# Poultry by-product meal



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Poultry by-product meal vs poultry vs poultry meal. Just dropping a pdf link here for whoever is interested. From Cargill.

edit; I'll add this pdf too. It's an article by Hilary Watson on poultry sources and explains why formulas which seem identical not always perform the same in real life. A great food is much more than reading the label, and this is just one of many ingredients needed to make a great formula.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I wouldn't buy any dog food that had the word "poultry" in it. Kind of like "meat byproducts."


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> I wouldn't buy any dog food that had the word "poultry" in it. Kind of like "meat byproducts."


Cargill uses "poultry" I would not go for that either but it's not the point here. In most cases it would be chicken by-product. The point is the comparisons and what is said about no two meals are created equal.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> I wouldn't buy any dog food that had the word "poultry" in it. Kind of like "meat byproducts."


Why would they add intestines to the mix? My dogs eat a whole chicken every three weeks and never eat the intestines. Some companies just really don't understand how to feed a pet! I think they should be required to watch a dog eat a whole chicken before making their food and see what they eat first. 

I'd like to see the ratio of bone/meat to intestines/skin. I highly doubt they're using whole chickens, rather random parts and it seems like they'd have more intestines than anything since that would be left over from human-food for the most part. Is there every a way to see such ratio?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

it doesn't say chicken. It says poultry. And on the ingredient label, it ALSO says poultry. Not chicken. So there's no way to be sure it's chicken.

It may not have been your point, but it's waste food that probably is scraped up off the floor after the good parts are gone.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> it doesn't say chicken. It says poultry. And on the ingredient label, it ALSO says poultry. Not chicken. So there's no way to be sure it's chicken.
> 
> It may not have been your point, but it's waste food that probably is scraped up off the floor after the good parts are gone.


Ewww that's what the poultry means? They're so sneaky!

I bet it's all intestines!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> Why would they add intestines to the mix? My dogs eat a whole chicken every three weeks and never eat the intestines. Some companies just really don't understand how to feed a pet! I think they should be required to watch a dog eat a whole chicken before making their food and see what they eat first.
> 
> I'd like to see the ratio of bone/meat to intestines/skin. I highly doubt they're using whole chickens, rather random parts and it seems like they'd have more intestines than anything since that would be left over from human-food for the most part. Is there every a way to see such ratio?


There is no way to know. This particular company says it doesn't use beaks or feet in the poultry byproducts. They don't say anything about feathers.

But it's not a good food. It has several questionable ingredients. The second ingredient is corn. Bragging about no beaks or feet is a red herring for a bad dog food.

AND what they are bragging on is that byproduct is low in ash and better than "poultry" because it's concentrated and doesn't have water in it. But I can't get past the word POULTRY. That's garbage.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> There is no way to know. This particular company says it doesn't use beaks or feet in the poultry byproducts. They don't say anything about feathers.
> 
> But it's not a good food. It has several questionable ingredients. The second ingredient is corn. Bragging about no beaks or feet is a red herring for a bad dog food.
> 
> AND what they are bragging on is that byproduct is low in ash and better than "poultry" because it's concentrated and doesn't have water in it. But I can't get past the word POULTRY. That's garbage.


Yikes. Well, all I can say is when my dogs eat a whole chicken, they do eat the feathers, beak, and feet. However, they don't eat the intestines so I'm not sure why they're acting like feet/beak is inferior but then they're using something a dog wouldn't even eat. Odd.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Never mind, it was a cpl of educational links for kibble feeders. Not gasoline for raw feeders to stir up a discussion for the gazillionth time how bad and unethical kibble ingredients are according to raw feeders. All this speculative nonsense is annoying to say the least.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

This is what the Dog Food Project says about it. Nothing to writie home about. And YES, intestines allowed.



