# By-Products



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

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


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RFD....your salivating like Pavlov's dogs over those scrapple pics, get a napkin!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> 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.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> 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.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

claybuster said:


> 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. 



claybuster said:


> 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. 



claybuster said:


> 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.



claybuster said:


> 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. 



claybuster said:


> 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!



claybuster said:


> 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.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

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.




claybuster said:


> 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?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> 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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> 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.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

claybuster said:


> 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


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

jdatwood said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

jdatwood said:


> 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.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> ...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:


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

claybuster said:


> 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.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

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:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> That would be a lot of meat proteins, about double what you would find in a cup of raw.


A couple of things about that statement (as there are about so many of your statements but you are so much fun, I just can't resist.) The first is that you can't measure raw meat, bones, or organs by the cup. It just doesn't lend itself to that. And two, the protein in chicken by product meal is very low quality protein.



> What is it with you, a contest or something?


Yep, and you make it so easy for us to win. :smile:


Since when are homones and steriods species appropriate?

What hormones in what food? Are you saying there are none of these in kibble? Think again.



> 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.


In describing rice you left out an important descriptor ... nutritionless.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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.


Talking about my food again...sorry NEVER any recalls with Abady products.
Lowest in Carbs, lowest in fiber, the perfect carnivore ration found in a commercial product, and extremely convenient to feed, just one scoop a day!


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> In describing rice you left out an important descriptor ... nutritionless.


Yes, RFD, that is why it is perfect and will in no way shape or form jeopardize the animal source protein core of the feed. Because that is what makes a true carnivore ration in the commercial field, one where the protein core is NOT compromised by gluten protein and plant protein. Hey now, in all fairness here, not once did I dis raw feeding. All I'm saying is you folks need to get off the by-product bashing like the folks over at WDJ and Dog Food analysis want you to believe, and come to the realization, by-products and by-product meals are indeed good for carnivore dog.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


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


Wow. You are the last one here that is even close to being knowledgable enough to give advice on feeding raw. Get real. I can't believe you are trying to tell her how to do things, when you are the one that is so misguided.

The only person on here who thinks you're winning is you. Unanimously everyone else here thinks that you are full of bunk, and just tired of your pot stirring.

Who cares if organs are considered by-products. We feed them anyways. You are the one that is making it a big deal that *ORGANS = BY-PRODUCTS*. 

And when you come on here and post up about how by-products are good for dogs, it is like you are comparing kibble to raw...which is just meaningless. Its like comparing black to white, not even close to being the same...other than dogs eat it. 

And to be quite honest you have kinda dug yourself a hole on this forum with promoting and quoting Abady so closely. That is why all of us jump on it, because all of us know that the information posted on their website (completely false and rediculous) is all that you base your knowledge on. So just posting up without even mentioning Abady...we know what your story is and where the debate is going...nowhere.

If you want to actually have a debate about something with meaning, bring something else to the boards that you actually have knowledge about, like hunting or football.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> All I'm saying is you folks need to get off the by-product bashing like the folks over at WDJ and Dog Food analysis want you to believe, and come to the realization, by-products and by-product meals are indeed good for carnivore dog.


I guess you can't read too well. No one here has been bashing by-products. We all feed by-products. By-product meals are very low quality and inconsistant from batch to batch.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


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


Just checking ... how much by-product should be in a diet and why? (I know the answers, I don't think you do.)


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Just checking ... how much by-product should be in a diet and why? (I know the answers, I don't think you do.)


Well, lets take a look at what the good Dr. Lonsdale would say. I think you raw feeders concentrate on too much muscle meat and not enough of those by-products.



> Natural foods suitable for pet carnivores
> Raw meaty bones
> • Chicken and turkey *carcasses*, after the meat has been removed for human consumption, *are suitable for dogs *and cats.
> • Poultry *by-products include*: *heads, feet, necks and wings*.
> ...





