You win Chez swa :p Less Roselike and more Denisish by the minute :D

I don't know Rose, is she a Dennis alter ego? :)

Probe1957 hasn't responded to my post yet, I think I'm being ignored

Oh no Rose was a character in her own right :D although she was fond of returning under different aliases whenever she was banned rather like another certain individual ;)

>>I am sure most of the readers are perfectly capable of reading ingredient lists

I am sure they are capable of it but, as you implied in an earlier post in this very thread, most people don't bother.

>>so I don't think they need patronising.

Well then, don't patronize.  :-)

>>it is a bad product we would see that reflected in the population.

And my point is that we DO see poor quality food reflected in the population.  Most pets, just like most owners, are FAT.

>>The McDonalds gobblegook doesn't seem to relate sensibly to any point so I'll have to just let that sit there

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought your implication was that since Pedigree sells so much dog food that most dogs must do well on it.  I apologize for being so obtuse but my point was to extrapolate your point a bit.  Using your logic, again as I understood it, couldn't we then conclude that since McDonalds sells so many Quarter Pounders, and since our population as whole is fairly healthy, we should all eat more Quarter Pounders?

They don't bother because they don't see it as necessary, most people appreciate that complete foods are well balanced in the required nutrients and, apart from the few that have allergy problems, they realise that is all that matters.

>Well then, don't patronize.

I'm not the one who referred to them (most of them!) as ignorant :)
Overfed pets get fat whatever you feed.
Yes, as we have already seen you did misunderstand me so I have no idea why you are trying to apply my(sic) logic again erroneously. 
McDonalds are not a complete food by the way and nobody, least of all themselves, have ever marketed them as such.  Unfortunately the human population does eat too many of these convenience foods not designed to be eaten in this way and consequently the western human population is deteriorating in health.  In fact the current younger population is the first one to be not expected to outlive their parents.  The dog population have been eaten their complete foods, designed to be complete, for many generations but the studies have shown there has been no decrease in the advanced longevity they have been experiencing for several decades now.

>And my point is that we DO see poor quality food reflected in the population.  Most pets, just like most owners, >are FAT.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the food but everything to do with the AMOUNTS fed and the EXTRAS given and the exercise given or not.

>I could, I suppose.  But I wonder, should we be debating semantics or discussing what ingredients comprise a quality dog food?  Which would be more appropriate for this board? <

Well given that you appear to have made an issue of a comment made in Lay terms I would suggest that you are the one wishing to discuss semantics so feel free to go right ahead I'm sure we'd all like a laugh.  I could go through each one of your posts and correct the punctuation, however that does seem rather childish.  Then again it seems that I might have to come down to your level at some point.

>I have taken the time to educate myself.  A process which continues.<

Well bully for you do you want a chocolate medal?

>>Thought I would add my bit just to say that I am somewhat offended that you would suggest that after 25 years of being involved in animal care I don't know the difference between thriving and "seeming fine". <<

>I am not sure where exactly I suggested that, but there is little I can do about what you find offensive.<

Back to semantics again I suppose.  If you don't know what you are on about perhaps basic English should be your priority.

>>I don't have the time or inclination to feed my girls a completely raw diet <<

>Nor do I, but I wish I did.  I really do think that raw is best.<

Well stop complaining about other people and get your own house in order you hypocrite!

>You would censor me? <

You carry on the way you are and admin might even do it for me, and give us all a break.

There is a large gulf between, difference of opinion and being downright rude.  Everyone should be able to speak openly and express their own opinion, especially here on an open forum.  When things become too personal the point of the debate is lost and a slagging match like we have here develops.  I refuse to be drawn further into the kindergarten element in this thread, since I believe that it serves no purpose, however please think carefully before you make any derogatory comments against another poster as you never know where it will stop.

>>I could go through each one of your posts and correct the punctuation,

You could, but perhaps your time would be better spent correcting errors in this paragraph:

>>Well given that you appear to have made an issue of a comment made in Lay terms I would suggest that you are the one wishing to discuss semantics so feel free to go right ahead I'm sure we'd all like a laugh.  I could go through each one of your posts and correct the punctuation, however that does seem rather childish.  Then again it seems that I might have to come down to your level at some point.