> AAFCO: Consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcasses of slaughtered poultry, s*uch as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, and intestines, exclusive of feathers except in such amounts as might occur unavoidably in good processing practices.*
> 
> T*he parts used can be obtained from any slaughtered fowl, so there is no control over the quality and consistency of individual batches. Poultry byproducts are much less expensive and less digestible than chicken meat.*The ingredients of each batch can vary drastically in ingredients (heads, feet, bones, organs etc.) as well as quality, thus the nutritional value is also not consistent. Don't forget that byproducts consist of any parts of the animal OTHER than meat. If there is any use for any part of the animal that brings more profit than selling it as "byproduct", rest assured it will appear in such a product rather than in the "byproduct" dumpster.


The Dog Food Project - Ingredients to avoid


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Never mind, it was a cpl of educational links for kibble feeders. Not gasoline for raw feeders to stir up a discussion for the gazillionth time how bad and unethical kibble ingredients are according to raw feeders.


I actually learned something new and considering my cat currently eats kibble, it's good to know. Avoid things worded poultry.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Never mind, it was a cpl of educational links for kibble feeders. Not gasoline for raw feeders to stir up a discussion for the gazillionth time how bad and unethical kibble ingredients are according to raw feeders. All this speculative nonsense is annoying to say the least.


I NEVER mentioned raw. Not one time. 

And there's no speculation. It's what the term means, what AAFCO allows, and what is in that food.

Kibble feeders should know when they are getting crap. Don't you think? who cares about ash or moisture when the ingredient itself is garbage?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

What you want to see in the first ingredient is something like chicken meal. No byproduct, no unnamed meat.

If it says "chicken" that's a wet weight and it's there to fool you into thinking chicken is the main ingredient. But once it's cooked it loses eighty percent of its weight and in reality drops way down on the ingredients list.

If it says byproduct, I wouldn't buy it. If it says poultry or meat or fish, I wouldn't buy it.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> I NEVER mentioned raw. Not one time.
> 
> And there's no speculation. It's what the term means, what AAFCO allows, and what is in that food.
> 
> Kibble feeders should know when they are getting crap. Don't you think? who cares about ash or moisture when the ingredient itself is garbage?


Again you are missing the whole point. It's not a war between unnamed and named meals. It's about what different meals provide of nutrition and how no two meals are created equal. Meaning one brand can turn out to be absolute crap even if the label is 100% identical to a competitors label. Their meals and other ingredients come from different suppliers at different pricepoints. That's why blanket statements like you usually throw around about how this is crap and that is crap is meaningless, you do not know what goes into individual formulas. The only times you are right is probably about low grade Petsmart and grocery brands. For the rest you are 1) on shaky ground and can't possibly know and 2) you have a definition of crap and garbage that is different than 95% of the worlds dog owners.


----------



## Sapphire-Light (Aug 8, 2010)

The thing wit the term "poultry" is that they don't mention from wish type of animal the meat came, if it was chicken it would be labeled as such.



Online Dictionary said:


> °Domestic fowls, such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, or geese, raised for meat or eggs.
> 
> °Fowl, poultry - Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, and turkey are fowl in the wild and poultry if domesticated.
> 
> ...


poultry - definition of poultry by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So poultry is any type of bird that is raised by humans , it could be any type of bird.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Again you are missing the whole point. It's not a war between unnamed and named meals. It's about what different meals provide of nutrition and how no two meals are created equal. Meaning one brand can turn out to be absolute crap even if the label is 100% identical to a competitors label. Their meals and other ingredients come from different suppliers at different pricepoints. That's why blanket statements like you usually throw around about how this is crap and that is crap is meaningless, you do not know what goes into individual formulas. The only times you are right is probably about low grade Petsmart and grocery brands. For the rest you are 1) on shaky ground and can't possibly know and 2) you have a definition of crap and garbage that is different than 95% of the worlds dog owners.


I think it's so funny that you argue with me just because you know I feed raw and what you are saying is exactly my point! Read the chart - YOU are the one who posted it. Not me.

