PDA

View Full Version : DR. Against RAW


NYfrenchie
8th September 2005, 09:36 PM
The Case AGAINST Raw Frozen Pet Foods



Submitted by: Dr Randy Wysong
http://www.wysong.net*

This is long, but scared me a little, before I switch to raw tommorow. What would one say to some of these claims this person is making.. I am still switching.

For some 25 years I have alerted the public to the dangers of exclusively feeding heat processed foods. Companion animal feeding has progressed – actually digressed – from table scraps and real foods the family could spare to today’s “100 % complete” processed foods in primarily kibble form, with some canned and semi-moist also available. The foods appear to be scientific and improved, but they’re far worse for the animals. Not only is nutrient value diminished by heat, but a spectrum of toxins is created. Additionally, the singular feeding of processed food has led to the spurious “100% complete and balanced” claim that is both logically and scientifically flawed.



Entrepreneurs have seized upon this information to create a spate of raw frozen (RF) foods to capture a market niche and to fill the demand from consumers wanting a raw alternative to standard heat processed canned, semi-moist and dried pet foods. This market trend, as with most others, may begin with some truth (raw food is the best food) but gets distorted, if not perverted, once economic opportunity enters the picture. This paper will examine the rationale of these products, their economics and dangers. A more intelligent and healthy alternative will be proposed



Dangers




1. Weakened Pets And Highly Virulent Organisms – A raw state and the presence of moisture in food provide the perfect environment for the growth of pathogenic organisms. Although prey foods in the wild often putrefy and are teeming with microorganisms, carnivores in the wild are immunologically adapted to these organisms and even benefit from the probiotic effects of some. On the other hand, domestic pets eating sterilized heat processed foods are immunologically compromised and are threatened by mutated and highly virulent pathogenic strains created by modern circumstances and antibiotic resistance. Freezing at appropriate temperatures puts pathogens in a state of arrest but does not eliminate them. Although all foods contain some pathogens, unless they are sterilized (requiring high heat or other measures that greatly diminish the nutritional value and create toxins), it is the load of these pathogens that must be of concern to consumers. RF foods are a potential reservoir and vector of large numbers of pathogen


2. Producers With Only Kitchen Technology – Because of the minimal technology required to produce a RF pet food, essentially anyone regardless of credentials or expertise can bring a product to market. All one needs to do is grind and mix ingredients in a kitchen, package and put in a freezer. There are no controls over the conditions in the kitchen, the quality of the ingredients or the method of freezing. All these factors can dramatically influence the nutritional value and pathogenic and toxic content of the food. But being in a frozen state hides these potential dangers and therefore poses a threat to both pets and the humans who handle the foods. John Doe can make a food under unknown conditions and with unknown ingredients, label, package, freeze and deliver to consumers or stores without one single control monitoring or impeding the process. Regulators may eventually examine the label if they happen to see it in a store (they will never see it if shipped directly to consumers) and object to some terminology or the like but, all John needs to do is change the label and all will be well. The product could contain every manner of ingredient, be laced with virulent pathogens, and receive the aegis of regulators … and into the market it goes.




*




3. Raw Frozen Foods Are Not “100% Complete” – Many RF foods make (or imply) the same spurious 100% complete claim as heat processed foods and thus carry with them the same health dangers. Feeding any food exclusively, let alone a nondescript packaged food containing who-knows-what from who-knows what manufacturing environment, is a bad choice if health and safety are of concern. (See The Truth About Pet Foods by Dr. Wysong).




*




4. Problems Are Ignored By Producers – RF food pathogens include not only bacteria, but fungi, viruses and parasites. Toxins include those from molds (mycotoxins), bacteria and those created by oxidation. In our study of RF products in the stream of commerce, not one producer addressed these concerns with any technological know-how that we could discern, and most did not even acknowledge the problems potentially lurking in their foods.




