# Review of Two Raw Feeding Books



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Okay, so I decided to purchase two books that Whole Dog Journal recommended as EXCELLENT for anyone wanting guidelines for feeding a homemade diet, including raw diets. The two books I purchased (cheap on Amazon) are _Unlocking the Canine Ancestral Diet_ by Steve Brown and _Dr. Becker's Real Food for Healthy Dogs and Cats_. 

So far, I cannot wrap my brain around some of the ridiculous information that is presented in the former book. *Steve Brown* suggests feeding 34 ounces daily for a 50 lb. dog. _EXCUSE_ me? _34_ ounces? You've got to be freaking kidding me...My dog is 45 lbs and eats 16 ounces...

He also says that modern commercial diets are lacking in protein. He claims that 49% protein is ideal. That doesn't seem right to me either. 

He recommends only feeding ground RMBs unless your dog was introduced as a very young puppy to eating bone. Direct quote: "My advice: grind the raw bones, unless your dog was introduced to whole raw bones at a very young age."

He also recommends feeding Oysters. I can't imagine why oysters would be an ideal food for dogs, but okay...

Okay, so now *Dr. Becker's book...
*
She has these bizarre meal plans. I guess this book might be okay for someone who is literally so stupid they cannot manage otherwise. 

Dr. Becker requires you to create your own multivitamin/mineral supplement. She says that this is essential to creating a balanced diet and that if you aren't going to be able to commit to this, that you should instead feed a balanced, commercial diet. Finally, Dr. Becker continually states the importance of adding salt to the diet.

Finally, she seems obsessed with feeding a low fat diet.

Okay, so now I have a bone to pick with Whole Dog Journal. What on _earth_ were they thinking recommending these books? I can't figure WDJ out. Sometimes they have good information and sometimes they have horrendous information. They seem incredibly inconsistent to me...


----------



## SamWu1 (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't read WDJ. I stumbled upon it once, read one article, thought it was inaccurate and never been back since. I believe there may be some 50lbs. dogs with high metabolisms and high levels of activity that may stay reasonably lean on 34oz per day, but that's a bit high for the majority. Perhaps that 34oz contains alot of plant matter?

There are no protein sources that I know of that contains 49% protein, unless it has no moisture in it. So depending on what he means by 49% will decipher if he makes sense at all. Ground bones are safer, no dental benefit but less likely to choke, to each its own. I don't feed shellfish, what's his reason for that recommendation?

Most raw feeding books I've read with the exception of Tom Lonsdale, push vitamins and supplements, generally their own line. Anyone that recommends a "balanced" commercial diet is not ok with me. I believe all creatures can obtain most, if not all the nutrition they need in a varied diet and thrive without extra supplementation. My mother is totally against taking vitamins. She says and I agree with her that nutrients should come from a whole food source, not a tablet.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SamWu1 said:


> My mother is totally against taking vitamins. She says and I agree with her that nutrients should come from a whole food source, not a tablet.


I saw a guy on TV recently, don't remember who, who said that there has never been and research that proved that humans ever absorbed any vitamins from pills. Probably the same w/ dogs.


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

I second/third the thought that nutrients should come from a whole food source and not a tablet.

Also, thanks for the review on the books! I will definitely be able to avoid them now. 


But I want to know, we take medication from tablets like aspirin and other such things, we know they are absorbed and used because they can be effective...So what's the big difference with vitamin tabs? Is it just that they are not used as efficiently or as well?


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

Humans can absorb vitamins and minerals from pills but the quantities are fractions of what is in the tablet. o.

Most vitamin C tablets will be 500 mg to 1 g super strength. The most you can absorb in that form is 50 to 60 mg. 

Supplements for the dogs I imagine follow the same sort of problems, people seem to think that if you feed a large supplement then you will get it into the dog in most cases this is wrong. However, supplements like calcium and the like dogs can absorb very well and over supplementation specifically of great danes led to huge problems over here with the skeletons.