> An approximate food consumption guide, based on raw meaty bones, for the average pet cat or dog is 15 to 20 percent of body weight in one week or 2 to 3 percent per day. On that basis a 25 kilo dog requires up to five kilos of carcasses or raw meaty bones weekly.


_note what raw meaty bones includes in the previous quote_



> Things to avoid
> •*Excessive meat off the bone — not balanced.*
> •Excessive vegetables — not balanced.
> •Small pieces of bone — can be swallowed whole and get stuck.
> ...


Please note again the first line in the above: *EXCESSIVE MEAT OFF BONE - NOT BALANCED.* Miss Corgi Paws stated she does 80%. Sounds to me like excessive meat off the bone. Mix it up some, get some more by-products people! 

Raw feeders, follow the good Doctors advice and INCLUDE MORE BY-PRODUCTS. It will not harm your dog and is very beneficial. Don't feed unbalanced with excessive meat off the bone like Corgi Paws. Add more by-products!!!!

quotes from: http://www.rawmeatybones.com/diet/exp-diet-guide.pdf


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> Wow. You are the last one here that is even close to being knowledgable enough to give advice on feeding raw. Get real. I can't believe you are trying to tell her how to do things, when you are the one that is so misguided....


I think you have a lot to learn about animal nutrition, but that will come with maturity.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

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


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Please note again the first line in the above: *EXCESSIVE MEAT OFF BONE - NOT BALANCED.* Miss Corgi Paws stated she does 80%. Sounds to me like excessive meat off the bone. Mix it up some, get some more by-products people!
> 
> Raw feeders, follow the good Doctors advice and INCLUDE MORE BY-PRODUCTS. It will not harm your dog and is very beneficial. Don't feed unbalanced with excessive meat off the bone like Corgi Paws. Add more by-products!!!!
> 
> quotes from: http://www.rawmeatybones.com/diet/exp-diet-guide.pdf


Like I already posted up earlier...you have no credibility. Absolutely no experience about feeding raw. Don't try and act like you do, it just makes you look hypocritical. You have no idea what you are talking about...and quite frankly, we _*raw feeders *_don't need your unexperienced "advice." 



claybuster said:


> I think you have a lot to learn about animal nutrition, but that will come with maturity.


Oh ok. I think you are confused. Age does not have anything to do with maturity...clearly your post shows this and people have noticed. 

And if this statement is all you have to come back with in this "debate" clearly you have to learn quite a few things about nutrition, which I know that you do...but go ahead...go read up again on Abady's website. 

Gain some maturity and post up something that you are credible about. I don't pretend to be a know it all about something I know nothing about, so I think you shouldn't.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

claybuster said:


> Raw feeders, follow the good Doctors advice and INCLUDE MORE BY-PRODUCTS. It will not harm your dog and is very beneficial. Don't feed unbalanced with excessive meat off the bone like Corgi Paws. Add more by-products!!!!


I said ROUGHLY 10%, but okay. What I am doing is working very well for us. 

And quite frankly, I'd like to point out that this thread is misplaced. None of us feed anything here that is labled "by-products" and definately no by-product meals here. No, those are found in the kibble section. 

Here, we feed *fresh raw* liver and kidneys. Unprocessed. Uncooked. Nonrendered. *We know EXACTLY is being given to our dogs. *
You on the other hand feed cooked, processed_ mystery muck_ and hope for the best with no way of knowing what the hell is in it. How can you call it balanced when the things included and amounts of those things are not even guaranteed? 

Once again, while you might see rice as the "perfect filler" (there is no such thing) keep in mind that it is still *entirely species inappropriate*, and that carbs are not needed, and cause problems. 

I'd also like to remind you, because I missed it the first time, that tripe is NOT intestines. It's found in the stomach, but thank you for further proving how uneducated you are. :biggrin: And while many feed tripe for skin/ coat benefits, in reality it's not all it's hyped up to be, so even so, YES, I am a raw feeder talking down on tripe. so what. 