And anyone who thinks "poultry byproduct meal" is ok to feed a dog doesn't have a clue. I believe anyone who thinks it's ok doesn't know what it really is. That page you linked to is comparing Garbage A to Garbage B to Garbage C.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Again you are missing the whole point. It's not a war between unnamed and named meals. It's about what different meals provide of nutrition and how no two meals are created equal. Meaning one brand can turn out to be absolute crap even if the label is 100% identical to a competitors label. Their meals and other ingredients come from different suppliers at different pricepoints. That's why blanket statements like you usually throw around about how this is crap and that is crap is meaningless, you do not know what goes into individual formulas. The only times you are right is probably about low grade Petsmart and grocery brands. For the rest you are 1) on shaky ground and can't possibly know and 2) you have a definition of crap and garbage that is different than 95% of the worlds dog owners.


My problem is, even when I learn what goes into the individual formula, I still have a hard time thinking it's not crap. It's really, really difficult to find a decent kibble. It's almost impossible to not find an ingredient that isn't linked to cancer or some other dreadful thing in most brands. Not very comforting.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> I think it's so funny that you argue with me just because you know I feed raw and what you are saying is exactly my point! Read the chart - YOU are the one who posted it. Not me.
> 
> And anyone who thinks "poultry byproduct meal" is ok to feed a dog doesn't have a clue. I believe anyone who thinks it's ok doesn't know what it really is. That page you linked to is comparing Garbage A to Garbage B to Garbage C.


Sigh, it was educational and not to, again, bicker over label definitions and what you seem to know that the rest of us don't.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> My problem is, even when I learn what goes into the individual formula, I still have a hard time thinking it's not crap. It's really, really difficult to find a decent kibble. It's almost impossible to not find an ingredient that isn't linked to cancer or some other dreadful thing in most brands. Not very comforting.


Ok, I can appreciate that stand, it's honest. Because you read what you read and believe what you believe right. It's like that for everyone. Maybe kibble isn't for you at all. You beliefs lies elsewhere and quite frankly, you'r not going to find kibble that imitates raw. You either buy into processed foods like the majority of the world does or you don't. That's all good :smile:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> My problem is, even when I learn what goes into the individual formula, I still have a hard time thinking it's not crap. It's really, really difficult to find a decent kibble. It's almost impossible to not find an ingredient that isn't linked to cancer or some other dreadful thing in most brands. Not very comforting.


I do think there are some good dry foods - I mean (and here's why DaViking gets irritated at everything I say about dry food) I don't trust the process, or the source, or the manufacturing.

But the actual ingredients list, if you do your homework about where it is made, I think good ones are out there. In theory.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Ok, I can appreciate that stand, it's honest. Because you read what you read and believe what you believe right. It's like that for everyone. Maybe kibble isn't for you at all. You beliefs lies elsewhere and quite frankly, you'r not going to find kibble that imitates raw. You either buy into processed foods like the majority of the world does or you don't. That's all good :smile:


she HAS to find a good kibble for her cat because it won't eat raw.

Edited to change: Kibble or really she should find a good canned food.


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

Thank you for the original links in post #1. I just scanned them but will read more closely later.

I don't feed kibbles that have by-product meals in them because I don't have a comfort level with it; but also because there are often other listed ingredients in those formulas that I definitely don't want to feed.

The most frustrating part to me is that I really don't see any tried-and-true method to determine the quality of the meat proteins used in most kibbles. It's not like going to the grocery store and seeing meat labeled with what part of the animal, what grade, and often the source. So, I tend to end up putting together my own limited research about the company and a little gut instinct after having a number of dogs through the years and trying quite a number of foods.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

xellil said:


> she HAS to find a good kibble for her cat because it won't eat raw.
> 
> Edited to change: Kibble or really she should find a good canned food.