It is why my vet distrusts the idea of raw feeding, - not because it is bad for the dog, but there are to many plonkers out there who don't do understand but believe they do!!!!!


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

Bigger picture for me: someone in the mainstream dog community supports raw feeding. Yay!


----------



## SilverBeat (Jan 16, 2011)

Well, crud. I just bought a buttload of raw feeding books and Dr. Becker's was one of them. 

Ah well. Perhaps I can *accidentally* leave it somewhere like the dog rescue I volunteer at that seems attached at the hip to Pedigree. uke:


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm just surprised that these books were so highly recommended. What good does it do if someone "mainstream" supports raw feeding but requires pet owners to scramble around with measuring spoons and scales to create their own multivitamin? I've never heard of Dr. Becker or Steve Brown so I was not aware they were considered mainstream. Dr. Becker's book is not nearly as ridiculous as Steve Brown's book, I must add.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

SilverBeat said:


> Well, crud. I just bought a buttload of raw feeding books and Dr. Becker's was one of them.
> 
> Ah well. Perhaps I can *accidentally* leave it somewhere like the dog rescue I volunteer at that seems attached at the hip to Pedigree. uke:


Maybe you will find something useful from the book. I didn't, but you never know!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SilverBeat said:


> Well, crud. I just bought a buttload of raw feeding books and Dr. Becker's was one of them.
> 
> Ah well. Perhaps I can *accidentally* leave it somewhere like the dog rescue I volunteer at that seems attached at the hip to Pedigree. uke:


If anything it will teach you what NOT to do LOL :wink:


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

well, brownie, i think you should be our unofficial critic for books...and you can then recommend or dismiss...: )

you've just saved me money and i thank you.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> I'm just surprised that these books were so highly recommended. What good does it do if someone "mainstream" supports raw feeding but requires pet owners to scramble around with measuring spoons and scales to create their own multivitamin?


I think SpooOwner's point was that at least they aren't books pushing doomnuggets like most pet industry people. Because even a homemade diet that uses all kinds of unnecessary ingredients and expensive supplements is better than what most dogs are forced to eat. 

But I understand your point as well, if someone is going to write a book on natural feeding practices they should put some simple logic to work!!!


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

DaneMama said:


> I think SpooOwner's point was that at least they aren't books pushing doomnuggets like most pet industry people. Because even a homemade diet that uses all kinds of unnecessary ingredients and expensive supplements is better than what most dogs are forced to eat.
> 
> But I understand your point as well, if someone is going to write a book on natural feeding practices they should put some simple logic to work!!!


Yes, I agree with SpooOwner on that account. 

I wrote these reviews with the members of this raw feeding forum as my intended audience. Lew Olson's book, for example, does recommend some supplements and veggies if desired, but also has genuinely helpful information to contribute even to a PMR feeder. These books are completely useless for someone interested in feeding a PMR diet. Or even a modified PMR diet. At least IMO. :biggrin:

Also, a few weeks ago I expressed my dislike for Carina Beth MacDonald's book _Raw Dog Food_ and Kymythy R. Schultze's book _Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats_. I still believe that these books are relatively unhelpful for a PMR feeder, BUT, they do recommend feeding RMBs for dental health, which is a step up compared to the two books I reviewed in this thread. I didn't feel the need to bang my head on the wall while reading Carina Beth MacDonald's book - I simply didn't find it particularly useful. However, after reading Brown and Becker's books, I think that Carina Beth MacDonald's book actually isn't all that terrible of a choice for someone just beginning to consider raw. At least she won't intimidate you with the thought of multivitamin making parties in your kitchen. (Exaggerating here ).