*I would not feed ANY kind of "meal" to my dogs, be it by-product or otherwise because anything that is in MEAL form is cooked and processed, therefore NOT suitable for dogs. End of story.*

Show me a dog in the wild that eats rice cakes and renders and processes their own food, and I will step down on my stand on your feed. Until then, I'm gonna stick with it beind species-inappropriate, harmful, and full of cheap fillers.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

claybuster said:


> Well, lets take a look at what the good Dr. Lonsdale would say. I think you raw feeders concentrate on too much muscle meat and not enough of those by-products.


You did a lot of typing and even more cut/pasting to dance all around the question without answering it. Try again. How much by-product should be in a carnivore's diet and why?

What is "meat off bone"? Is it boneless meat or meatless bone? how much is excessive? Why? I guess you will dance around this one too. :smile:

*ETA:* Just to give you a clue ... 80% meat is fairly close to ideal in a raw diet.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> Like I already posted up earlier...you have no credibility. Absolutely no experience about feeding raw. Don't try and act like you do, it just makes you look hypocritical. You have no idea what you are talking about...and quite frankly, we _*raw feeders *_don't need your unexperienced "advice."


You're a person who thinks they know more than bio-chemist Abady who was making dog food longer than you've been alive. So, I'm sure you also feel you know more about dog food than Dr. Lonsdale himself and refuse to believe what he say's about by-products as well. Me personally, I wouldn't believe anything you say when it comes to feeding dogs. The information concerning by-products is right there for you in the quote from Lonsdale himself about all that is suitable and you can't even except that!



> Oh ok. I think you are confused. Age does not have anything to do with maturity...clearly your post shows this and people have noticed.


I think people notice that you think you know more than bio-chemists and veterinarians, which is very amusing. You refuse to even accept what Lonsdale states concerning by-products?



> And if this statement is all you have to come back with in this "debate" clearly you have to learn quite a few things about nutrition, which I know that you do...but go ahead...go read up again on Abady's website.


You're not debating, just criticizing other people being you already lost the debate 10 times over. All you need to know from Abady is by-products play a central role in the feeding of carnivores, and that has nothing to do with white rice. Lonsdale would agree by-products play a central role in feeding dogs and cats, but then again, you know more than both them combined I'm sure...



> Gain some maturity and post up something that you are credible about. I don't pretend to be a know it all about something I know nothing about, so I think you shouldn't.


If Dr. Lonsdale's own information is not creditable enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. By all means, keep feeding unbalanced excessive meat off bone and ignore the role of by-products. Free country right, feed unbalanced if you so desire!


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> ...
> And quite frankly, I'd like to point out that this thread is misplaced. None of us feed anything here that is labled "by-products" and definately no by-product meals here. No, those are found in the kibble section.
> 
> Here, we feed *fresh raw* liver and kidneys. Unprocessed. Uncooked. Nonrendered. *We know EXACTLY is being given to our dogs.*


*

The thread is titled By-Products, inspired by another thread by an individual feeding raw, cannot accept by-products, yet shops at ethnic markets for chicken feet. Now, if you want to take it in a different direction and start talking about white rice, that is entirely up to you.*


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> You did a lot of typing and even more cut/pasting to dance all around the question without answering it. Try again. How much by-product should be in a carnivore's diet and why?


Hey, I recall you even said yourself being "balanced" does not matter in a dogs diet, they just get what they need next week or something. Me personally, I want my dogs ration balanced with the appropriate ration each and every time. Review Lonsdale's promotional data on what exactly constitutes 'raw meaty bones' and you will notice the central role by-products play in the feeding of carnivores.

I think the problem here is folks like Corgi Paws and Danemamma have trouble interpreting their own promotional data. You on the other hand just like to argue for the sake you arguing:biggrin:


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> I'd also like to remind you, because I missed it the first time, that tripe is NOT intestines. It's found in the stomach, but thank you for further proving how uneducated you are. :biggrin: And while many feed tripe for skin/ coat benefits, in reality it's not all it's hyped up to be, so even so, YES, I am a raw feeder talking down on tripe. so what.