*




5. Freezing Masks Inedibles – Raw meat and organ tissue continues to use ATP (source of energy) until it is exhausted and the tissue enters a state of rigor. Endogenous enzymatic activity within the tissue continues to digest the muscle tissue (proteolysis), softening it until it becomes tender and develops the typical palatable taste. This process is retarded by cold. The freezing of properly aged meat presents few problems, however, any residual ATP present in the tissue during freezing will contract the muscle upon thawing resulting in a more unpalatable product. Mixed RF foods would hide this problem.




*







*




7. Freezer Burn Indicates A More Serious Problem – Air reaching the meat surface is the cause for the freezer burns that result in the typical grayish-brown leathery spots. Frozen water on the surface or just beneath it sublimates (from solid state directly to vapor) into the air, causing moisture to be lost from the meat over time resulting in discoloration and a dry, leathery texture. Proper packaging helps maintain quality and prevent freezer burn, however most packaging is permeable to air. The prevalence of freezer burn in RF products speaks to the fact that the product is being oxidized and with that creating free radical toxins to lay the seeds for various degenerative diseases.




8. Display Packaging Causes Free Radicals – Light, as well as air, can promote free radical production. Retail display packaging that is clear or light permeable permits light to catalyze the free radical (disease promoting) process.




*




9. Frozen Products Are Not Inert To Degradation – In frozen storage there is deterioration in organoleptic quality – meat texture, fat turning granular and crumbly, and discoloration. Microbial enzymes also remain active, especially lipases that break down fats increasing their susceptibility to oxidation.




*




10. Frozen Foods Can Lead To Acidemia – Tissue degradation and oxidation under high heat freezing (above 29° F), which occurs along the supply chain with most RF products, also leads to acidification. Increasing acid consumption can contribute to acidemia that lies at the base of virtually every chronic degenerative disease plaguing modern pets. (See reference below.)




*




11. Temperature And Time Are Critical – Ice nucleation, as opposed to ice crystallization, is the primary vector in producing a stable, tasty, frozen product. Freezing is a technically complex process based on the optimum combination of temperature and time, amongst other factors. In the wrong processor’s hands, slips in proper freezing care can lead to a microbiologically unstable product and/or a sensory inferior one. Rapid freezing leads to nucleation, thereby preventing undesirable large ice crystals from forming throughout the product. With rapid freezing the molecules don’t have time to form positions in the characteristic six-sided snowflake, so nucleation overrides crystallization. On the other hand, slow freezing (the usual RF situation) creates large ice crystals, which on thawing causes cellular damage to the meat. This in turn causes meat to “drip” – lose juiciness – and form a perfect liquid medium for bacterial growth.




*




12. The High Risk In Thawing – Thawing is another critical phase in the freezing process as it involves a change from crystal ice to melted water, which upon reabsorption results in microbial reactivation. Pathogenic bacteria inherently contaminate raw meat, fish, and poultry and will begin to multiply again when the temperature reaches just 29.3º F – which is below freezing! Thus a product that may appear subjectively frozen could be a veritable incubator of pathogens. When consumers attempt to thaw RF foods, dangers dramatically increase. The surface temperature rises long before the interior is sufficiently thawed to serve. For example, it takes about 15 hours for the middle of a 22-pound turkey to get to 32º F. In the interim the surface temperature rises to 53º F. In this amount of time there would be about 4 multiplications




of spoilage bacteria as well as non-detectable multiplications of pathogens. The FDA Model Food Code (1999) recommends that food be thawed in the refrigerator or in flowing water. Thawing RF food in the refrigerator can be inefficient and time consuming, in addition to occupying refrigeration space required for other food items. Most of all, this lengthy procedure can lead to the risk of cross-contamination when the drip from the raw meat comes in contact with ready-to-eat food stored in the refrigerator. In the alternative, consumers usually put the RF food out at room temperature, creating the perfect circumstance for pathogen proliferation.




