# "Animal By Products"



## Maverick (Sep 20, 2008)

What do they mean when they say "Animal By Products"? It doesn't sound good at all.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I believe that by-products as defined by AAFCO standards includes the animals' heads, feed, and intestines, which can included undeveloped eggs and reproductive organs, I do believe.


----------



## LoveNewfies (Jun 18, 2008)

According to the 2007 AAFCO publication, Animal By-Product is the rendered product from animal tissues, exclusive of any added hair, hoof, horn, hide, trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents, except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Maverick said:


> What do they mean when they say "Animal By Products"? It doesn't sound good at all.


Animal by-products are basically any part of the animal that humans don't eat except for those listed in another post. They will include chicken heads and feet and all the insides that people don't eat. It is mostly stuff that is pretty low in nutrition.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Double post


----------



## lulusmom (Sep 29, 2008)

If you want to get the real poop on animal by products and bone meal, just type in "rendering plants" in your favorite search engine and you'll have plenty of reading material. Or you can just check out the link below but only if you have a strong stomach and care about what you are feeding your pets. 

http://www.preciouspets.org/rendering.htm


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Get this guys, I had the cute new SD rep try to tell me that by-products are simply something that's been changed. But how does that pertain to chicken? "Ummm well when dogs take down an animal in the wild they go for the organs first and clean out the heart, liver, and kidneys. And by-products just means it's been cooked."

So then everything that's been cooked is a by-products? That doesn't really answer the question. 

Another SD rep tried to tell me the same thing only "They'll go for all the organs fist like the intestines" 
Me: "Actually, dogs/wolves don't eat the intestines in the wild, they'll actually rip the stomach open and shake out all the contents rather than eating it whole, because that's poop in the intestines. Poop."
SD rep: *baffled stare* "But they still eat the innards and other organs."
Me: "That's all well and good, but that's not what's in by-products, it's the heads feet and intestines. And while it's good for dogs to get the feet as a glucosamine supplement, it certainly shouldn't be the main component of a dog's diet, even if it is just organ meats as you claim, it should mostly be muscle meat and bone they're getting."
SD rep: *more baffled stare"

Yet another SD rep tried to convince me that the by-products in SD are just the organs and nothing else. I told her that's all well and good, but if it's not on the label, then it's probably not true. And once again, even if that's the case and it's not just poop/intestines in the by-products, dogs still shouldn't try to subsist off of organ meat alone. 

I'd like to try harder to convince the new SD rep that the food she's pedaling really isn't as great as the company's brainwashed her to think, but it's her job to sell it and that's probably a lot harder to do when you know you're selling crap to unsuspecting customers.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

rannmiller said:


> I'd like to try harder to convince the new SD rep that the food she's pedaling really isn't as great as the company's brainwashed her to think, but it's her job to sell it and that's probably a lot harder to do when you know you're selling crap to unsuspecting customers.


My guess is that the SD rep knows whats in the product they sell but won't admit it to the customer (you). It's their job to convince you that the ingredients are good and nutritious. If they go around telling everyone the whole story about the ingredients, they would be out of business pretty quickly.


----------



## domari (Jun 17, 2008)

My sister-in-law works for SD. She's a vet tech and they fly her around the country so she can go to schools to "teach" nutrition to vet students. 

She really is convinced that SD can cure just about everything that dogs and cats suffer from!! Brainwashed? Yep.


----------



## lorih1770 (Jun 17, 2008)

Oh yes, they are truly brainwashed! I foster for a rescue and the person who runs the rescue is a vet tech and INSISTS all adopted dogs must eats SD because it's the absolute best food out there. She truly believes it. It makes me insane. Guess what they sell at their vet's office? All dogs that I foster eat what my own dogs eat (Eagle Pack Holistic, Innova, Wellness or Orijen) AND I always recommend the new family feeds the same. I'd be shot if the rescue knew I was NOT feeding or pushing SD. LOL 

Funny & true story, I fostered a puppy at 10 weeks, 3 other people fostered 3 of his siblings. At 12 weeks all 4 puppies were at an adoption event together. Soon as the pup and I walked up everyone's mouth was hanging open and one lady said "OMG, what are you feeding him!" I was feeding him Innova Puppy. The other 3 ate SD Puppy. In just 2 weeks my puppy was by far larger and stronger and MUCH more heathly looking. His fur was thick and soft like rabbit fur. The other 3 puppies were still scrawny and had coarse, dry, flakey fur. That was all the proof I needed.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

rannmiller:


> I just wish they'd be more specific. That and I believe that while organ meats and almost all parts of the chicken are important for proper dog nutrition, I also think that muscle meat should be a main component of their diets, not organs.