>>Well bully for you do you want a chocolate medal?

Naaaaah.  My dog would just eat it.  :-)

>>Back to semantics again I suppose.  If you don't know what you are on about perhaps basic English should be your priority.

Huh?

>>Well stop complaining about other people

Can you cite an example where I have complained about someone?  Didn't think so.

>> and get your own house in order you hypocrite!

I don't find ad hominem attacks to be particularly persuasive.  Do you?

>>You carry on the way you are and admin might even do it for me, and give us all a break.

I have been called, in this thread, "arrogant" and now, a "hypocrite."  Yet you think *I* am the one who should be censored?  Interesting.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest what people call me and I certainly don't think their posts should be censored, but again, it is interesting that you think mine should be, especially in light of the fact that I haven't resorted to such tactics.

>>Everyone should be able to speak openly and express their own opinion,

Everyone, you mean, except me?

>>however please think carefully before you make any derogatory comments against another poster

I have yet to make a derogatory comment against ANY poster.  I challenge you to prove differently.

Ultimately, this thread has gotten so far off topic that it probably should be deleted or moved.  Instead of being about what a crappy food Pedigree is, it has become more about my antagonistic style.  That is unfortunate, as this really is an important subject.  What say you and I try to get it back on topic? 

I believe it was Isabel who suggested that what many people don't like Pedigree because it is made by a large company.  I can assure you, I have no prejudice against large companies.  In fact, what little money I have is invested in a few.  I am delighted when they make obscene profits.  Hell's bells, I wish I had invested more in oil companies.  :-)  What I don't like about Pedigree is the ingredients.  Let's look at them.

http://www.mordanna.com/boards/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=dogfood&Number=31735&Searchpage=1&Main=159&Words=pedigree&topic=&Search=true#Post31735

According to this source, the major ingredients in Pedigree are:

Ground yellow corn, chicken by-product meal, meat and bone meal, rice, corn gluten meal and animal fat.

Companies are required by law to list their ingredients in descending order, by weight.  We can conclude then that the major component in Pedigree is ground yellow corn.  I don't know about you, but I have never seen a dog grazing in a corn field. Furthermore, I submit that if you take a couple of cups of shelled field corn, put it in your food processor and grind it up, then present it to your dog, that he won't eat it.  So how does Pedigree get dogs to eat corn?  With flavor enhancers, listed farther down in the list of ingredients.  How digestable is corn for a dog?  If you feed a dog a pound of corn, how much poop would come out the other end?

Which brings us to the next major component, chicken by-product meal.  If memory serves, by-products is what is left over from processing that is unfit for human consumption.  This would include things like beaks and feathers.  Teeth, I suppose too, if chicken have teeth.  I prefer not to feed my dog chicken feathers, no matter how flavor enhanced they might be.

Now let's consider the next most primary ingredient in Pedigree, meat and bone meal.  Meat and bones from what, you may be asking.  And that would be a good question.  It could be, and likely is, from rendering plants and could include road kill and euthanized pets.  I suggest that Pedigree isn't specific regarding this particular component for a reason.  I leave that reason up to your imagination.

Rice, the next ingredient, I would have no problem with, if this food weren't already grain heavy enough.  I would however be more comfortable if Pedigree were to tell us how processed this rice is.  Frankly, I am not even sure what corn gluten meal is but I doubt it is something a dog really needs much of.

Which brings us to animal fat.  Fat from what kind of animals?  Again, I suggest that Pedigree isn't specific for a reason and leave it up to you to decide what that reason might be.

Are you based in America now Denis?  The site you have quoted is from that side of the atlantic and will, therefore, not apply to the UK where, I think, most people involved in this thread live.  Certainly your comments about the ingredients do not apply here where all pet found has to be made from food fit for human consumption.
I was never terribly convinced about the road kill stories in the USA either.  It seems incredible to me that their enormous feed processing plants fed daily by juganauts from the equally enormous abatoirs, anxious to cheaply get rid of the parts squeamish humans won't eat, would prefer to augment with a couple of dozen squashed rabbits that their employees passing on the road in :D As an invester in large industries, and therefore having taken an interest in business practices, I'm sure you will agree :)

>>Certainly your comments about the ingredients do not apply here where all pet found has to be made from food fit for human consumption.

