# How far down do they fall.



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

I read this or something similar about a lot of meat ingredients that are in the top 3 or 4. In this paticular dog food the 1st 4 ingredients were a type of meat or some type of meat meal (chicken,turkey etc.). My question is "how far down the list does it fall??" I am guessing 2-4.... 

""Chicken is the first ingredient and is inclusive of its water content. This means that once this ingredient is cooked and turned into a dry ingredient it will have lost most of its water content, thus making it fall further in the ingredients list.""


----------



## ruckusluvr (Oct 28, 2009)

I always assumed that if it was first, that it would fall to about the third.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I have just never concerned myself about water content of meat. The meat I eat has water content and the meat I feed my dogs has water content. It's just not a big deal to me. I think it is just a ploy used by dog food manufacurers trying to convince you that ultra cheap meat and by-product meals are healthier and more nutritious than much more expensive muscle meats. I just don't buy it.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

The reason why places like dogfoodanalysis.com says things like stated above, is because of the processing proceedures. 

Ingredients in kibble dog foods are listed by weight PRIOR to processing...so if for example a kibble contains "chicken" and is the #1 ingredient, that is totally misleading. Whole chicken on average is at least 70% water by weight, so if you take 70% of its weight away, that ingredient by weight AFTER processing should be considerably farther down the list....~by 70% farther down the list by weight. 

It is ideal to see at least 3 named meat meals (not by product meals) in the first 5 ingredients in dog food. This is because meat meals do not lose weight in the process of making dog food, because they are exclusive of water...ie they don't lose water weight.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I think people tend to confuse things when it comes to water and kibble. For example, if you feed a kibble that is 25% protein and mix it with water prior to feeding, do you alter the protein percentage of the kibble? In other words, If you mix water and kibble 50%/50% as many people do, are you really in this case feeding 12.5% protein? Does this make a difference nutritionally? I think the answer to all the questions is no. Also, I think worrying about the water content of muscle meat is also useless. Muscle meat has much higher quality protein than any of the meals which are made up of ground up animal parts left over after the good stuff has been removed from the carcass. I have never seen convincing evidence that any of the meals are superior to the real meats.


----------



## g00dgirl (Nov 18, 2009)

But we aren't talking about protein, we are talking about specific ingredients. They are listed in order of WEIGHT in comparison to all the other ingredients.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

g00dgirl said:


> But we aren't talking about protein, we are talking about specific ingredients. They are listed in order of WEIGHT in comparison to all the other ingredients.


Thats exactly what I'm talking about. When you start considering water in ingredients and water in food, it confuses anybody. What about the moisture in fat? How does it fit in the equation? Fat is one of the ingredients. 

You didn't answer the question about protein. Does adding water to the food affect the percentage of protein?


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> The reason why places like dogfoodanalysis.com says things like stated above, is because of the processing proceedures.
> 
> Ingredients in kibble dog foods are listed by weight PRIOR to processing...so if for example a kibble contains "chicken" and is the #1 ingredient, that is totally misleading. Whole chicken on average is at least 70% water by weight, so if you take 70% of its weight away, that ingredient by weight AFTER processing should be considerably farther down the list....~by 70% farther down the list by weight.


I know I read that before somewhere, but not from dog food analysis.



> It is ideal to see at least 3 named meat meals (not by product meals) in the first 5 ingredients in dog food. This is because meat meals do not lose weight in the process of making dog food, because they are exclusive of water...ie they don't lose water weight.


Why not by-product meals? No benefit in organ meats in the mix? Meal is the carcass with the meat stripped off for the human consumption market. By-product meals is the same thing with the bonus items like some organ meats. How could that not be beneficial? Because AFFCO says so and dog food analysis makes it sound...so yucky? Meals do contain some moisture as do by-product meals, but not nearly as much as whole meats.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> I have just never concerned myself about water content of meat. The meat I eat has water content and the meat I feed my dogs has water content. It's just not a big deal to me. I think it is just a ploy used by dog food manufacurers trying to convince you that ultra cheap meat and by-product meals are healthier and more nutritious than much more expensive muscle meats. I just don't buy it.




It's no big deal to you because by feeding raw you're offering 6x's the amount of meat to begin with than kibble feeders. Liberal inclusion of by-product meals is the only way to ensure enough adequate supply of animal source proteins when it comes to dry feeds. Anything else results with foods
where the protein from grain (or plants) will dominate the protein core of the dry food. Plenty of dry foods masquerading as meat based with lots of sales appeal but in reality are gluten based protein feeds.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Liberal inclusion of by-product meals is the only way to ensure enough adequate supply of animal source proteins when it comes to dry feeds.


What do you base that statement on? I think it is entirely false because of the low quality of protein in by-product meals. Not much better quality than plant based proteins.


----------



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

I think this FACTUAL article says it all about by-products. I am sure someone here is going to over look these "FACTS" and try to get someone to buy into his "OPIONIONS". That is why there is a difference between facts and opionions. I love the wording "disgusting and unhealthy" and "gross and disgusting". But I would admit, not all the by-products are bad. 


What Are Animal By-Products and Rendered Meats?

This A+ FRR Pet Food Nutrition FAQ discusses animal by-products, rendered meats, slaughterhouse meats, and meat digest products, and reveals why these disgusting and unhealthy meat sources are included in some pet food brands. 

Animal by-products are ground, rendered, and cleaned slaughtered meat carcass parts such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, bones, heads, and intestines (and a small amount of feathers in the case of chicken) — yes, by-products are as gross and disgusting as they sound. The quality of animal by-products is very inconsistent between batches. 
In many cases, by-product meals are derived from "4-D" meat sources — defined as food animals that have been rejected for human consumption because they were presented to the meat packing plant as "Dead, Dying, Diseased or Disabled." 


AAFCO Definition for Meat By-Products 

"Meat by-products 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." 
Animal by-products are commonly found in the majority of lower-grade pet foods and even many of the larger name brands that market themselves as "premium pet food" manufacturers, including Science Diet (even their prescription diet product line), Purina (both Purina One and Purina Pro Plan), and Iams / Eukanuba. Ingredients listed as "beef, chicken, and/or poultry byproducts" on pet food labels are not required to include actual meat, and "rendered meat" on labels can refer to ANY rendered mammal meat, including dogs and cats! 

And after reading many articles I found "meat by-products" too be a much lower grade than "meat by-product meal". Which are both lower that "meat meal" which is lower than just "meat". Which was my orginal question, how far down the list does meat fall? LOL, I really found it to be a non answerable question because we can only speculate.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I would try and reply to this thread and put more into it, but quite frankly...I'm tired and bored of every thread turning into just another CB/Abady discussion and getting no where. Just tired and frustrated with it. Carry on, once again.


----------



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

I agree 1000% and I know for a "fact" we are not alone..... I really did want to know what others thought.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Maybe you can email the company to ask how far the meat moves down the list after the extrusion, because thats something I've been wondering as well. I would think that it would go lower then grains since they contain less moisture, so if its something like : Chicken, chicken meal, oatmeal, barley...
It would be after barley, but I'm not entirely sure.


----------