I don't know how specific companies need to be when it comes to by-product meals, the listing could be two pages long. They sum it all up in one package, chicken by-product meal, or poultry by-product meal, etc.
BTW, this is a discussion from another thread but it seems more appropriate here, in regards to Abady's use of by-product meals (they got a poor review).

Chicken Meal is now a starter ingredient for most of the product line (granular feeds), however the stuff I feed is Classic Granular, and chicken by-product meal is a starter ingredient. I think we all know what it is and
there is no lack of disclosure or information about by-products on Abady's part. It is everything basically not used for human consumption, heads, feet, guts, eyeballs, brains, you name it and it's probably in there.

Muscle meat or fresh meat muscle as a starter carries along with it a lot of deception. On a solids basis, 75% of that is moisture content (nothing but water). So, on a dry matter basis it amounts to very little actual chicken protein.



> That being said: holy sweet dear Lord is that food ever expensive! $80 - $89 for a 35 lbs bag?! And $120 for a 48 lbs bag?! I mean, it's got a high linoleic acid content, but my goodness. I guess feeding one medium sized dog that food wouldn't be too painful, but still the initial shock of it is a little intense.


It seems expensive but it is not too bad. They eat less. 800 cals per cup!
I scoop about 1 can a day of the Classic Granular (a soup can full, probably a little bit more than a cup). I get about 90 cups from a 40-lb box of Classic for $65 a box. One box will last me 3 months. $22 a month to feed a 35-lb and a 15-pound dog. 



> Kudos to you for being willing to spend so much on your dog food though. If I loved 'em that much I'd feed 'em raw... but I do already, and cheaper. Good thing eh?


Less mess, less shopping, less work, and don't need an extra freezer along with the bigger electric bill. A cup of RAW is less calories than a cup of Classic Granular. That said, IMO, there is probably no better diet out there for dogs than the Raw diets, and Abady was the first to introduce them in the 1970s. Abady has a great line up of Raw Products. If I were to feed Raw, I would be using their stuff because I trust the company (six years on the Classic Granular for my dog!).

Charlie


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Clay, while I'm using your statement solely as a reference, this post is not aimed at you directly. I have seen this statement literally thousands of times on many lists and forums and it is beginning to REALLY tick me off.



claybuster said:


> Muscle meat or fresh meat muscle as a starter carries along with it a lot of deception. On a solids basis, 75% of that is moisture content (nothing but water). So, on a dry matter basis it amounts to very little actual chicken protein.


Listen folks. Meat contains somewhere around 70% water. I don't care what kind of meat it is. T-bone steaks, filet mignon, salmon, lobster, pork roast, lamb, worms, insects, snakes, or ANY MEAT. Trying to say that meat in dog food is deceptive because it has 70% water is just plain BS, period. There is no deception. Everyone knows what meat is.

The only way meat can contain very small to 0% water is to be dehydreated meat. This dehydrated meat is called just that ... dehydrated meat. IT is NOT called meat meal or <name of animal> meal. Its called dehydrated meat.

<Name of animal> meal is nothing more than the remains of the animal carcass after the human usable meat and after the by-products have been removed. It is mostly bone and connective tissue and has very little nutrition. There are many times more nutrition in a pound of chicken than in a pound of chicken meal eventhough the meat is 70% water. Again ALL meat contains around 70% water. All meat is nutritious. Meal ... not so much.

The reason for the contoversy is because the dog food companies are trying to convince you that meals are better nutritionally than real whole meats because the greatest portion of animal ingredients in dog food is meal. The first person who told me that meal was better than meat in dog food was a Nutro rep. in Petsmart. There is more meal in dog food because it is so much cheaper. If it weren't for the dog food companies, the meal would be taken to the dump and disposed of. 

Meal is not superior to whole meat anytime. If it was, you could buy it in the grocery store and order a dinner of chicken meal in a restaurant. Meal is the throw away reminants of the human food industry. There is no such thing as human grade meal.

Don't get me wrong. The meals are good for your dogs and so are by-product meals because they are part of an animal but they are not so good as to be most of the animal protein fed. Meat meals should be in very small amounts compared to whole animal parts.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> The only way meat can contain very small to 0% water is to be dehydreated meat. This dehydrated meat is called just that ... dehydrated meat. IT is NOT called meat meal or <name of animal> meal. Its called dehydrated meat.