Yeah, I have to find her a good kibble until I can get her switched to canned... which, seriously, might be a while. Astrid is my only cat and she's so stubborn. She will boycott healthy foods and force me to give her kibble by refusing to eat anything else. I almost think she knows that she can get away with it because in the end she has to eat. DAMN them. I've read cats become more addicted to kibble than dogs and she did eat Purina for about 5 years. I know -- embarrassing on my part. Sigh.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

I do find it a bit odd that they act like feet and beaks are bad, but intestines are awesome. As what sheltielover said- my dogs eat feet and beaks but won't touch intestines. The lack of a definitive animal is kind of disturbing, too imo. My bet is poultry by product meal contains less ash than chicken meal because it has less bone- simply because it is inclusive of things like organs and intestines.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Caty M said:


> I do find it a bit odd that they act like feet and beaks are bad, but intestines are awesome. As what sheltielover said- my dogs eat feet and beaks but won't touch intestines. The lack of a definitive animal is kind of disturbing, too imo. My bet is poultry by product meal contains less ash than chicken meal because it has less bone- simply because it is inclusive of things like organs and intestines.


My dogs, three of them, even go so far as to eat the feathers over time. They'll eat some when they're eating the animal and spit some out, but over the next week I find them eating feathers. LOL But never the intestines. They will eat the intestines of small prey like quail, but bunnies/chickens, nope. I'm always awaiting the dreaded guts and I go out there with gloves on and dispose of them. Yuck!


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

PDXdogmom said:


> The most frustrating part to me is that I really don't see any tried-and-true method to determine the quality of the meat proteins used in most kibbles. It's not like going to the grocery store and seeing meat labeled with what part of the animal, what grade, and often the source. So, I tend to end up putting together my own limited research about the company and a little gut instinct after having a number of dogs through the years and trying quite a number of foods.


Yep, that plus the actual results you get feeding the formula. Not always easy to spot big differences in less active dogs but as soon as the activity level increases the differences starts to show. Everyone that is more than average interested can always talk to the people who manufactures the various brands. Some are more than willing to share, not everything but still a lot of great information and knowledge to learn from. You also get a sense for what kind of ppl/company you are dealing with.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Caty M said:


> I do find it a bit odd that they act like feet and beaks are bad, but intestines are awesome. As what sheltielover said- my dogs eat feet and beaks but won't touch intestines. The lack of a definitive animal is kind of disturbing, too imo. My bet is poultry by product meal contains less ash than chicken meal because it has less bone- simply because it is inclusive of things like organs and intestines.


I don't think they say intestines is awesome. They kind'a doesn't comment on it even if it obviously have to be listed since it's there. Their (general) statement re higher ash content from beaks and feets are true though, and it does reduce the overall digestibility. Other than that, feets, beaks and even feathers to some extent isn't that much to cry about. It's obviously not great, just whatever... As I said earlier, you can get crap meal and you can get great meal, regardless of by-product or not.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Not with poultry as the meat, you can't


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

Here is my take on it and I have been both a kibble feeder and a raw feeder. 

By products are, by definition, waste products during manufacturing. That DOES NOT mean they are always garbage though. Organs can be considered by products and raw feeders know how valuable organs are. The problem is, organs are valuable. They DO cost more than beaks and feet. Some foods use decent by products. Many do not. 

Honestly, I would and have fed organs, beaks, feet, intestines, and the like to my dogs in raw form. But the difference is, when I feed those parts, they do not make up the bulk of their diet. 

With kibble, these by products are many times the main source of protein and bulk of the food. I think THAT is what I have the biggest problem with personally. 

For kibble, I like to see a fresh source (ex:chicken) followed by a meal (chicken meal) and only one or two other ingredients before the fat source. That is how I always shopped for kibble. Since there is no way to know what kind of by product they are using, it is kind of a shot in the dark. 

