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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Sure there is... Abady told him it was OK :wink:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

I am not comparing my diet to anyone’s. You people are doing that. But I understand why. When all have been reduced to a quivering mass a jelly in a debate (yet again) that is your best defense is to attack my food in childlike fashion. You raw feeders need to get over this silly notion that by-products are bad for dogs and you should be incorporating more by-products into your rations to get better results.

BTW Corgi Paws, you are feeding unbalanced. You should be adding more by-products in the diet.

 

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:

 

Hey, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all BTW! Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and have a great New Years!

 

I'm not really sure why we even bother with Clay. We'd all be better off just ignoring him.

He's obviously here to listen to himself talk... (type...)

He won't answer your questions Natalie, he's going to sidestep them all and throw something else out to draw attention away from them.

I say we let Claybuster continue feeding his magical rice powder and we continue doing what nature has proven is right. I for one am pretty much done with the Claybuster dog & pony show....

 

I totally agree, when I see a post by cb I scroll by. It's like talking to my ex., they know everything and have never been wrong. Even new posters like myself are moving on because of him (he really is getting old fast). I personally have found a new forum, minus cb. It is obvious he is employed by this company and is doing more harm than good to that firm.

Have a merry holiday, LOL.

 

if no one here likes him... and he appears to just like to cause trouble...

why not ban him so no one wastes their breath?

 

okay, Okay, so no one ever agrees with CB on everything, and all he really does is try to piss people off and stir the pot.
I admit it, I think he's a brainwashed idiot. (no offence, cb. haha:tongue But this place needs a little pot stirring every now and then, and most of CB's posts end up being the fire behind a lot of informative debates (though the credible info never comes from CB himself... he seems to drag it out of everyone.)

I mean, how dull would this place get without a little controversy every now and then, right?:biggrin:

 

Ok, I can take a hint. Good bye. For the good of the group I will leave on my own accord, and you can all have peace and harmony! It was Danemammas last post that did it...

 

Drama will always bring more activity but there has to be a balance.

His posts the past 2 days have been borderline personal attacks on you and Natalie.

It's degenerated into nonsensical arguments vs. intelligent debate.

We're used to his antics (even if they're old and tired) but newbies to the forum may not want to deal with the toxic nature the forum has been taking recently.

I'd prefer to see Claybuster actually address the questions we pose instead of his normal psycho babble but if it's easier for him to just leave..... good riddance

 

We're used to his antics (even if they're old and tired) but newbies to the forum may not want to deal with the toxic nature the forum has been taking recently.

very valid point I did not consider.
I supose for those who have not been around for the length of time we have, it would be off putting.

 

I have posted up on CL a few times to try and bring in new members...but I am not sure if that really works.

We, Jon and I, always recommend the site to people that we do homechecks for in the Dane rescue, but I have yet to see anyone who joins that way...unless they just don't mention being referred to the site from us.

 

I have sent a few people over from a boxer forum, I always recommend it when I see people asking for information on raw. Four of them have joined and actually posted, so I guess it's worked a little.... Oakley is the only one who has stuck around, though. Maybe we could get some breed specific forums to link to us if we link to them? I know the Boxer forum I'm on would be u to it, we've just made a new forum and are looking for publicity. lol

 

Yeah, that is what we do with the Dane forum too...but no one sticks around...maybe that is a hint LOL.

I think we just need to bring more positive things to the boards. Post up more ourselves :biggrin:

 

You nailed it...

The more we talk, the more activity we'll inspire. Many new users will lurk for weeks or months before finding a discussion they feel comfortable participating in

 

You should see the PM's he sent me tonight on another forum..

 

He dug up a 2 year old post and started bashing what I feed....so I called him a **** and a troll with a few F words. Hey, if the shoe fits....:biggrin:

 

how does that make him a ****!!!
that is horrible...
you seriously need to grow up.

and i thought you were leaving!!!!
go, run along and play, shooo shoo

 

Y'all are gonna have to find somewhere else to do your quibbling. It's getting old here. I'm tired of closing threads.