Eagle Pack vs Other Less Expensive Brands

[slistoe]

So you won't confirm that it is completely legal for contaminated meat and diseased animals that are rejected by inspectors in slaughterhouse to be sent to rendering facilities to be used in dog food, and that this is common and standard practice?

Excellent.

Bill

"Unfit for human consumption" does not equate to "of no nutritional value", nor does it equate to "unsafe to eat". Especially if you have the digestive system of a dog as opposed to that of a human.

[slistoe]

but scoff at the idea real food is optimal for dogs. How does that make sense?

Bill

NO, I scoff at the idea that the ingredients put into dog food in a bag do not constitute real food.
I can go to the store and buy a bunch of ingredients and make dog food or I can go to the store and buy dog food that someone else has made....

[Spy Car]

"Unfit for human consumption" does not equate to "of no nutritional value", nor does it equate to "unsafe to eat". Especially if you have the digestive system of a dog as opposed to that of a human.

You have a legitimate point. There are some items that are very fit for dogs (like the green tripe I mentioned earlier) that would never be fit for humans. Canines and humans have very different digestive systems, which is the point of not feeding dogs as if are humans. Still, all things being equal, I doubt anyone would chose to feed their dog food they know came from a highly contaminated source, or from a dying or diseased animal if these was a choice to feed a higher quality option.

but scoff at the idea real food is optimal for dogs. How does that make sense?

Bill

NO, I scoff at the idea that the ingredients put into dog food in a bag do not constitute real food.
I can go to the store and buy a bunch of ingredients and make dog food or I can go to the store and buy dog food that someone else has made....

By "real" I mean food that has a recognizable source. Meat-meals ate cooked beyond recognition. Other than accepting labels as genuine, there is no telling what is in it, accept by doing DNA analysis, and when those have been done recently on dog foods the analysis has rarely matched the claimed contents of manufactures. I believe there was a thread about this on this subforum. yes?

Bill

[slistoe]

"Unfit for human consumption" does not equate to "of no nutritional value", nor does it equate to "unsafe to eat". Especially if you have the digestive system of a dog as opposed to that of a human.

You have a legitimate point. There are some items that are very fit for dogs (like the green tripe I mentioned earlier) that would never be fit for humans. Canines and humans have very different digestive systems, which is the point of not feeding dogs as if are humans. Still, all things being equal, I doubt anyone would chose to feed their dog food they know came from a highly contaminated source, or from a dying or diseased animal if these was a choice to feed a higher quality option.
Just what is your fear in this "contaminated source"? Does a cow that is failing from old age have different meat protein than a fattened steer? Does cooking kill bacterial infections? Protein is protein. It is a human concept to be averse to quality protein on aesthetic basis.

but scoff at the idea real food is optimal for dogs. How does that make sense?

Bill

NO, I scoff at the idea that the ingredients put into dog food in a bag do not constitute real food.
I can go to the store and buy a bunch of ingredients and make dog food or I can go to the store and buy dog food that someone else has made....

By "real" I mean food that has a recognizable source. Meat-meals ate cooked beyond recognition. Other than accepting labels as genuine, there is no telling what is in it, accept by doing DNA analysis, and when those have been done recently on dog foods the analysis has rarely matched the claimed contents of manufactures. I believe there was a thread about this on this subforum. yes?

I know folks who cook their steaks beyond recognition but they relish them anyway. Whether the essential nutritional elements came from a cow, a pig or a horse is rather immaterial to me. I doubt the dog really cares either. If the nutritional component is there to make the designed formula to optimize the nutritional value of the feed for the intended use, then all is good.
Bill

[ezzy333]

I went back this morning and read them all too. Thought maybe it was just me but from the very first they have been alike. That is when I knew my suspicions were on target and we are wasting our time.

Ezzy

[Spy Car]

I went back this morning and read them all too. Thought maybe it was just me but from the very first they have been alike. That is when I knew my suspicions were on target and we are wasting our time.