They really need more standards in the kibble indusrty as well as better labeling. Everything is too vague.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

wolfsnaps88 said:


> Here is my take on it and I have been both a kibble feeder and a raw feeder.
> 
> By products are, by definition, waste products during manufacturing. That DOES NOT mean they are always garbage though. Organs can be considered by products and raw feeders know how valuable organs are. The problem is, organs are valuable. They DO cost more than beaks and feet. Some foods use decent by products. Many do not.
> 
> ...


chicken byproducts are one thing. Poulty byproducts are a totally different thing, as you never want to get unspecified meat.

Also, chicken listed as a first ingredient is wet weight. When dried into the food, it drops way down on the ingredient list. you also need to look for splitting ingredients - sometimes there will be three different kinds of grain and separately they aren't high on the ingredients list, but added together they might even be number one.

I totally agree about the standards, and it's really my biggest issue with the ingredients list. The stuff that's legally permitted to be in there may be, or may not be, but you just don't know with the information you are given. And the companies purposely disguise the bad stuff if they can - unfortunately the FDA allows alot of leeway in the way they list things.


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

Yes Xellil I know all that. But I liked having both fresh and meal together in a kibble. I am pretty sure most of us regulars are up to speed on that...or at least, I would hope so?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

wolfsnaps88 said:


> Yes Xellil I know all that. But I liked having both fresh and meal together in a kibble. I am pretty sure most of us regulars are up to speed on that...or at least, I would hope so?


Sorry, i don't say that for you - just for people who might not know.

Mainlhy because it looks from the title and some comments that there might be some good quality poultry byproducts out there,.


----------



## Makovach (Jan 24, 2012)

If its a by-product, I wouldn't ever use it. I just switched a lady to Orijen from this Loyal brand. I took one look at the ingredients, and it did not take much convincing. 

Maybe I'm not getting this right, but you posted this to show the good in byproducts and unnamed meat sources? And how byproducts can be better than meat meals? -- Not looking to argue, just curios.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Makovach said:


> If its a by-product, I wouldn't ever use it. I just switched a lady to Orijen from this Loyal brand. I took one look at the ingredients, and it did not take much convincing.
> 
> Maybe I'm not getting this right, but you posted this to show the good in byproducts and unnamed meat sources? And how byproducts can be better than meat meals? -- Not looking to argue, just curios.


yes, it seems to me what that chart is, is a company with horrible, horrible ingredients trying to convince people they are ok.

I wouldn't feed byproducts but I know some people are comfortable with them.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Well- some by products are just fine. We raw feeders feed them. Organs, feet are perfectly OK. There is just no way of knowing if the by products are all organ or all beaks. The ingredient name on the panel is exactly the same. Trust comes into play here but I tend to be very suspicious of companies so would just rather avoid them altogether. Unnamed meat sources are bad however!!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Caty M said:


> Well- some by products are just fine. We raw feeders feed them. Organs, feet are perfectly OK. There is just no way of knowing if the by products are all organ or all beaks. The ingredient name on the panel is exactly the same. Trust comes into play here but I tend to be very suspicious of companies so would just rather avoid them altogether. Unnamed meat sources are bad however!!


Caty, I don't consider something like liver or kidney or feet a byproduct in its natural state. It's got a name. To me, the term byproduct comes into play when you really don't know what it is.

could one one, several, or none of something. Or all. maybe. Or maybe not. Depends.


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

Here is the definition from a non dog food site

byproduct - definition of byproduct by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Noun	1.	byproduct - a secondary and sometimes unexpected consequence
by-product
consequence, effect, result, upshot, outcome, event, issue - a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon; "the magnetic effect was greater when the rod was lengthwise"; "his decision had depressing consequences for business"; "he acted very wise after the event"
epiphenomenon - a secondary phenomenon that is a by-product of another phenomenon
2.	byproduct - a product made during the manufacture of something else
spin-off, by-product
product, production - an artifact that has been created by someone or some process; "they improve their product every year"; "they export most of their agricultural production"


I dont think it means it is garbage. It means when you make something (like, culling and butchering a chicken for the meat) the leftover stuff that was not part of the goal (of obtaining meat) is the by product. So, you want breast, thighs, and wings? Ok, then the head, feet, and insides are byproduct. 

