like. Call them anything you want, but the organs included in a prey model raw diet are necessary, and fit for human consumption. Even still, you can not compare the fresh, whole, raw liver Grissom ate last night, to the processed, cooked, rendered liver that MIGHT be found in the batch of cbm used to make the current batch of dog food you have right now. You really have no idea which parts were included in that batch or the next, so quite frankly, you have NO idea what you're feeding. Sounds reliable.


Like I said before, the diet you feed can not be compared to the diet we feed. One is a commercial pet food, one is based off of a natural diet in the wild. Compare Abady to some other kibble, and your arguments will be more valid... but to compare it to raw is a joke. Even if the ingredients are similar, the mere fact that yours is processed and cooked loses all credibility.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
Good 'ol Claybuster. I love how you twist things around to meet your agenda

I'm tired of it dude. Your argument is tired and weak at this point. You talk in circles in stead of addressing the argument at hand.
I don't think you could debate your way out of a paperbag.

What we can't comprehend is that you ADMIT that dogs are carnivores yet you choose to feed YOUR carnivores processed white rice with some "meat" added in...
That would be a lot of meat proteins, about double what you would find in a cup of raw.

I start a topic on by-products and irony I find with raw feeders, and you start in with what I feed. I think you like talking about what I feed more than I do for some reason. What is it with you, a contest or something?

It's ok though. We know we're feeding the most species appropriate diet that's available to us. We choose not to feed our carnivores carbohydrates because we realize they have no need for them and can cause more harm than good.
Since when are homones and steriods species appropriate?


The same could be said for saw dust... would you feed that as a filler as well? :rolleyes:
Sawdust....no, you find that in other foods though (cellulose). That is one of those 11 ingredients that what I understand to contain toxins and should be avoided for carivores...unlike innocent ol non-allergenic non-protein compromising white rice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
We feed meat, bones, and organs because that is what our carnivores require to thrive.
Correct and I am glad you can admit it, you feed By-Products as in organs because it is required for them to thrive.

ORGANS = BY-PRODUCTS. Come on raw feeders, there is nothing wrong with admitting you feed BY-PRODUCTS in your diets. Lighten up people. I think JJ knows what he's doing when it comes to by-products, picking up some good old chicken feet down at the ethnic markets. It the smart thing to do to feed BY-PRODUCTS to your pets.

Corgi Paws, there is nothing wrong with feeding your dog by-products. Maybe you should include some more and those not so normal so called normal problems will become a thing of the past with your one dog.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
620 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
...I do NOT feed intestines and other junk that canines would generally not eat out of their prey. ...

Very comical, here we have a raw feeder actually speak negative on TRIPE. Come on Corgi Paws, WAKE UP! It is very nutritious and probably contains more nutrients then the other BY-PRODUCTS that you mentioned you feed. Tripe is a very, very popular choice amongst raw feeders. I hope other raw feeders who actually stumble by these posts of yours don't take your information seriously and avoid some of the best ingredients out there. You're becoming a popular source of misinformation these days. Keep plugging away though, I admire your spunk, energy and feistiness :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
Corgi Paws, there is nothing wrong with feeding your dog by-products. Maybe you should include some more and those not so normal so called normal problems will become a thing of the past with your one dog.
If my "one dog" you're talking about is Grissom... he's been totally fine, actually. Since day two of the raw diet, he has been totally solid and happy, something we had not seen in months and months of kibble. He was in fact seriously ill, severely malnourished from months and months of insane diarrhea. But now, he's fine. Totally recovered. And the reason? Removal of excess carbohydrates found in kibble. Hmmm... carbohydrates, you know, like that found in... white rice? Your so called totally harmless white rice.


DO NOT BE FOOLED BY MARKETING MUMBO JUMBO. Just because Abady deems an ingredient "harmless" does NOT make it species appropriate. I for one am not willing to comformise the welfare of my dogs on anything less than fitting for their species.

And for the record, Grissom does eat organ meats already. They make up roughly 10% if his diet. However, roughly 80% of that very diet is quality muscle meat, straight from the human market. I feed plenty of things that have the "ick" factor. In fact, handling liver almost makes me lose my last meal, so no, I am not one who thinks that my dog has to have things I would eat. I do however only buy things ment for humans to ensure proper handling and packaging. There are prety much no rules in handling and contamination prevention when it comes to feed ment for animals. I guess you'll nderstand that better when moldy rice makes it into an Abady batch and you're effected by a recall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
Hehe, CB, you are soooo funny. Often you say things that let us know how little you really know. Tripe is not intestines. Tripe is stomach. Most preditors will eat stomach but not intestines. Thats not always 100% true but as a general rule it is.

Also tripe is not the miracle food that it's promoted to be. The tripe fanatics claim that tripe has a lot of enzymes in it and that is correct. However they are enzymes necessary to digest grass. Not very useful to a carnivore. It's still a good food to feed. BTW: CB, I GREATLY admire your spunk, energy and feistiness. :wink: :wink:
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top