Well, if you want to post the ingredients from Pedigree sold on your side of the pond, perhaps we can then discuss its merits.

>>I was never terribly convinced about the road kill stories in the USA either.

There is a show on Discovery Channel called "Dirty Jobs."  The host of that show, in one episode, does a stint in a rendering plant.  If you ever get a chance to catch that episode, I believe you will change your mind.

>>I'm sure you will agree

With what?

>if you want to post the ingredients from Pedigree sold on your side of the pond

I thought I had already mentioned that I'm not one for picking over ingredients.  I am happy with the dog food laws on my side of the pond.  I take it you are in America, is that where you got your degree in animal nutrition?
Don't have Discovery Channel but again I would be very surprised if they allowed it in this day and age of awareness of species to specied feeding

>>>I'm sure you will agree
>With what?

With the rest of the quote of course :)  Here it is again if you missed out the first time

>It seems incredible to me that their enormous feed processing plants fed daily by juganauts from the equally enormous abatoirs, anxious to cheaply get rid of the parts squeamish humans won't eat, would prefer to augment with a couple of dozen squashed rabbits that their employees passing on the road in  As an invester in large industries, and therefore having taken an interest in business practices, I'm sure you will agree 

>>I thought I had already mentioned that I'm not one for picking over ingredients.

Good idea.  Facts, afterall, are the enemy of truth.  Better to remain blissfully ignorant.  And any other appropriate cliche' you can think of.  :-)

>>I take it you are in America

That is correct.  And I voted for Bush.  Twice.  :-)

>>is that where you got your degree in animal nutrition?

Huh?

>>With the rest of the quote of course

If you looked at my transaction history, trust me, you would NOT call me an investor.  :-)  That being said, you appear to be asking me to consider your point from the viewpoint of an investor.  I am not quite sure I can make that connection.  I am not very bright.

I am quite happy with the facts revealed by the dog longevity studies and the fact that in the UK dog food is regulated
Do they have Butlins in the USA? ;)

>>>Not everyone has a degree in animal nutrition

>That is PAINFULLY obvious. 

Well thats a bit scathing if you don't have one either. :)

>I have no prejudice against large companies.  In fact, what little money I have is invested in a few
>If you looked at my transaction history, trust me, you would NOT call me an investor

Well you do! :)

>>Do they have Butlins in the USA?

I never heard of it.  Is it some kind of sex toy?

>>Well thats a bit scathing if you don't have one either.

I must have thick skin as I don't consider myself scathed.  :-)

>>Well you do!

Do you ALWAYS make stuff up like this?  I never called myself an investor.  At least not lately.   And with good reason.  During the 2 years in which I did do day trading, I lost $2,000.  Not a lot of money but it is a lot to me and enough that I knew I better let someone else handle the details.

>I never heard of it.  Is it some kind of sex toy?

Why would you think that? It sounds more like a chocolate biscuit, don't you think?

You said you have investments. That makes you an investor. (Not necessarily a good one, though! ;))

>>It sounds more like a chocolate biscuit, don't you think?

Maybe you're right.  But what made me think it MIGHT be a sex toy is that I heard one of the participants in this diatribe is a connoisseur of them.  :-)

>>You said you have investments. That makes you an investor.

Oh, okay.

>I heard one of the participants in this diatribe is a connoisseur of them

I'm sure the readers of a dog message board are not interested in wandering down the path of your fantasies about another poster.  Your meanderings may well take you rather close to the TOS as well :rolleyes:

>>I'm sure

You're SURE?  Is it possible that you are, once again, speaking with a degree of certainty that you can, in no way, actually have?

>>the readers of a dog message board are not interested in wandering down the path of your fantasies about another poster.

It may well be that many of them are interested.  Oh, I stand corrected.  YOU'RE SURE.  LOL!!!

>>Your meanderings may well take you rather close to the TOS as well

You gotta test the boundaries.  :-)

>You're SURE?

It was just a polite figure of speach :) but you are right of course, how could anyone have any degree of certainly about your abilities to have a better understanding :D

>>how could anyone have any degree of certainly about your abilities to have a better understanding

LMAO.  I gotta hand it to you Isabel.  That's a good one.