So while I am not saying by product in kibble is bad, I dont know how good it is either because they just scoop it up and create a meal out of it. So it is probably not uniform.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> Mainlhy because it looks from the title and some comments that there might be some good quality poultry byproducts out there,.


Of course there are. Me and thousands of others have successfully fed formulas with by-products and poultry meal to performance working dogs for years. Sub par protein sources would not fly at all, I can assure you that. Are all poultry and by-product meals good? No. Are all named meals good? No.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

i think saying it's not uniform is probably an understatement!

We know they sell gizzards, livers, and chicken hearts as a product. So what does that leave? Not much. Heads, feathers, feet, necks, intestines, etc. etc. Not really any great chicken organs left.

Some places also sell the necks and feet. So throw some of those out of the byproduct mix. The misperception with dog food is that there is actually chicken meat when the ingredient is byproduct. 

same goes for other animals. Fish - skin, heads, fins, and guts. Maybe that would be a little better than chicken.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Of course there are. Me and thousands of others have successfully fed formulas with by-products and poultry meal to performance working dogs for years. Sub par protein sources would not fly at all, I can assure you that. Are all poultry and by-product meals good? No. Are all named meals good? No.


What are some brands of food you have fed that have poultry meal in it?


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Makovach said:


> Maybe I'm not getting this right, but you posted this to show the good in byproducts and unnamed meat sources? And how byproducts can be better than meat meals? -- Not looking to argue, just curios.


Meat meals are different.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> What are some brands of food you have fed that have poultry meal in it?


Royal Canin have over the years had plenty of formulas with "poultry meal" to name one. Josera, Mera, Chikopee and Genesis are others.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> Royal Canin have over the years had plenty of formulas with "poultry meal" to name one. Josera, Mera, Chikopee and Genesis are others.


I see some meal in the ingredients, but not byproducts. I forgot to put the word "byproduct" on my question to you.

In fact, some of them have "poultry meat meal"


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> i think saying it's not uniform is probably an understatement!
> 
> We know they sell gizzards, livers, and chicken hearts as a product. So what does that leave? Not much. Heads, feathers, feet, necks, intestines, etc. etc. Not really any great chicken organs left.
> 
> ...


You are too hung up on AAFCO definitions. AAFCO is not a recipe book manufacturers must adhere to. A manufacturer can decide to throw all the stuff you mention in their by-product meal, including meat scraps. In fact there can be a lot of meat scraps in there but because they can get for example duck heads, feet and necks for dirt cheap from another supplier they are required to sell it as a poultry by-product meal. Secondly when a pet food manufacturer buys their meals they know the properties of that particular product.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> You are too hung up on AAFCO definitions. AAFCO is not a recipe book manufacturers must adhere to. A manufacturer can decide to throw all the stuff you mention in their by-product meal, including meat scraps. In fact there can be a lot of meat scraps in there but because they can get for example duck heads, feet and necks for dirt cheap from another supplier they are required to sell it as a poultry by-product meal. Secondly when a pet food manufacturer buys their meals they know the properties of that particular product.


I agree - a manufacturer could make a byproduct that's a good byproduct. i doesn't have to be all intestines. I guess I just don't think they do that very often.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

But I don't think they would toss in stuff like necks willy nilly. That's got bone in it, and they can't change their formulas for each lot to account for whatever bone they put in the byproduct because it would change the calcium content.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Actually the "hate" for anything by-product and "poultry" instead of named chicken, duck or turkey have effectively cut of many mom and pop producers from making good quality meals since North America have been trained to want "pure" meals. This is a shame and wasteful because it results in poor use of resources, killing good biz oppertunities and leads to higher prices for kibble and less selection in the mid range. Nutritional wise there is a big opertunity in using *quality* by-products from the poultry industry but fewer and fewer dear to print "by-product" on their bags anymore.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, if they know they are using only duck, turkey and chicken I don't know why they can't list three ingredients.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> Well, if they know they are using only duck, turkey and chicken I don't know why they can't list three ingredients.