*




13. Undetected Freeze-Thaw Cycles – The transit time of RF food from the processor (or John Doe’s kitchen) to the distributor, to the stores and eventually to the consumer is very critical. Although freezer delivery trucks might putatively maintain stable product temperatures, lack of thermocouples fitted in the truck to show temperature readings, and/or inadequate TTIs (time-temperature indicators) can lead to microbiologically infested products without any visible spoilage signs. If the refrigeration in any part of the supply chain fails temporarily and then goes back to frozen (freeze-thaw-freeze), the consumer would never know of this abuse and danger.




*




14. Supply Chain Time Dangers – Time is the enemy of nutrition and safety. The longer the time between the farmer’s field and the belly, the greater the potential problems. RF foods create the illusion that time is not a factor. Because the frozen state masks toxins and odors, the consumer can be given the impression of value and freshness when, in fact, they may be getting age and toxicity.




*




15. Microwave Thawing Dangers – If RF foods are thawed in the microwave as a matter of convenience, the value of the food is greatly compromised. Microwaves can virtually boil the liquid phase within cells and electromagnetically alter important food components rendering them not only useless nutritionally, but toxic as well.




*




16. Mycotoxins Go Undetected – RF foods, particularly those that are a mix of cooked grains (which of course negates the claim for “rawness”) and vegetables, can contain mycotoxins. None of the producers surveyed addressed this problem.




*




17. Frozen Product Mixtures Make No Health Sense – In an attempt to cover every conceivable base and not miss any opportunity for profit, many RF producers mix every manner of ingredient. For example, watermelon, grains, persimmons, liver, lamb, etc. Not only would creatures in the wild never eat such a mixed gruel at one sitting, such combinations in the fresh state can cause serious digestive stress. Many of the exotic RF ingredients do not keep well in the fresh frozen state (for example, freeze watermelon alone and see what happens, let alone combining it with meat). Also, the combination of fruit sugars with proteins can potentially create toxins such as glycation end products, acrylamides (particularly in those “RF” foods containing cooked carbohydrates) and reaction products of proteins with plant tannins, phenols and flavonoids. Producers “throwing the book” at RF formulations in desperate attempts to capture




market share make evident their motives and their scientific, health and technical naiveté.




*




18. Parasites Are Ignored – A wide range of parasites can be found within RF foods. Although there is technology in terms of freezing and natural ingredients that can be used to thwart this problem, none of the producers examined employed any of it that we could detect.




*




Packaging




The best packaging for any food, particularly RF foods, is light- and oxygen-barrier and modified atmosphere flushed. In the absence of this, oxidation proceeds rendering the lipids toxic. None of the producers surveyed employed these technologies that we could detect. Even if they did, the other problems and dangers listed above would remain.








Quality




In order to make their foods anywhere near affordable, RF producers must search the ingredient market for items that can carry the name of real food but may in fact be only a hollow shell of the real thing. Inferior meat and organ ingredients, heat processed grains and vegetable riffraff (for example “broccoli” on a label may really be broccoli stems – like eating a branch from an apple tree rather than the apple) are used because they are of low cost. That is not to say the marketing brochures and labels do not make it appear as though the brand is not a true gourmet meal. If one reviews the various labels it becomes clear that the race is on to see who can put the fanciest and most exotic ingredients on labels ... as if that is the road to pet health. (It is not.) In a brief ingredient survey this is what we found:




*




Every manner of “pureed” vegetable




Organic beef, rabbit, chicken, turkey, goat, lamb, duck, pork




Organic honey




Organic papaya, persimmons, blueberries, oranges, apples, pears




Organic yogurt




Organic alfalfa, millet, quinoa and barley sprouts




Wheat grass




Nettles




Bok choy




Cultured kefir




Cod liver oil




Capsicum




Watermelon




*




The reader is challenged to go to the store and total up the cost of such ingredients. Some of the organic ingredients can cost over $15 per pound. But the RF diets containing them can retail for as little as $2-4 per pound. Take away margins for distributors and retail stores and the producer is selling them wholesale for close to a dollar per pound. Now on top of the cost of ingredients is the production, advertising, packaging, freezing and in some cases a sales force making six figures. Something most certainly does not add up. The only thing that can be missing is true ingredient quality. But how can the label say these expensive ingredients are in the food? All the producer needs to do is put in pinches of the expensive ingredients just to say they are there.