No I didn't miss that and I stand corrected. However, I did some research and found that per cup, the nutritional value of Hog Maws (stomach) and Pig Intestine would be near identical in value, and that was really my point, despite my typo error. I'm sure you would find no value in each, regardless of what veterinarians like Lonsdale and bio-chemists like Abady would tell you, because you like danemamma, feel you know more than those folks (in your own warped minds). Regardless, I'm sure would disregard the nutritional value of both, choose not to feed those ingredients, and continue down the path of feeding unbalanced as Lonsdale himself would put it, excessive meat off of bone disregarding the role of by-products in a carnivore diet. Oh, and BTW, I do feed raw on occasion to my pets, by only whole prey, not the model.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> I said ROUGHLY 10%, but okay. What I am doing is working very well for us.
> 
> ...
> Once again, while you might see rice as the "perfect filler" (there is no such thing) keep in mind that it is still *entirely species inappropriate*, and that carbs are not needed, and cause problems.


I feel what I am doing is working well as do you, yet then again my dogs aren't plagued with persistent diarrhea and Coprophagia. That probaly has to do with feeding balanced all the time as opposed to consistently imbalanced all the time. I'm glad you feel your dogs are doing well. My father in-law feeds *Purina Come and Get It *from the local A&P for 17 years and he feels his dog is doing well.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


> You're a person who thinks they know more than bio-chemist Abady who was making dog food longer than you've been alive. So, I'm sure you also feel you know more about dog food than Dr. Lonsdale himself and refuse to believe what he say's about by-products as well. Me personally, I wouldn't believe anything you say when it comes to feeding dogs. The information concerning by-products is right there for you in the quote from Lonsdale himself about all that is suitable and you can't even except that!


What?!?! I mean...WHAT?!?!?! I am baffled by the lack of comprehension you have.

I am the one that is actually basing what I feed my dogs off of Lonsdale's books...a raw diet. You feed low quality processed foods. If you want any credibility in this thread, make the switch. You have probably not read them...making you all the more hypocritical about standing by him and preaching what Lonsdale says in his books. 

I don't really care if Abady was a biochemist (show me the proof first...) because he obviously didn't know what was a correct diet for a carnivore, like most vets and other dog food companies out there. 





> I think people notice that you think you know more than bio-chemists and veterinarians, which is very amusing. You refuse to even accept what Lonsdale states concerning by-products?


WHAT!??!? Where did I ever say that I know more than Lonsdale...which certainly is not the case! I feed my dogs by his standards. I am not afraid of feeding what you like to label as by-products. Where oh where in my previous posts did I say that I refuse to accept what Lonsdale says about by-products? 

Let me ask you a question since you are so knowledgeable about a raw diet. Please, tell me what would happen if a dog were fed more than ~10% organs (ie by-products) on a regular basis?




> You're not debating, just criticizing other people being you already lost the debate 10 times over. All you need to know from Abady is by-products play a central role in the feeding of carnivores, and that has nothing to do with white rice. Lonsdale would agree by-products play a central role in feeding dogs and cats, but then again, you know more than both them combined I'm sure...


Abady is right. By-products do play a central role in a balanced diet, but central does not mean that they should be fed more than anything else that constitutes a dogs diet. What he fails at is providing a correct diet for a carnivore. I don't care what he says that makes white rice and protein meals (low quality ones at that) sound appealing to you, they don't sounds appealing to anyone else here. Which just reinforces why I think I know more about nutrition than him. I will say that about anyone who advocates feeding rice to dogs as a core ingredient. I think that Jon, Linsey, Bill, Jay, and all the other raw feeders on here will agree with me.

Like I stated earlier...you are the only one who thinks you are winning here. Not a great standing. I think at this point you have got to feel a tad bit lonely...




> If Dr. Lonsdale's own information is not creditable enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. By all means, keep feeding unbalanced excessive meat off bone and ignore the role of by-products. Free country right, feed unbalanced if you so desire!


Dude, go and actually read his books before you come on here telling me what he says. And you should really just feed your dogs fresh, whole by-products in excess and see what happens. It wont be pretty.