>During the 2 years in which I did do day trading, I lost $2,000.

I'm sorry that your venture failed people think that money breeds money but it's not as easy as all that is it? :)
Perhaps if you ever fancy having another go you might like a little advise from someone whose investment portfolio has been nurtured to considerable more success, enough to ensure she has not had to work since her mid twenties ;)
As I say it's not that easy and you do have to put the work in, you need to broaden your knowledge base about the world in general by reading quality publications avoid single interest groups, such as those linked to in this thread, or at least be aware of their bias.  Use common sense on what you learn and avoid the common trap of making up you mind about a hypothesis and then only looking for information that confirms this.
Always view the wider picture, the perfect example being to consider the end result of the nutrition your dog receives rather than picking about over the ingredients that the manufacturer has chosen to deliver that.  I'm sure you could have the potential to be more successful at this in the future :)

>>Perhaps if you ever fancy having another go you might like a little advise from someone whose investment portfolio has been nurtured to considerable more success, enough to ensure she has not had to work since her mid twenties

Wow.  This hypothetical woman of yours, barely out of high school, has already generated enough of an income to start a portfolio and have it amount to enough that she never has to work again.  Truly impressive.  I would be foolish not to avail myself of someone like that.  I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart.

To be honest though, I have heard of a couple of portfolios capable of that kind of performance.  I am told that a few gals have been lucky enough to invest in both.  Perhaps that applies to the situation you are speaking of here or perhaps you are familiar with one or both.  One portfolio is called, "She Came From Money" and the other, "A Husband."

>>you need to broaden your knowledge base about the world in general by reading quality publications

You mean like actually having some knowledge about the ingredients in dog food and where those ingredients come from prior to becoming involved in a conversation supposedly about it?  Or do you mean something different?

>>avoid the common trap of making up you mind about a hypothesis and then only looking for information that confirms this

Pot, kettle, black.

>>consider the end result of the nutrition your dog receives rather than picking about over the ingredients

How can you ADEQUATELY consider the end without considering the means?  It seems to me you can ACCEPT the end without considering the means, but you certainly can't CONSIDER it.

>>I'm sure you could have the potential to be more successful at this in the future

Wow, there you are being sure again.  :-)  Of course, success is far more likely if we don't bury our head in the sand proclaiming, in essence, I don't know and I don't care.  Just trust the company that provides the product.  Everything will be okay.  My dog has health issues?  It couldn't possibly be his food.  Afterall, I feed BY-PRODUCTS from PURINA.

I don't know who this hypothetical woman is but I'm certainly not just out of highschool :D
As I say I never much went for the adage that money breeds money anyway and just as well as I certainly did not come from a privileged background :o I started with less outlay than you lost last time :) The one time my husband had a dabble at the markets, like you, he didn't put the research in and lost, I'm discouraged him from trying again :)

>Pot, kettle, black

So which whacky web site have I been frequenting? ;)
You can certainly use your brain to consider whether the end is meeting all your needs and no need to accept it if it isn't but if it is you don't waste your precious time picking over how someone else, paid to do that, achieved it you get on with your next project even if it just taking your healthy dog for a nice long walk.  I can see you have a long way to go before you should possibly risk your cents again :)

>>I don't know who this hypothetical woman is but I'm certainly not just out of highschool

I'll betcha a nickel you're closer to just out of high school than I am.  :-)

So the hypothetical woman is you?  You were in your mid 20's (just out of HS), when you amassed enough wealth that you never had to work again?  And you didn't come from money or marry wealth?  Recognizing the distinct possibility that your standard of living might be considerably lower than mine, and therefore, take far less resources to never have to work again, color me a little bit skeptical on this one.  :-)

>>like you, he didn't put the research in and lost

Oh I researched.  And the first year, I did very well.  Recognizing the relativity of that phrase.  I made $20,000 doing day trading.  And this was over the computer, while I did my real job.  Then came year 2.