*




The only economic hope for a RF producer is to create the perception of “value added.” They simply could not put the costly ingredients in the food to any degree and make a profit for themselves and all the middlemen up and down the chain. The price they would have to charge would be ridiculous. In effect, in order to be successful, producers must become accomplished at propaganda, not health and nutrition.








*




Economics




Consumers are under the mistaken assumption that a nondescript package mix of ingredients with an officious label and from a producer posing as a nutritional authority (none of the producers we examined had people at the helm with expertise or credentials) would be the best choice. Little do they realize that they could avoid essentially all of the caveats listed above by simply going to the grocer and buying fresh meats and produce. Pets do not require every nutrient in existence at every meal, as is the impression given by the 100% complete RF producers, and for that matter the rest of the pet food industry. Why would people choose to pay a producer to mix inferior ingredients, package them, label them, freeze them, transport them, advertise them and pay the margin for the producer, the distributor, sales force and the retailer when they can avoid all that cost and put their money into real quality fresh foods? Some people are so convinced that RF manufacturers perform some sort of magic that they will pay to have such foods put in special insulated containers packed with dry ice and overnight delivered! This is particularly ridiculous when one considers that no real convenience – and certainly no health or nutritional value – is added in the process. The consumer still has to go to the store and buy something.




*




At the grocer a person can buy fresh, raw, untainted meats and produce appropriate for pet carnivores at less than $1 per pound. Slightly out-of-date meats, sale items, trimmings or other still excellent products that cannot be put in the meat case can be even less. True, if you are to purchase the ingredients listed above in perfect human grade organic form (as many RF producers boast) the cost could be far greater. But at least you would know what you are getting. RF foods can cost as much as $7 per pound with an average of about $3-4 per pound (not including shipping to the customer’s door) and most of that cost is going into freezing, transportation and profits through a whole chain of participants. Here is a case where a consumer gets to pay more (a whole lot more) and get less (a whole lot less). Isn’t marketing a wonderful thing?




*




A Better Alternative




Fresh foods fed in variety are without question the perfect form of nutrition. Appropriately designed supplements to help reduce the risk of food-borne pathogens and oxidation, and to help balance high meat meals and provide a spectrum of vegetable-based nutrients and nutraceuticals can also be of great benefit. Anything less than this is a compromise. The next best alternative is packaged dried raw foods that have incorporated in them food technology to impede pathogens, parasites and oxidation. The low water activity of these products is a great inhibitor of pathogens and the low level of moisture make storage and shipping efficient and environmentally friendly. Good quality table scraps and properly designed dried extruded and canned foods can be mixed into the diet rotation with benefit as well.




*




Consumers must learn the principles of fresh foods fed in variety and to trust in nature. Every pet owner desires the best for a beloved pet, and is correct in thinking food is an essential element in achieving that goal. But it is incorrect to believe that another person can do more for their pet’s health than they can do themselves. All that is required is a little understanding and use of common sense.




*




[ NOTE: To that end, the Wysong Institute makes available a free e-Health Letter, a free one-hour CD entitled, “The Thinking Person’s Master Key To Health,” healthy product alternatives designed intelligently with health as the number one objective, and books and recipes for anyone wanting to take control of their own and their family’s and pet’s health.* See www.wysonginstitute.org ]




*

Borgan
8th September 2005, 10:44 PM
Have you heard of Wysong DRY pet food? I rest my case.

But if that isn't enough to convince you that this Dr. has a [not so hidden] agenda, a large part of this "case" against raw is based on the bacteria that may be found in raw. Stop to consider this: 1) people feeding raw are generally educated enough to know not leave thawing raw meat out in the air or to feed outdated, freezer-burned products 2) dogs eat bits and pieces off the filthy, toxic ground daily, and if you grade on curve, their odds from getting sick from these incidents are pretty low, which indicates their threshhold for potentially harmful bacteria is extremely high, if indeed the harmful bacterial content of properly-handled raw is as high as they say it is, which is unlikely.