You just gotta simply apply common sense when thinking about this.

Skeletal muscle meat comprises the most weight when compared to the other parts of an animal. Then bone, and then organs or by-products. If a dog was to eat a whole prey item...it would be consuming mostly skeletal muscle meat, with bones and then lastly organs. That is where we get our guideline of 80% meat, 10% bone, and 10% organs. But if you were a raw feeder you would know that those numbers are guidelines. Sometimes you deviate from them to better emulate what a dog's natural diet is. Sometimes our dogs get more organ meals than others. Sometimes our dogs get more bone than others. Do you really think that a wolf carries around a calculator to make sure he is getting enough by-product? No. They know from instinct what is the right amount and don't exceed that.



claybuster said:


> The thread is titled By-Products, inspired by another thread by an individual feeding raw, cannot accept by-products, yet shops at ethnic markets for chicken feet. Now, if you want to take it in a different direction and start talking about white rice, that is entirely up to you.


The problem that you fail to notice is that this is all just a labeling issue. Jay was the one that was put off by the label of by-products, but still feeds them to his dogs but doesn't label them by-products. How is that not accepting that by-products are bad? Again, I think that you just needed to ruffle everyone's feathers yet again.

And yes. We are going to continue to bring up the white rice issue with you when you post up in the Raw forum, because you feed your dog a food consisting greatly of white rice. Which means that you have no credibility in telling us how to do a raw diet.



claybuster said:


> Hey, I recall you even said yourself being "balanced" does not matter in a dogs diet, they just get what they need next week or something. Me personally, I want my dogs ration balanced with the appropriate ration each and every time. Review Lonsdale's promotional data on what exactly constitutes 'raw meaty bones' and you will notice the central role by-products play in the feeding of carnivores.


Why don't you read his books in the first place, and then base your knowledge and feeding habits on that.

And let me ask you another question...Do you eat a 100% balanced meal 3 times a day? My guess is no. If you can recall from your own diet...balance happens over time, which is a key ideal about the raw diet for dogs/cats. And another guess I will make is that you don't worry too much about your meals not being 100% balanced every single time. Why not apply that to your own dog's meals and see what happens? 



> I think the problem here is folks like Corgi Paws and Danemamma have trouble interpreting their own promotional data. You on the other hand just like to argue for the sake you arguing:biggrin:


We have no issue interpreting the "promotional data" from Lonsdale, if that is what you see it as. Me, I think that it is a book that shows you a change in lifestyle for people and their animals. 

We feed by-products, but you want to tell us that we are not doing it right...considering you know exactly what needs to be done with a raw diet taking into account the years and years of experience you have feeding a less than ideal kibble diet.



claybuster said:


> I feel what I am doing is working well as do you, yet then again my dogs aren't plagued with persistent diarrhea and Coprophagia. That probaly has to do with feeding balanced all the time as opposed to consistently imbalanced all the time. I'm glad you feel your dogs are doing well. My father in-law feeds *Purina Come and Get It *from the local A&P for 17 years and he feels his dog is doing well.


You should really think before you type.

Grissom had copraphagia and diarrhea when on a kibble diet. That is a thing of the past now that he is on a raw diet. So...what's your point here?


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

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....


----------



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Grissom had copraphagia and diarrhea when on a kibble diet. That is a thing of the past now that he is on a raw diet. So...what's your point here?


THANK YOU!
I love how CB is so obsessed with my dogs, I had no idea they had such an admirer, but it seems that he always has them on his mind, and seems to be under the impression that my dogs always have issues. 
Grissom HAD issues. On kibble. You know, cooked, processed stuff. None on raw. 
Annie would not eat on Kibble. Not she's on raw and eats great. She has diarrhea because she is still adjusting, and for the record, is doing much better already today.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

claybuster said:


> Me personally, I want my dogs ration balanced with the appropriate ration each and every time.