The pet food manufacturers don't make the meals. Rendering as you know is a big industry on it's own. They make the meals and the pet food manufactures buys from rendering companies across the globe. The pet food manufacturer can't split up what goes into the meals and list that on their bags. That would be a violation of AAFCO regulations.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

But... that's kinda my point. We don't really know what's in there.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> But... that's kinda my point. We don't really know what's in there.


Right, you really don't know what's in your salami either. Not really a fruitful direction since I can say my name is Thomas when it's really Tim, the one without a Dr. :smile:
The manufacturer know, and they know the properties too. And after testing you will too!

What is true though is that there are fewer producers of quality by-product meals. Most of them now delivers to the big brands at firesale prices in huge volumes. It's a result of n. america been trained to turn away from by-product meals. A shame.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

That means it's up to the rendering company to be honest about the contents of their by product slurry..


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Caty M said:


> That means it's up to the rendering company to be honest about the contents of their by product slurry..


Yes, but that also goes for "pure" meals as well, they are all rendered.
Who would you trust. A huge rendering company delivering to big brands or a mom and pop outfit specializing in rendering quality by-products for more demanding pet food brands?


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

DaViking said:


> Yes, but that also goes for "pure" meals as well, they are all rendered.


Yeah but at least there is AAFCO regulation on what can and can't be in it. I don't know that I'd trust a manufacturer to say "Oh this is grade A by product meal, there's nothing like beaks in there..." When it's perfectly ok under law for it to be in there. I realize that companies can and certainly do break the law, but there is a better chance that they are honest when not given the choice...


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

DaViking said:


> Yes, but that also goes for "pure" meals as well, they are all rendered.


Yeah but at least there is AAFCO regulation on what can and can't be in it. I don't know that I'd trust a manufacturer to say "Oh this is grade A by product meal, there's nothing like beaks in there..." When it's perfectly ok under law for it to be in there. I realize that companies can and certainly do break the law, but there is a better chance that they are honest when not given the choice...


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

It's not the process. It's the regulation, and the the allowance of stuff to go in there that doesn't even have to be listed on the ingredients. There is nothing wrong with a GOOD byproduct (well, at least by alot of people's standards). But there is no way to tell. 

Salami has to be made to a much higher standard than dog food. 

Like Caty says, we have to trust that manufacturers and the rendering plants. And why on earth would anyone in their right minds do that, considering the history?

Diamond supposedly had 151 tests and it was the FDA that found the salmonella. Starting last October. When all kinds of disgusting meat is allowed in byproducts - whatever way you look at it is scraping the very bottom of the barrel in food processing - talking about this meal vs. that meal is like saying Ted Bundy is better looking than Charles Manson.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

xellil said:


> It's not the process. It's the regulation, and the the allowance of stuff to go in there that doesn't even have to be listed on the ingredients. There is nothing wrong with a GOOD byproduct (well, at least by alot of people's standards). But there is no way to tell.
> 
> Salami has to be made to a much higher standard than dog food.
> 
> ...


He was actually, LOL. I heard he was very good looking and charismatic, that's how he got away with so much for so long.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Caty M said:


> He was actually, LOL. I heard he was very good looking and charismatic, that's how he got away with so much for so long.


Yes he was! I never could figure out the attraction to Charles Manson. He's about five feet two inches tall. Of course the swastika carved into his head didn't help much.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> Like Caty says, we have to trust that manufacturers and the rendering plants. And why on earth would anyone in their right minds do that, considering the history?


99 out of 100 pet food manufacturers use rendered meals, even Acana and Orijen. So you just called mostly every dog owner in the world, except a handful posters on this forum, lunatics. I think not.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

No I did not call anyone lunatic. But no, you shouldn't trust rendered meats. Maybe everyone should buy from the companies that don't use them. 