A case just as extensive could be complied against the makers of dry food, but the manufacturers of raw don't need to attack their competition to sell products - it sells on its own merrit.

ps. I tried to go to their website to find out about about this Doctor Randy, but I can't even get on and there's nothing wrong with my server. That sure doesn't look good on their part.

adora's mom
8th September 2005, 11:11 PM
Regarding this particular source, I would consider that the person writing this article has a vested stake in making money off of his own brand of dog food.

If you are interested, do a google search for "Whole Dog Journal" and there is an article from February or March 2005 regarding raw food and if the diet of wild canids is comparable to the diet we should be feeding domesticated dogs. It covered both pros and cons and was written by a wolf expert. I found it to be interesting.

Raw feeding is something a lot of people feel passionate about - both for and against. IMHO gather all the information and facts you can and base your decision on what makes the most sense for your pets.

franp
9th September 2005, 03:47 AM
First, I think Brooke and Leslie have said most everything that I would.

Let me tell you things I know from breeders.

My friend Didee was one of the top Bullterrier breeders in the world for over 30years; fed raw for over 30 years..Bred and fed Irritable bowel syndrome out of her line..with genetics and raw. She does FBRN rescue ; feeds raw to sick dogs; they get better/ well..

My friend Stephanie breeds Boxers; one of the breeds that gets cancer more than any other. She feeds and weans on raw..In 15 years; no cancer..

Dari is 5 1/2 ; went to the dr for her annual visit.. Her blood work was so spectacular that her own dr will probably change..


FBRN encourages every foster home to switch rescues to raw.Why? because the improvement is almost immediate..

The commercial dog food industry is petrified of the raw movement.Because it is cutting into thier business.This is all about money!!!We are all about our dogs.

How long has commercial dog food been around? 50 years? 70 years?

Things change; attitudes change. When I was young; eating red meat and fatty food was considered healthy.Now, look at what we eat; fish and veggies.Oprah was sued by the beef industry for saying burgers were bad...

Learn and read. And realize Dr Randy Wysong has MONEY to loose if we feed raw......

NYfrenchie
9th September 2005, 07:40 AM
Thanks for the responses, I agree with all of you, just got worried when I read that article, cause I am not as informed on raw as those of you that replied, and could not justify some of those comments she was stating. Anyway good to know that if I need help on raw that I have a place to come too.Anyway, Off to the store now to pick up some Bravo, wish me luck..

My2Frenchies
9th September 2005, 09:50 PM
We had to take Baxter to the vet today for a routine allergy checkup. We told our vet that he is now on a raw diet. Our vet jokingly said that people who feed raw are like a "cult" :eek:

I felt for a moment, like I've been living on the wild side! I've never been in any sort of "cult" before! :D

He also added that it's smelly stuff :rolleyes: , and that he hoped it would help.

We really like him...but I guess he didn't go any further than Kibble 101 in vet school.

Borgan
9th September 2005, 10:10 PM
Drink this KoolAid and all your problems will be solved. Try the Jello, too.

franp
10th September 2005, 04:15 AM
We had to take Baxter to the vet today for a routine allergy checkup. We told our vet that he is now on a raw diet. Our vet jokingly said that people who feed raw are like a "cult" :eek:

I felt for a moment, like I've been living on the wild side! I've never been in any sort of "cult" before! :D

He also added that it's smelly stuff :rolleyes: , and that he hoped it would help.

We really like him...but I guess he didn't go any further than Kibble 101 in vet school.

The practice I use is really big; the head of the practice is wonderful..My age and I used him BEFORE he even had an office (he did house calls).