That's not how it works in the wild, but I guess you prefer EVERYTHING unnatural for your dog. Poor shock-collar wearing, rice-cake eating carnivore. :frown:



claybuster said:


> Review Lonsdale's promotional data on what exactly constitutes 'raw meaty bones' and you will notice the central role by-products play in the feeding of carnivores.


They have a role, yes, but to call it central is a joke. The key is mostly meat, some bones, some organs. 



claybuster said:


> I think the problem here is folks like Corgi Paws and Danemamma have trouble interpreting their own promotional data.


you have no idea what you're talking about. 



Lets come to one understanding. BOTH ways of feeding include what some might consider to be by-products. 

Your way of feeding cooks, renders, processes, and kills any nutrients that were once present. (so congrats, if your white rice doesn't compromise the nutrients, the processng does.) Furthermore, yours varies from batch to batch. Who knows, maybe the cbpm you're feeding today has zero liver or kidney. You really have no way of knowing. Also, your by-products were intended for the dog food market, therefore have pretty much no standards on handling, packaging, preparation, etc. They could be more contaminated with fecies than anything, and you'd never know it. 

Our way of feeding includes only fresh raw indregients, still containing their array of nutrients. Because they are not a mystery muck, we know exactly what we are feeding each and every time. They are intended for the human market and therefore are regulated and have standards. They are far closer to what nature intended.

That being said, let me get this straight. We feed wrong, and you feed right. So, we should eliminate our fresh raw ingredients, and start feeding processed nuggets, and then we'd have it right?
That is entirely unnatural, and begging for trouble.


----------



## ruckusluvr (Oct 28, 2009)

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?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ruckusluvr said:


> 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:


----------



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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:


I totally disagree. His arguments are always the same and he always bash's ever other kibble and even bash's raw feeders. His kibbles is nothing more than a pile of lard and fat surrounded by rice and I think he has eaten to much of it himself. The 3 of you who argue with him haven't noticed that you are cleaning out this site of other posters. Have a good one


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

ruckusluvr said:


> 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?


Well, I can get people fired up for one thing! And like GSDL mentioned, read what you want and if something says something you don't like, feel free to move on to a different thread. And, yes of course there are also some who will say must work for the company which is a bunch of baloney. I guess all those who feed EVO or Orijen work for the company. Those who feed raw work for Lonsdale or Billinghurst to help promote and sell books. Gimmie a break with that working for the company crapola. So GSDL has moved on to places where everything is peachy keen and everyone loves EVO and Orijen! Sounds pretty dull if you ask me when everybody agrees on what to feed. Hey, there's an old saying, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Somebody will come along you don't agree with, throw a fit like a a 2 year old and move on again. Jeeze, some people I tell ya....




In case you raw feeders missed this the first time, maybe you need another review. PLEASE NOTE, this is from Dr. Lonsdale. Take note of some of the words like CARCASS. BY PRODUCTS. Don’t be shy or squeamish here. I happen to agree with Dr Lonsdale just like I agree with other folks like the bio-chemist I often speak of. This is reality. This is from your Guru. I will highlight for you incase you have trouble and let it sink into your brains. This is good info and deserves a second look. Please read careful and open your minds. Don’t think you know more about what to feed than then Dr. Lonsdale himself like you think you know more than the bio-chemist. They are indeed on the same page when in comes to raw. Lonsdale agrees with Abady when it comes to by-products. Nothing to be ashamed of, don’t fight it, just take it to heart and learn:




> Natural foods suitable for pet carnivores
> *Raw meaty bones *
> 
> • *Chicken and turkey carcasses*, after the meat has been removed for human consumption, are suitable for dogs and cats.
> ...


*Excessive meat off the bone — not balanced*

*Excessive meat off the bone — not balanced*

*Excessive meat off the bone — not balanced*

JJ...from your Guru. Note the repeated word Carcasses.

*Carcasses*
*Carcasses*



> lonsdale
> Small carcasses, for example rats, mice and small birds, can be fed frozen and *complete with entrails*. Larger carcasses should have the entrails removed before freezing.