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

Thank you BrownieM! :tongue:
I have been reading as many books as possible on dog psychology/behavior/training and every once in a while I throw in a book on dog nutrition. I will be sure to steer clear of these two!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

ETA: I too like Lew Olson's book and own it. While I keep in mind that she is trying to sell supplements I do think that the book is full of great information. It helped me with some ideas for Duncan's modified diet.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

At least Dr. Becker did say that it was acceptable to feed RMBs to most dogs, unlike Steve Brown, although she didn't exactly recommended it either. I do have a question though. 

Dr. Becker says to add salt because in the ancestral diet dogs would generally get salt from the blood and organs that "we don't feed" in this diet. (She only says to feed heart and liver as organs - while acknowledging that heart is really a muscle meat- as other organs are too hard to find.). So, as PMR feeders, does this suggestion hold up? I feed spleen, kidney and liver as my main organs. Is there a need to add salt?


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

Was just going through my WDJ's just the other night.I have quit them do to closed minded.But I think they have some really good articles.And some really bad ones.Any way I was reading there article on pre made raw.I can't for the life of me find it now, but Steve Brown (and I am sure it's the same one) was the founder of Steve's real food , something like that.It's raw premade.I ran across it about 7 years ago when I was first studying dog nutrition.They said he no longer is with the company but that is probably why he is pushing ground bone.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Herzo said:


> Was just going through my WDJ's just the other night.I have quite them do to closed minded.But I think they have some really good articles.And some really bad ones.Any way I was reading there article on pre made raw.I can't for the life of me find it now, but Steve Brown (and I am sure it's the same one) was the founder of Steve's real food , something like that.It's raw premade.I ran across it about 7 years ago when I was first studying dog nutrition.They said he no longer is with the company but that is probably why he is pushing ground bone.


They do have some good and bad articles. Conflicting articles as well. If you search "vegetarian diets for dogs" you will find one article that says dogs are omnivores and it is a fallacy that they don't need veggies because they have evolved, etc. Then, they have another article (a few years later, mind you) that says dogs are absolutely carnivores and a vegetarian diet is harmful. I suppose they grew wiser in the years between those two articles. :wink:

And yes, I do believe that is the same Steve Brown.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

It is. I enjoyed reading some of his articles. Not going to feed veggies but I will continue to limit Max's fat intake.

Oysters are super high in zinc, that is why they are mentioned. 

I take way information where ever I can. Sure not going to feed Dr. Strombeck's recipes but he has a whole lot of information on how disease develops and what dogs need in that book as well. Monica Segal's super fussy cross every t and dot every i recipes aren't for me either but it is important to read through those unbalanced [somehow ALWAYS raw] diets to see how they compare to what I feed my dog.

I don't add salt as when I make up recipes for Max there is plenty of sodium in the meats fed. Sure blood has salt but that doesn't mean meat is lacking!


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Recommending veggies actually doesn't bother me all that much. But it bothers me that Steve Brown feeds peoples fear of feeding whole bones. I also find Becker's suggestion to add salt to the diet potentially risky because she doesn't mention anything about purchasing unenhanced meats. So, a person could buy enhanced chicken quarters and still be adding salt to the diet. I see that as potentially harmful. She also goes on and on about how she doesn't have room in the scope if this tiny book to explain how to safely feed a RMB, but that many people do it. She talks about it so much she could have actually discussed how to safely feed an RMB...


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

I took a quick look at Brown's book _Unlocking the Canine Ancestral Diet_. It appears to be an expanded version of his January 2007 article, which can be found on the AHVMA website. Anyone wanting to save on the book can download the article for free. A few quick thoughts:

(1) his homemade raw diets assume a BARF model, not a PMR model;
(2) assumption #1 means that his nutrient values are not indicative of a PMR diet;
(3) a back of the envelope analysis of my dog's diet yields results closer to what he claims is the ancestral diet:
Protein: 51% (for Mia) v. 49% (ancestral) v. 36% (Brown's BARF diets)
Fat: 46% v. 44% v. 59%
Carb: 1% v 6% v. 5%
(4) my analysis of Mia's diet is very rough: it excludes treats and "exotic" meats that she gets occasionally