Know why I changed to a younger dr in the same pracitce? Cause I knew that when I informed the dr that I was feeding raw he would roll his eyes and give me the same response that your dr did...
He is a great dr and a wonderful diagnostician; just a little closed minded..The hospital and drs are wonderful; I would not change.But Dari's new primary care dr is younger and is willing to listen and LEARN..

My feeling is that I am not giving up all of the good attributes of the practice because her original dr is a bullheaded stubborn man... :lol: He has been there for me for well over 25 years...

I know exactly how you felt...Keep feeding raw and remember you are in control..

pamelay2000
10th September 2005, 06:37 AM
When I brough Butters to his first vet appointment in NYC, the technician who went over basics of puppy health needs went over all the options for food and they said emphatically that the best food you can give your dog is raw. It's great to have a holistic minded vetinary office/hospital!

franp
10th November 2005, 08:51 AM
Who is your vet?? Dari goes to Dr Deb Bayazit, who also was a skeptic, but now sees how wonderfully she is doing and is contemplating the change as well.. (Animal General)

When my cat was diagnosed with Diabetes,Deb told me if I could get him to eat Raw that it would be the BEST thing for him..

If you google Dr Deborah Greco, the head of Endriconology at the Animal Medical Center ( the largest Vet hospital in America) she is a strong advocate of raw for cats as well).

fran

franp
10th November 2005, 12:58 PM
Dr Jean Dodds ; who is my idol, has been advocating raw forever..
I don't know where you are moving to in CA, but Dr Dodds has a practice at UCDavis.. She is just specatular..

I was at an all day seminar that she gave. Eight hours FLEW by...

fran

pigpog
25th November 2005, 08:20 PM
When I switched Piggy to BRAVO! the vet tech at my vet's office scared the life out of me by saying that they had a dog had seen a couple of dogs with salmonella, and discouraged me from feeding raw. However, the vet himself told me that he thinks feeding raw is fine as long as it is done in the most hygeinic manner possible. It's very important to freeze/defrost/refrigerate the food properly, as well as obviously being *very* careful when handeling the food at home for your own health and that of the people you live with.

He pretty much told me that there is so much competing research it can be difficult to see, but that he knows of a lot of dogs that have thrived on raw food who did not tolerate other food very well.

Since Piggy has completed the switch he has been a LOT less gassy, his stools have been a lot better, his nose is less dry and his coat looks amazing. His big brother, a 70 lb pit bull is on raw food, too, and has had similar improvements.

pigpog
25th November 2005, 08:20 PM
When I switched Piggy to BRAVO! the vet tech at my vet's office scared the life out of me by saying that they had seen a couple of dogs with salmonella, and discouraged me from feeding raw. However, the vet himself told me that he thinks feeding raw is fine as long as it is done in the most hygeinic manner possible. It's very important to freeze/defrost/refrigerate the food properly, as well as obviously being *very* careful when handeling the food at home for your own health and that of the people you live with.

He pretty much told me that there is so much competing research it can be difficult to see, but that he knows of a lot of dogs that have thrived on raw food who did not tolerate other food very well.

Since Piggy has completed the switch he has been a LOT less gassy, his stools have been a lot better, his nose is less dry and his coat looks amazing. His big brother, a 70 lb pit bull is on raw food, too, and has had similar improvements.

M&M
3rd April 2006, 08:51 AM
I only mostly read and skimmed the book of an article that started this (old) thread, but I just wanted to point out that the "dr" was saying that Raw Frozen products are bad for a lot of good reasons (how do the producers and the shop that sells it and everyone in between make a profit when it is relatively cheap) and Raw fresh from the store is good and less expensive... and I don't think he mentioned anything about his own brand of dry kibble. People who replied to this post gave good reasons to feed raw, but unless I skimmed over it, I don't think the article said "don't feed raw", just "don't feed raw frozen pre-packaged products". I'd be interested in seeing replies to the point that raw from the market is better than a raw frozen pre-packaged product like Bravo! or Nature's Variety Raw Frozen, etc. I myself will be making the switch to raw very soon, and for fear of not being able to provide a "balanced" diet without it will probably be using Nature's Variety half the time.

imogene
3rd April 2006, 11:37 AM
I read the whole article - and was not impressed by it

1) You can find good quality prepackaged raw foods. This is supported by the fact that "The Whole Dog Journal" (http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/) has a published recommendation for prepackaged raw foods.