Entrails....*Entrails*...*Entrails*. Entarils are the complete inside *guts and organs including INTESTINES.*

Well, if this does not convince you need to get more by-products into your rations, information from your own Guru, then you all like Danemamma who feels she is smarter then Lonsdale himself along with other great minds in the raw feeding field. It is beyond comprehension that a few of you folks think you more than the guy who wrote the book. Down right knee slappin comical.

Ok, I'll give it a rest. Take care. I've said my peace. Lash out back at me all you want, but you know I'm spot on.....ADD MORE BY-PRODCUCTS. And yes, Danemamma, I know exactly what will happen if you add more by-products, it can cause some stong upsets, but that too will pass and your dogs will be on the road to optium health instead of living off an UNBALANCED diet.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

GermanSheperdlover said:


> I totally disagree. His arguments are always the same and he always bash's ever other kibble and even bash's raw feeders. His kibbles is nothing more than a pile of lard and fat surrounded by rice and I think he has eaten to much of it himself. The 3 of you who argue with him haven't noticed that you are cleaning out this site of other posters. Have a good one


All I have to say to you is good luck with the Marigold Flowers and Dandelions.
and the chamomile flowers...and the spinach...and the turnip greens...and the
peppermint leaf...and the pumpkin and the carrots, and the list goes on and on and on... GOOD LUCK WITH THAT STUFF. I'll take PORK FAT and BY-PRODUCTS any day of the week over that sales appeal nonsense.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

GermanSheperdlover said:


> I totally disagree. His arguments are always the same and he always bash's ever other kibble and even bash's raw feeders. His kibbles is nothing more than a pile of lard and fat surrounded by rice and I think he has eaten to much of it himself. The 3 of you who argue with him haven't noticed that you are cleaning out this site of other posters. Have a good one


I agree with you as well. And please don't leave. Lets just make this a better forum, and having open minded people is what we need. I just try and ignore it when CB posts but I feel obligated to clarify statements and arguements that he gets 100% wrong, because people come here looking for knowledge and help. And they should get it from knowledgeable people with experience.

Sorry Linsey, but if someone is going to stir the pot repeatedly and bring absolutely nothing to the discussion and actually drives new people away? What then? Sure he tends to bring out the info in us, but he has nothing to contribute. There are better and more productive ways to bring out information that we all have. Just asking a plain old question and being open to people's answers is the best way. 

He has been posting the exact same story for over a year now. When does it end? Or at least, when will he decide that maybe "Hmmm...I need to learn some stuff, because I am feeding the equivalent of garbage to my dogs!?"

This forum is getting toxic. Almost no new people post up...why? People just don't want to get into it because all they see on here is bickering. And I know that I am a part of it, but I don't know how many times I have already said that I am just plain tired of it. But on the otherhand, I feel that I need to clarify and stand up for myself and all raw feeders...and just simply ignoring him is out of the question.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> ...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:


Thank you, Thank You, Thank You! I know you are doing the right thing for your pets. I know you hit some trouble every now and then. Don't despair and hang in there. It will work itself out in the long run. But don't be afraid to tweak those recipes a bit to find out what works the best. There has to be a happy medium in there for all of them where they all do really well! And I am also sure you have the best looking dogs on the block in Vegas.


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

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...


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> Sorry Linsey, but if someone is going to stir the pot repeatedly and bring absolutely nothing to the discussion and actually drives new people away? What then?


I see the point, but when is there the most activity? When there is a little fire going on. New members are hard to come by, for as long as I've ever been a member there have never been a ton of active posters. 



danemama08 said:


> This forum is getting toxic. Almost no new people post up...why? People just don't want to get into it because all they see on here is bickering. And I know that I am a part of it, but I don't know how many times I have already said that I am just plain tired of it. But on the otherhand, I feel that I need to clarify and stand up for myself and all raw feeders...and just simply ignoring him is out of the question.