I do have a few take-homes:
(1) increase omega-3 fats relative to omega-6; a 2:1 (omega-6mega-3) appears to be ideal, not the 5:1 or 10:1 quoted elsewhere
(2) adding grass-fed meats once every one or two weeks will make a big difference in Mia's diet
(3) the small amounts of fruits, nuts, and carb-loaded treats that she gets are ok


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> I took a quick look at Brown's book _Unlocking the Canine Ancestral Diet_. It appears to be an expanded version of his January 2007 article, which can be found on the AHVMA website. Anyone wanting to save on the book can download the article for free. A few quick thoughts:
> 
> (1) his homemade raw diets assume a BARF model, not a PMR model;
> (2) assumption #1 means that his nutrient values are not indicative of a PMR diet;
> ...


Yes, they assume a BARF model which is why his advice seems bizarre, tedious and confusing to me! 

Omega 3s should always be increased because Omega 6s are rampant, especially in feed lot meats.

Wow...51% protein is a lot of protein. I cannot imagine how you can feed that much protein unless you are feeding a very small amount of bone. I know Millie does not get anywhere near 51% protein...I have never fed her anything that had more than 30% protein according to the USDA database, so her average is well below that amount.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Yes, they assume a BARF model which is why his advice seems bizarre, tedious and confusing to me!


The idea of adding raw meat to a BARF diet to improve the nutritional profile makes a lot of sense to me.



BrownieM said:


> Omega 3s should always be increased because Omega 6s are rampant, especially in feed lot meats.


(1) Many PMR feeders do not supplement with n-3, even though they know that they feed primarily grain-fed meats which are deficient in n-3.
(2) The target is 2:1 n-6:n-3, not the 5:1 or 10:1 ratio I read elsewhere. That's a big difference, and means I need to triple the amount of salmon oil supplements I use.



BrownieM said:


> Wow...51% protein is a lot of protein. I cannot imagine how you can feed that much protein unless you are feeding a very small amount of bone. I know Millie does not get anywhere near 51% protein...I have never fed her anything that had more than 30% protein according to the USDA database, so her average is well below that amount.


I was suprised by this number as well. Half of Mia's meals are bone-in. The beef kidney and salmon I feed drive up the percentage of protein significantly, according to the same USDA database that you mention.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

I am sure that is dry weight %, not wet weight %. Max gets about 20% protein by total meal weight but about 55% protein by dry weight.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

sassymaxmom said:


> I am sure that is dry weight %, not wet weight %. Max gets about 20% protein by total meal weight but about 55% protein by dry weight.


The numbers in my posts are % of total calories, not weight.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

SpooOwner - that makes me feel better about the fact that I basically overdose my dogs on Salmon oil! Well, I don't think I am really overdosing, but I give twice the recommended dose each day. Because there are no bowel side effects, I don't see any harm.

I agree with your assessment that adding meat to a barf diet improves it! :smile:

Interesting still about the protein being so high. That still seems odd to me. Did you find the total percent by averaging the protein percentages of the items you feed? Beef kidney is only 17.4% protein! Salmon is 19%. Those two fed in one day would average a protein amount of 18.2%. I don't see how you are finding protein amounts in the 50%s.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Interesting still about the protein being so high. That still seems odd to me. Did you find the total percent by averaging the protein percentages of the items you feed? Beef kidney is only 17.4% protein! Salmon is 19%. Those two fed in one day would average a protein amount of 18.2%. I don't see how you are finding protein amounts in the 50%s.


It looks like you're forgetting to convert g protein to kcal.

From: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html
E.g.: Beef, variety meats and by-products, kidneys, raw
per 100 grams (it doesn't matter because we're finding the percentage)
Protein: 17.4 g
Energy: 99 kcal

17.4 g * 4 kcals/g = 69.6 kcals
69.6 kcals/99 kcals = 70.3% of kcals from protein


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

See, I told you I was terrible at math!

