# Plants who claim they have a superior cooking process(OPF)...



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

and proponents of these cooking processes.... Please defend against the following statement(not mine, but from a pretty reputable source from a post I made on another forum)..... Not trying to bash you guys, I seriously want to hear your side of this comment.


_Slow cooking is nice if you include mainly fresh ingredients that have not been pre-processed already in some way. Once you get to rendered ingredients (chicken meal, fish meal, etc. etc.) it doesn't really matter that much, because these things have had the life cooked out of them under pressure for quite some time already and claiming slow cooking makes much of a difference is lipstick on a pig IMO._


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

kevin bradley said:


> and proponents of these cooking processes.... Please defend against the following statement(not mine, but from a pretty reputable source from a post I made on another forum)..... Not trying to bash you guys, I seriously want to hear your side of this comment.
> 
> 
> _Slow cooking is nice if you include mainly fresh ingredients that have not been pre-processed already in some way. Once you get to rendered ingredients (chicken meal, fish meal, etc. etc.) it doesn't really matter that much, because these things have had the life cooked out of them under pressure for quite some time already and claiming slow cooking makes much of a difference is lipstick on a pig IMO._


Totally wrong because the carbohydrate parts are not precooked. The digestibility is much better when they are cooked longer at a lower temperature. Have you ever made polenta or risotto? You cannot make either of them properly quickly at a high temperature.

One problem with a lot of foods is that starch is not cooked to optimum digestibility. There are also other ingredients that hold up better at lower temperatures.

The reason why that person made that statement is cost. It costs much more to make food like OPF does and many companies just want to pump food out.

That is not the only reason to use foods from that plant. It is overall quality control and the EU Cert. Which Fromm and Eagle gave up due to the cost of ingredients and scrutiny.


----------



## dr tim (Mar 27, 2011)

It is all about getting the starch source to be digestable. Rice needs to be cooked for either a dog or human to digest it and many plants run the machines very rapidly so there is roughly a 80% cook or conversion of starch to a product that is digestable. It is an "accepted" level of digestability in many food companies eyes. Unless you are a ruminant, like a cow, this uncooked stuff just goes through the dog or cat is is the main reason for soft stools, especially if the dog is active, or gas production. The colon is not meant to see undigested nutrients and if it does, the bacteria start to feed on it and you get gas production and water inclusion in the stool. Thus a soft sool. And a stinky dog.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

kevin bradley said:


> and proponents of these cooking processes.... Please defend against the following statement(not mine, but from a pretty reputable source from a post I made on another forum)..... Not trying to bash you guys, I seriously want to hear your side of this comment.
> 
> 
> _Slow cooking is nice if you include mainly fresh ingredients that have not been pre-processed already in some way. Once you get to rendered ingredients (chicken meal, fish meal, etc. etc.) it doesn't really matter that much, because these things have had the life cooked out of them under pressure for quite some time already and claiming slow cooking makes much of a difference is lipstick on a pig IMO._


She is knowledgeable in her area but as many with a firm "holistic" stand she tend to be inaccurate describing things she doesn't agree with. I'm gonna attribute her statement to that she really didn't think the whole thing through writing her answer. In terms of production process that is. Temperature/pressure and time is alpha and omega to the end product for a wide range of ingredients. Extruding techniques have evolved since she stood on the barricades.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

dr tim said:


> It is all about getting the starch source to be digestable. Rice needs to be cooked for either a dog or human to digest it and many plants run the machines very rapidly so there is roughly a 80% cook or conversion of starch to a product that is digestable. It is an "accepted" level of digestability in many food companies eyes. Unless you are a ruminant, like a cow, this uncooked stuff just goes through the dog or cat is is the main reason for soft stools, especially if the dog is active, or gas production. The colon is not meant to see undigested nutrients and if it does, the bacteria start to feed on it and you get gas production and water inclusion in the stool. Thus a soft sool. And a stinky dog.


Is there (significant) differences between starch sources in this respect? Would optimal cooking time be different between say potatoes and rice, or other sources?


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

DaViking said:


> Is there (significant) differences between starch sources in this respect? Would optimal cooking time be different between say potatoes and rice, or other sources?


And I am curious about peas as a primary carb source nd how cooking time and process affect the. More nd more grain free formulas rely on peas.


----------



## imthemonkey (Aug 8, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Totally wrong because the carbohydrate parts are not precooked. The digestibility is much better when they are cooked longer at a lower temperature. Have you ever made polenta or risotto? You cannot make either of them properly quickly at a high temperature.
> 
> One problem with a lot of foods is that starch is not cooked to optimum digestibility. There are also other ingredients that hold up better at lower temperatures.
> 
> ...


Haven't you mentioned before that Annamaet cooks their starches and then cooks them again (with everything else)? Does every food at Ohio Pet Foods do this? I dont know what the advantage is..


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

imthemonkey said:


> Haven't you mentioned before that Annamaet cooks their starches and then cooks them again (with everything else)? Does every food at Ohio Pet Foods do this? I dont know what the advantage is..


Three posters including myself have commented on the preconditioning (pre-cooking step). The advantage is that more of the starch is digestible before fermenting in the colon. 