With kibble feeds, after baking or extrustion, that meat souce is dehydrated.
As a starter ingredient, if there is nothing to back it up down the line like meals or by-product meals, you have about 12% of the starter ingredient as actual chicken protien, and that is too weak. These diets are the ones at fault, being promoted as 'chicken based' protien when in reality they are all gluten based protien feeds (the protien from grain or vegtables). There lies the deception.

People don't even know what they are getting with kibble feeds when they see fresh meat as an ingredient. I think by law they don't have to tell you what type of meat you are getting. For example, they can give you nothing but chicken skin yet legally be allowed to call the skin 'meat'. Skin is a good source of protein and fat, but inferior to that of meat muscle. They can give you other parts as well that people would never serve on their dinner table yet call that item a meat. People may think they are getting breast meat but they could be getting a by-product part called a 'meat'. There is A LOT of deception IMO when it come to fresh meat being listed in kibbled dog foods. The biggest deception being the ration is not really animal based protien but rather gluten source proteins.
Charlie


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

My point is, with by-products being the first ingredient on the list and then having beef liver further down on the list, it's too high of an organ meat ratio for my liking. I believe that the main component of a dog's diet should be muscle meat, not organ meat. My dogs get organ meat once a week. It makes up about 16% of their diet, if that. The rest of the week they get muscle meat and bones with eggs on occasion. A chicken is not primarily comprised of "by-products" (aka: organs) otherwise, when I buy whole chickens, I wouldn't just get a tiny little bag filled with them shoved inside. Instead, I get - you guess it - mostly muscle meat and bones with fat, skin, and connective tissue. So if nature intended for my dogs to be eating "by-products" as the main component of their meals, nature would've made animals more by-product-filled and less meat and bone filled. 

Therefore, I believe dogs should mainly be getting meat and bones as the main component of their food, NOT organs. Organs and by-products play their part and a very important one to be sure. But it is not meant to be their sole or primary source of animal protein.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> With kibble feeds, after baking or extrustion, that meat souce is dehydrated.


Exactly. So why would they dehydrate chicken and call it chicken meal since its going to be automatically dehydrated during extrusion? They answer is, they don't. Chicken meal is not dehydrated chicken.



> These diets are the ones at fault, being promoted as 'chicken based' protien when in reality they are all gluten based protien feeds (the protien from grain or vegtables). There lies the deception.


Yes, I agree. :smile: :smile: :smile:


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

rannmiller said:


> A chicken is not primarily comprised of "by-products" (aka: organs) otherwise, when I buy whole chickens, I wouldn't just get a tiny little bag filled with them shoved inside. Instead, I get - you guess it - mostly muscle meat and bones with fat, skin, and connective tissue. So if nature intended for my dogs to be eating "by-products" as the main component of their meals, nature would've made animals more by-product-filled and less meat and bone filled.
> 
> Therefore, I believe dogs should mainly be getting meat and bones as the main component of their food, NOT organs. Organs and by-products play their part and a very important one to be sure. But it is not meant to be their sole or primary source of animal protein.


Interesting.

One morning I went back to a particular spot to hunt because some friends said they 'think' one might have gone down that away, but not sure if it was hit or not. So, I went back to check the next morning and my Zoe did find that Pheasant! The head was gone, the feet were gone, and just the guts were eaten, but that was it. All the feathers with the breast meat attached left alone. Probably a fox no doubt.

Now what is really interesting, Abady mentions in one of their articles about a pond located on of the Abady faciliteis with geese I think. Local foxes will grab a meal from time to time and they note the same thing, just the head, the feet and the guts are consumed...and they go on to say good thing those foxes don't read the WDJ.

They probably don't want to wrestle with the muscle meat with the feathers attached.

So, I wouldn't be too, too, quick to assume that by-product meals can't deliver the same from a nutrition standpoint than can meat muscle. Either case, it is the animal source proteins within is what is needed, regardless of atheistic appeal (dry diets).


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> They probably don't want to wrestle with the muscle meat with the feathers attached.


I used to know some raw feeders on another list who fed their dogs whole chickens with feathers still attached. They posted some pictures and you could see the dogs devouring the chickens, feathers and all. There were a lot of feathers scattered around the area though. I suspect most of the feathers were pulled out.

My cats kill birds, pull the feathers out then eat the birds. My point is that feathers don't seem to deter these animals from eating birds. :smile:

Whever was eating those birds and only ate the organs probably just weren't hungry.


----------