It appears that the claims that a PMR diet is low in protein is actually not accurate. Although, it does make Steve Brown's 49% protein claim less bizarre and gives him more credibility in my mind. It is also good to know, like you said, that the amount of protein we are feeding is close to the idea, ancestral amount.

Tomorrow morning my poodles are getting chicken quarters and beef kidney. Based on your equation, Liz, the chicken quarter (and I use "leg" on USDA) is 25% protein and the beef kidney is ~70%. This averages to 47.5% protein. But, I am not sure if an average is even accurate because I won't be feeding equal parts kidney and chicken quarter. 

Math is definitely not my thing.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> It appears that the claims that a PMR diet is low in protein is actually false?


I was suprised by the results as well. When I read Brown's analysis of the ancestral diet, I was confused because the protein levels were so high compared to what I had heard about PMR. That's what prompted me to do a quick analysis of my dog's diet. I was surprised - but happily so - to see that a PMR diet achieves those same levels as Brown's ancestral diet. Perhaps the other numbers are calculated differently? Like by weight?

Still, there is room for improvement. The most obvious problem is that the fats aren't balanced (requiring n-3 supplements as we discussed above), but I'm sure there are other deficiencies. I'm interested in a more robust analysis of my dog's diet v. Brown's ancestral diet, but the USDA site doesn't make it easy to aggregate these numbers, so I don't think I'll get around to a more thorough analysis.

I was struck by how much of a difference adding one day of raw can make to a non-PMR diet in Brown's book. My take-home is that adding one day of grass-fed meats every week or two will make similar strides in balancing the micronutrients in Mia's diets. And, like you BM, I no longer feel cautious about adding salmon oil to my dog's chicken (she prefers her chicken quarters doused in salmon oil). All in all, it was an interesting read, and adds support to PMR.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Okay, Liz, are you positive about this equation? Someone else said that beef kidney would actually really be 17.4% protein because out of 100 grams of beef kidney, 17.4 grams of them are protein. 

This is frustrating me! I just want to know how to properly look at this!

ETA: I think I may have figured it out. Liz - you are calculating percent calories. The other method is percent by weight? Am I correct in this statement?


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Okay, Liz, are you positive about this equation? Someone else said that beef kidney would actually really be 17.4% protein because out of 100 grams of beef kidney, 17.4 grams of them are protein.
> 
> This is frustrating me! I just want to know how to properly look at this!


Haha, you're confused because both are correct - they're just measuring different things. I checked Brown's book, and his numbers are based on % of kcals not weight, which is why you need to convert grams of protein to kcals from protein when comparing against his numbers.

I suspect that when we've heard that PMR is not high in protein, the speakers were using a by weight calculation, not a kcal calculation.

Does this help?


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Okay, it helps. But, what is most commonly used?


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Okay, it helps. But, what is most commonly used?


It appears to me that raw feeders generally speak in terms of weight. Nutritionists and scientists speak in terms of kcals.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Ah, I see.

Is kibble calculated in weight of Kcal? I want to know so I can determine if raw feeding is higher or lower in protein than the kibble I used to feed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Hehe, I think everyone is confusing everyone else. To me, it's kinda like arguing how blue the sky is. In the long run it really doesn't matter. Prey animals have exactly the right amount of protein no matter how it's measured. Not too much, not too little. You can measure it by weight, both dry weight and wet weight or you can measure it by kcals, it doesn't matter. Whatever you come up with is what your dog is supposed to have. Nature has worked that all out over a million years of evolution.

Feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals and it all equals out over time.

I know these discussions can be fun, so y'all have at it. :biggrin:


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hehe, I think everyone is confusing everyone else. To me, it's kinda like arguing how blue the sky is. In the long run it really doesn't matter. Prey animals have exactly the right amount of protein no matter how it's measured. Not too much, not too little. You can measure it by weight, both dry weight and wet weight or you can measure it by kcals, it doesn't matter. Whatever you come up with is what your dog is supposed to have. Nature has worked that all out over a million years of evolution.
> 
> Feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals and it all equals out over time.