I guess you're right. I just don't look at it as bickering. Everyone has their own choice on what they want to read and what they don't. I agree that it get old. okay, really old... but a little activity is still nice. Sure, it would be nice to get it by other means, but that's not happening.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

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


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

jdatwood said:


> 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.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> I see the point, but when is there the most activity? When there is a little fire going on. New members are hard to come by, for as long as I've ever been a member there have never been a ton of active posters.


A little fire is a great thing. But when I continually feel attacked and feel like attacking to defend myself that is another thing than fire. There is always going to be drama on any forum, but this is not just a forum to me. This is a community of close members to me. And it sucks when I feel like staying away just to ignore someone, cuz that is what it seems to be like lately. As anyone can see, I like to debate. If we want an active board...lets bring it. Post up about interesting things that you come across, doesn't always have to be about dogs. But lets make this forum what its meant to be. 





> I guess you're right. I just don't look at it as bickering. Everyone has their own choice on what they want to read and what they don't. I agree that it get old. okay, really old... but a little activity is still nice. Sure, it would be nice to get it by other means, but that's not happening.


You have a backbone...which is one reason why you are still here. Most newcomers will leave when all they see is bickering...or what they perceive as bickering (and some of the threads on here are nothing but...). Its hard for newbies to feel welcome and to chime in these threads or start their own for fear of starting a battle of bickering. 

I remember when I first joined this forum, when it was brand spankin' new. No one almost ever posted, but there was hardly any bickering. It has always been a close, small forum with great members and lately it feels as if things are coming undone.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> New members are hard to come by, for as long as I've ever been a member there have never been a ton of active posters.


That's something that the people that run the forum have to work on. We can only post as much as we can when we have something to say and keep the peace among the members that do post.

I manage a couple of other forums and am constantly doing things to increase exposure for the forum and bring in new members. We run into similar situations and unfortunately have had to ban a few members over the years due to antics much like Claybuster's.

I'd be interested to hear what the owners of the forum do to expand the member base... or do they just rely on search engine listings to drive new people in.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

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.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

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


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

CorgiPaws said:


> 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:


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

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


----------



## GermanSheperdlover (Nov 15, 2009)

This post tells the entire story about this guy.....i can't believe their is any other forum that would put up with childish stuff like this.....he would be banned at any other message board i go to. It would be one thing if it was the first time, but it is every day on every subject. The jealousy he shows towards evo and orijen is incredable. Whats funny he uses my name but i don't feed orijen and my gsd is to young for evo. His slamming of everyone is just old hat. The guy really needs to see someone because he has some real issues that need to be addressed.






claybuster said:


> well, i can get people fired up for one thing! And like gsdl mentioned, read what you want and if something says something you don't like, feel free to move on to a different thread. And, yes of course there are also some who will say must work for the company which is a bunch of baloney. I guess all those who feed evo or orijen work for the company. Those who feed raw work for lonsdale or billinghurst to help promote and sell books. Gimmie a break with that working for the company crapola. So gsdl has moved on to places where everything is peachy keen and everyone loves evo and orijen! Sounds pretty dull if you ask me when everybody agrees on what to feed. Hey, there's an old saying, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
> Somebody will come along you don't agree with, throw a fit like a a 2 year old and move on again. Jeeze, some people i tell ya....
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

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


----------



## claybuster (Dec 18, 2008)

jdatwood said:


> 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:


----------



## ruckusluvr (Oct 28, 2009)

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


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

claybuster said:


> 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:


I have lost *all *respect for you, if there was any left. Seeing the PM's you sent Jon showed your true colors that I always knew were there. Even if Jon did "follow" you to another forum, you shouldn't act like a degrading coward and sink even lower. 

And guess what? Your childish and innappropriate behavior got you banned from Chaz. And I know that being banned from there isn't the first forum you've been banned from.

Maybe you should take a hint, that if you are unwilling to open your mind to all the hundreds, maybe thousands at this point, of people telling you that Abady is crap...maybe you would be in a better spot. Obviously dog nutrition means something to you, and you are passionate about it. Just open your heart and mind and people might show you some decency.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

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


----------