This might be trivial to some, but unless the carbohydrate portion of the food is as digestible as possible, the digestion of the rest of food components suffers as well. Tim mentioned gas and soft stools, and in some dogs anal gland issues as a result. 

I have also noticed excessive drinking as a result or poorly converted starches. If your dog is gulping at the water bowl about an hour after eating there is a good chance the dog is not digesting the food well.

Yes, I believe all the foods made there go through that step, that is why if I couldn't get Dr. Tim's anymore I would just get another food made there, whether its Annamaet, Dave's, Blackwood or Regal.

I like the Dr. Tim's formulas the best, though, including the larger kibble size, not that it is big, just bigger than most.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

good informative replies guys, thank you.


----------



## imthemonkey (Aug 8, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Three posters including myself have commented on the preconditioning (pre-cooking step). The advantage is that more of the starch is digestible before fermenting in the colon.
> 
> This might be trivial to some, but unless the carbohydrate portion of the food is as digestible as possible, the digestion of the rest of food components suffers as well. Tim mentioned gas and soft stools, and in some dogs anal gland issues as a result.
> 
> ...


Cool thanks. I talked to Kit Downey the other day and have Aqualuk samples on their way.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

monster'sdad said:


> Three posters including myself have commented on the preconditioning (pre-cooking step). The advantage is that more of the starch is digestible before fermenting in the colon.
> 
> This might be trivial to some, but unless the carbohydrate portion of the food is as digestible as possible, the digestion of the rest of food components suffers as well. Tim mentioned gas and soft stools, and in some dogs *anal gland issues as a result. *
> I have also noticed excessive drinking as a result or poorly converted starches. If your dog is gulping at the water bowl about an hour after eating there is a good chance the dog is not digesting the food well.
> ...




Gotta admit... I have a small Beagle(Itty Bitty) who has had anal gland issues ever since I got her. Since feeding Tim's food and even into Fromm now, no anal gland issues whatsoever. Nothing.

Interesting. Monster might be right on here.


----------



## dr tim (Mar 27, 2011)

It is the ingredients and how they are cooked. Make a food for the animal; don't make a food based on a group you want to market to.

I would sure like a place where cat food is discussed if you want to talk about formulas that are so off base it is really a sin and the knowledge to do better has been around for many years.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

I gotta hand it to you guys, Tim. 

You and the supporters of your food are the most scientific I have ever seen on any internet boards. 

Frankly, I've never seen anything close to the type of answers you guys provide.

I don't have the knowledge or training to challenge any of you.... everything you say could be complete BS, quite frankly. Though I am beginning to suspect it isn't.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

kevin bradley said:


> I gotta hand it to you guys, Tim.
> 
> You and the supporters of your food are the most scientific I have ever seen on any internet boards.
> 
> ...



Kevin, dogs keep their anal glands clear and healthy mainly by pressing against the stool. So if the stool is not hard enough or wide enough they really can't empty them properly. Gross, but so is having to squeeze them yourself. Beet pulp keeps the good bacteria high and the stool a bit harder because it moves through slower, so more water is pulled out. Other fiber sources just can't do the same job. We have many toy breeds in the family and their rears are skunky on foods without beet pulp. Other pet food companies don't use it because the marketing people say it looks bad. The science says otherwise.


*"Beet pulp in a diet encourages colonization of those bacteria which best ferment or digest that form of fiber and discourage those organisms which do not effectively ferment fiber. It so happens that many good bacteria that commonly inhabit the large intestines can deal with beet pulp ( Lactobacillus acidophilus and Enterococcus faecium are just two) and many pathogenic bacteria are not supported by its presence (Clostridium sp.,Salmonella sp. and e. coli)2.

Because beet pulp is an ideal food source for these good bacteria, they tend to overgrow potentially bad bacteria (pathogens and gas producers) and make the gut much more resistant to these harmful organisms. As a result of this digestive or fermentation process, vital nutrients called short chain fatty acids are produced which provide superior nutrition to the cells lining the large intestine enhancing their ability to function.

These short chain fatty acids (SCFA) are the key to a healthy and efficient digestive tract. The cells that line the intestinal track feed voraciously on SCFA. These cells have a high turnover rate and rely on SCFA to provide adequate nutrition. 3

That portion of beet pulp left after the fermentation of bacterial digestive process promotes ideal nutrient digestibility. The volume of stool is not excessive thus allowing the motility of the gut to move the nutrients along at a rate which assures maximum digestion and absorption.4

1. Buterwick, Maxwell. The effect of level and source of dietary fiber on 
food intake in the dog. Journal of Nutrition 1994 Vol. 124 
2 Collins MD, Gibson Dr. Nutritional modulation of microbial ecology. American 
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1998 
3. Hallman JE, Moxley RA, et al. Cellulose, beet pulp and pectin/gum arabic 
effects on canine microstructure and histopathology. Veterinary Clinical 
Nutrition 1995;2:137-141 
4. Albert s. Townshend DVM, Wellness for Life, Am Journal of Clinical 
Nutrition 2000"*


You know what's funny, not one question about Porcine Plasma. I though that would be a hot topic.


----------