Ezzy

"Suspicions?" Ezzy? For real? Someone dares have a position at odds with yours and you brand that person as ignorant. I've read your comments to others in back threads too, so I'm very familiar with your tactics of attacking people in a personal manner, rather than dealing with facts. It is bad behavior Ezzy.

I'm far for the only person to notice, or complain.

Bill

[oldbeek]

Can't believe I read the whole thing. I to was heavily swayed by Dog food Advisor at one time. What I got out of this is: Purina Sport pro 20-30 is what doctor Coffman is advising on the retriever article. Dog food Advisor had a 5 star rated, US MADE, high meat and salmon content kibble that I was using. My Brittany would stay skinney on it. My vet who has a degree in nutrition put me on Purina 20-30. My dog runs like an all age dog and has never slowed down without being reined in.

[slistoe]

"Suspicions?" Ezzy? For real? Someone dares have a position at odds with yours and you brand that person as ignorant. I've read your comments to others in back threads too, so I'm very familiar with your tactics of attacking people in a personal manner, rather than dealing with facts. It is bad behavior Ezzy.

I'm far for the only person to notice, or complain.

Bill

No, he said you were ignorant because it seemed you were not aware of many facts surrounding the makeup of commercial dog foods. It has since become evident to me that you were not ignorant of those facts, you are simply not acknowledging them in any way and are adamantly continuing with your "opinion" and psuedo-science. So, gullible might be the kindest word I could find for you.

You have not presented any facts of any kind whatsoever. Only fear-mongering, half truths and non-truths.

[Spy Car]

"Suspicions?" Ezzy? For real? Someone dares have a position at odds with yours and you brand that person as ignorant. I've read your comments to others in back threads too, so I'm very familiar with your tactics of attacking people in a personal manner, rather than dealing with facts. It is bad behavior Ezzy.

I'm far for the only person to notice, or complain.

Bill

No, he said you were ignorant because it seemed you were not aware of many facts surrounding the makeup of commercial dog foods.

Yep, that's what he said, despite having no cause for saying so. That is his standard tactic. I've read back-posts myself.

[quote It has since become evident to me that you were not ignorant of those facts...[/quote]

Thanks for acknowledging, in a fashion, that Ezzy had it wrong. I'm hardly ignorant of how dog food is processed. And what is allowed by law.

...you are simply not acknowledging them in any way and are adamantly continuing with your "opinion" and psuedo-science.

Simply an unfair assessment. When you've had legitimate points, I've acknolaged them. When you charged me with pseudo-science, I have linked to science-based evidence and articles by experts on canine nutrition to back my statements. When the evidence doesn't go the way others like, the personal attack begin afresh.

You have not presented any facts of any kind whatsoever. Only fear-mongering, half truths and non-truths.

Simply not true. Anyone who reads the thread can follow the evidence for themselves. I don't get the defensiveness. Someone believes there are better ways to feed dogs than a standard kibble diet? This is such a threat???

A discussion forum ought to have room for "discussion."

Bill

[Spy Car]

No, he said you were ignorant because it seemed you were not aware of many facts surrounding the makeup of commercial dog foods.

Yep, that's what he said, despite having no cause for saying so. That is his standard tactic. I've read back-posts myself.

It has since become evident to me that you were not ignorant of those facts...

Thanks for acknowledging, in a fashion, that Ezzy had it wrong. I'm hardly ignorant of how dog food is processed. And what is allowed by law.

...you are simply not acknowledging them in any way and are adamantly continuing with your "opinion" and psuedo-science.

Simply an unfair assessment. When you've had legitimate points, I've acknowledged them. When you charged me with pseudo-science, I have linked to science-based evidence and articles by experts on canine nutrition to back my statements. When the evidence doesn't go the way others like, the personal attack begin afresh.

You have not presented any facts of any kind whatsoever. Only fear-mongering, half truths and non-truths.

Simply not true. Anyone who reads the thread can follow the evidence for themselves. I don't get the defensiveness. Someone believes there are better ways to feed dogs than a standard kibble diet? This is such a threat???

A discussion forum ought to have room for "discussion."

Bill