In fact Whole dog journal recently published an article called Completely Convenient:Commercial frozen foods make feeding a “natural” raw foods diet easy. which debunks most of the claims in the article posted at the beginning of the thread. To quickly sum up the article, as long as you are using logical food safe handling practices -and feeding a healthy dog (not an immune suppressed one) the possible concerns regarding bacteria in prepackage pre-made frozen raw food is negated.

IMO the only valid point in the article posted is that it is much cheaper to go and buy raw ingredients. I think most raw feeders are aware of this cheaper route, but would be baffled with meat to bone ratios, and uninterested in dealing with organ meats, and concerned with making sure our dogs get everything they need nutritionally - and don't mind paying someone else to do the work for us. I would also like to point out that when buying fresh ingredients from the market you still have to take care with preparation and storage and employ safe handling practices to nullify the bacterial risk.

I am new to raw feeding and have been using prepackaged raw foods from two of the companies listed on the Whole Dog Journal 2006 recommendations. It is pricey and my husband and I already have discussed the idea of making our own prepackaged raw meals for our dog - but we both cook, and we have the, time, facilities and equipment to do so. Not everyone can afford to do the same, so it's great that their are good quality commercially manufactured products available.

gmacleod
3rd April 2006, 01:50 PM
The article there is primarily about pre-made raw, indeed. But that's not all that's on the guy's site ;) So that's why many people responded in the way they did.

I have to say, I prefer home made raw. I think it is better for dogs to eat solid food portions that they have to chew, and I believe the quality is better (or at least, it is if you care to make sure it is ;)). But that doesn't make pre-made raw bad - and it's still a heck of a lot better than what goes into 99.9% of dry foods ;) And add to that, quality is only one part of the equation here - species-appropriate nutrition is the other.

LOL - yes, it is impossible for a manufacturer to go out and buy raw human grade meat portions/carcasses at 50 cents a pound, process it, mix in some vegetables, operate their plant and machinery, package, distribute and market it - and still sell it back to you at 50 cents a pound. But it's even more impossible to do that with a dry food that takes a great deal more processing. So what are you buying there? I can pretty much guarantee it's worse.

With all that said, I'm quite sure that there are some poor quality pre-made raw foods out there. Just as dry dog food varies in it's quality, so too will commercially produced raw food. At least it will always have the advantage of being species-appropriate (as opposed to the worst quality dry foods that are barely distinguishable from poultry feed - seriously!). But as with anything, you look at what's in it and decide from there. I certainly would not agree that all pre-made raw food is junk just by virtue of being commercially produced - which is basically what this guy seems to be saying. Some of it looks to be very good :)

Chris&Eti
3rd April 2006, 07:18 PM
How the pre made raw manufacturers can make their prices low is -although the food is human grade, USDA approved etc-they are still not destined necessarily for human consumption. Most meat products for human consumption nowadays at American supermarkets are trimmed, cut, and usually from much leaner cuts (you have to look in more ethnic neighbourhoods to find things like pork neck or lamb neck)- so pre made manufacturers take advantage of all the trim/less desirable cuts to make their product. So-for example- pre made ground chicken is primarily made from chicken frames- the source meat plants that sell to the pre made manufacturers, actually used to pay something like 9 cents a pound for their removal (nowadays they are actually packaged and marketed as "soup bones" so it costs the pre made manufacturers around 50 cents a pound). This is one reason I am wary of vegetable mixes-at least with the meat products, they are actually cuts that you would feed whole anyway, but the vegetables -like say broccoli are probably just the stalks that have been trimmed off.

I learned this when I visited a local pre made manufacturer-Armellino's, who buys his ingredients from the same resources as Oma's and Bravo.