OR, maybe people who buy rendered meats should lobby for stricter regulation, more clarity on ingredients list, and a ban of additives like ethoxyquin which don't even have to be disclosed.

Or perhaps not allowing dangerous ingredients in that ARE listed, like Vitamin K.

AND, punishing harshly for not testing/finding/reporting/recalling when intentional or accidental impurities and contaminants are in the dog food. 

And not allowing deceptive marketing practices.

Or, just keep going like they always have as long as we keep buying - ignoring complaints, keeping bad products on the shelves, producing with no real oversight, and including this mishmash of stuff like rendered meat when no one really knows the content.

Oh, and there is not just a handful of raw feeders on this board. There are many, and growing with each recall. People are getting tired of it.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

xellil said:


> No I did not call anyone lunatic. But no, you shouldn't trust rendered meats. Maybe everyone should buy from the companies that don't use them.
> 
> OR, maybe people who buy rendered meats should lobby for stricter regulation, more clarity on ingredients list, and a ban of additives like ethoxyquin which don't even have to be disclosed.
> 
> ...


Meh, still a handful.

Have you ever trained for any kind of dog sport like agility, flyball, disc, working dog, SAR, mushing or skijoring or similar? If you did you would have no problems answering your own questions. You would know very fast if you are dealing pure crap low quality protein sources or high grade sources, by-products or "pure". You can't sustain a sporting or working dog on beaks, feathers and blood. Not gonna happen.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

No, but for much of my life I had dogs that ran at least 4-5 hours a day. They all ate dry food. Could I have done better by them? I think so. 

i think what helped them was they caught and ate alot of rabbits.


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

xellil said:


> No I did not call anyone lunatic. But no, you shouldn't trust rendered meats. Maybe everyone should buy from the companies that don't use them.
> 
> OR,* maybe people who buy rendered meats should lobby for stricter regulation, more clarity on ingredients list,* and a ban of additives like ethoxyquin which don't even have to be disclosed.
> 
> ...


I hope more and more people show their displeasure, at least with their wallets, by not purchasing any products from the worst of the offenders. I don't look to see much help coming from any government resources. The FDA is so minimally funded that there isn't a high confidence level in the human food products on the shelves; plus a very low percentage of import foods are inspected by the FDA. Only 2 percent of food imports inspected by FDA | HULIQ


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

PDXdogmom said:


> I hope more and more people show their displeasure, at least with their wallets, by not purchasing any products from the worst of the offenders. I don't look to see much help coming from any government resources. The FDA is so minimally funded that there isn't a high confidence level in the human food products on the shelves; plus a very low percentage of import foods are inspected by the FDA. Only 2 percent of food imports inspected by FDA | HULIQ


thetruthaboutpetfood.com sells a list of foods she would feed her dog. I am curious to know what they are, since I know one of her dogs died from pet food and she is such an advocate for safe processed food.

I know if I fed dry food I would buy it - of course there is the issue with low quality ingredients and I think related is with whatever ingredients listed, just knowing where the meat comes from and what part of the meat, how it is processed, etc. would be helpful and like you say the FDA sure doesn't watch over that process.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Just fed my pack a whole chicken today. Three dogs, one beak/no feet eaten the first day. Can you really imagine feeding something consisting of beaks/feet healthy?? Like throwing down a meal of beaks/feet and walking away. By-products have their very, very small part in the diet and that's how it should be. Any food using by-products over meat and saying the results would be the same is ridiculous. The dog eating by-products might do good when working, but you can't say they wouldn't do better eating a prey diet because it sounds like you haven't tried it. I don't see how a beak can compare to a breast at all, though. No matter the quality. There are probably a lot of beaks because a lot of mass chicken farmers cut the beaks off their chickens to keep them from pecking each other. Beaks and intestines can't equate to quality no matter how hard you try to make them.


----------