That may be your approach to raw feeding, that the details and the specifics don't matter. That it is perfect because it is how it occurs in nature. And that probably is true, but I still need these solid facts to tell me _what_ that naturally occurring amount is.

How can you truly advocate for the health of your pet and speak to others as an informed provider of nutrition for your pet if you don't know the ballpark figure of protein that you feed? How can I make intelligent, convincing arguments to others if I am confused about how much protein I am even feeding? I personally have a need to understand if I am feeding a diet that has 17-20% protein or 20-60% protein. And, as it turns out, I am feeding both! Just depends how I look at it. :wink:


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Is kibble calculated in weight of Kcal? I want to know so I can determine if raw feeding is higher or lower in protein than the kibble I used to feed.


Good question. I'm not positive about this, but from the way I've seen people on this forum talk about the numbers, I think commercial food companies use a per weight basis.
So: protein + carb + fat + ash + moisture = close to 100% (it may not be exact because they use mins/maxes and the usual rounding error).

And I agree with your statement about needing information in order to effectively advocate for your pet. I'm not sure why Bill got so dismissive.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I've done the math both ways. And you're right, it doesnt matter really how you look at it. I've found that it's easier to convey to people the numbers and %'s by weight. It's just an easier concept for people to grasp. How I describe it is a nearly protein exclusive diet that is "low protein" due to water content. Take the water away (this is where kcal conversions and calculations come in) and what you have left is high protein.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> How can you truly advocate for the health of your pet and speak to others as an informed provider of nutrition for your pet if you don't know the ballpark figure of protein that you feed?


I know I feed somewhere around 20%+/-. You see, exact amounts just don't matter. How much protein is in your own diet? How do you know? Which measurement? If you are like me, I have no clue how much protein is in my diet nor do I care. Same with the dogs.



> How can I make intelligent, convincing arguments to others if I am confused about how much protein I am even feeding?


When you are talking to others "somewhere around 20% is all you need to say. If you go into too much detail you lose them and they begin to think this stuff is just too complicated. Keep it simple.




> I personally have a need to understand if I am feeding a diet that has 17-20% protein or 20-60% protein.


If you are not pretty confident about how much protein is in your own diet, there is no need to know any more about your dog's diet. Remember, feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals. It will balance out automatically.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> And I agree with your statement about needing information in order to effectively advocate for your pet. I'm not sure why Bill got so dismissive.


Bill has ALWAYS been dismissive because these amounts just aren't critical. If it were, we would constantly measure everything we eat. Don't know about you, but I don't. We know what we should eat based on the food pyramid but we have no clue how much protein a human should eat. At least I don't.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> I know I feed somewhere around 20%+/-. You see, exact amounts just don't matter. How much protein is in your own diet? How do you know? Which measurement? If you are like me, I have no clue how much protein is in my diet nor do I care. Same with the dogs.


Of course exact amounts don't matter. If they did, I would be calculating exactly how much protein my dog is eating. 

That is not what I was trying to do. I was trying to have a solid ballpark figure for protein in a PMR diet. I think that is a pretty reasonable and rational goal. 



RawFedDogs said:


> When you are talking to others "somewhere around 20% is all you need to say. If you go into too much detail you lose them and they begin to think this stuff is just too complicated. Keep it simple.


I don't want to say I am feeding "around 20%" if that is not true. Luckily, it is true. That is all.

You see, for a minute I was thrown off and thought that a PMR diet was actually 50+% protein, which greatly contradicted what I had previously understood. I then realized that this was because of a difference of how we were looking at protein percentages. How could I speak intelligently to another person and educate others on the diet if I mistakenly believed that a PMR diet was around 50% protein based on weight? That would greatly undermine my credibility.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

This might be a good time to agree to disagree and move on.


----------