>>I can see you have a long way to go before you should possibly risk your cents again

Truer words were never spoken.  :-)

I have no doubt my standard of living is lower :) Maybe it's partly down to being a Brit but I'm not very materialist having only run 3 cars in 25 years for instance (my husband cycles :)) I just wanted to be able to stay home and have a few dogs so maybe you don't have to colour yourself too much but I'm not starving ;) and year by year it all gets a bit rosier. The markets fluctate here too ;) but I had the sense to move a goodly part of my portfolio into property which has done extremely well in the UK latterly.

>>but I'm not very materialist

At the risk of waxing philosophical, I admit to being a bit envious.  I have often wished I had established different priorities when I was younger. 

And I think I will just leave that thought right there.  I guess we do what we think is right at the time and we live with the consequences of our decisions.  Congratulations on making better decisions than I did.

>I don't know about you, but I have never seen a dog grazing in a corn field

That's because you've never seen my dogs choosing to snap off and eat ears of ripening wheat, and chewing on corncobs. Have you never let yours try?

>>That's because you've never seen my dogs choosing to snap off and eat ears of ripening wheat, and chewing on corncobs. Have you never let yours try?

We don't have much wheat here but we do have about 10 acres that was planted in corn.  Other than flushing out rabbits, my dog showed no interest in it.  Now that the field has been combined, he shows no interest in the cobs laying on the ground.  So I guess I stand by my original comment.  I have never seen dogs grazing in a cornfield.  I did see several deer out there the other nite however.  I hope to shoot one in about another month.  Want the by-products after I have him processed?  :-)

>Want the by-products after I have him processed?

Yes, please!  But won't you want them for your dogs?

>>Yes, please!  But won't you want them for your dogs?

No, that's okay.  You can have it.

OTOH, many years ago I remember, my uncle had killed a deer.  He had the head off of the deer when I saw it.  He then cut the antlers off the skull, which left a gaping hole.  He gave the skull to his dog who seemed to rather enjoy sucking the brains out.  I never saw that dog eat corn either.  :-)

>Want the by-products after I have him processed?

Of course! Waste not, want not. It'll make a change from the roadkill rabbits I feed them.

A friend of mine shot a deer last year, my boys really enjoyed lying out in the garden knawing on the carcass - they had the spine, ribs etc. Of course they prefer fresh rabbit they catch themselves but that doesn't happen that often!

>>So how does Pedigree get dogs to eat corn?  With flavor enhancers, listed farther down in the list of ingredients.  How digestable is corn for a dog?  If you feed a dog a pound of corn, how much poop would come out the other end?

How digestible is corn for humans?  When you feed corn to babies it comes out the other end looking the same as it went in.  Humans get nutrients from it all the same, is it not the same for dogs?  Before you repond be prepared to qualify your answer.

>>This would include things like beaks and feathers.  Teeth, I suppose too, if chicken have teeth.  I prefer not to feed my dog chicken feathers, no matter how flavor enhanced they might be.

It's only rare hens that have teeth :D  I would agree that by-products of chickens are all the leftovers that we wouldn't eat.  However, although feathers are a by-product that doesn't automatically mean that these are included in the food.

>>Meat and bones from what, you may be asking.  And that would be a good question.  It could be, and likely is, from rendering plants and could include road kill and euthanized pets. 

I thought that rendering plants that strip every last bit from the carcass were labour saving therefore, saving money.  I would say that collecting roadkill is labour intensive not to mention the cost of fuel

As far as i'm aware the roadkill,euthanised pets etc. are dealt with from a contracted company which drops off to the pet food plants. Like you all say waste not,want not ;)

I can only read 1/4 of probes post on the previous page,the one with the long link,as half of it has disapeared.Is there any way i can do something to read the whole thing? Everyone seems to be commenting on it,that means you must have been able to read it properly??

I know gas is a lot cheaper in the USA but the idea of a company trawling the vast, sparsely used road network in order to supply meat cheaper than the abattoirs disposing of their unwanted byproducts seems a little far fetched to me :) However, whether it ever happened in the past I would imagine in the light of greater knowledge of the dangers of feeding inappropriate species there were be tight controls on this sort of thing now.  If you remember the USA was extremely paranoid about the whole BSE business.

>>Humans get nutrients from it all the same, is it not the same for dogs?

As I recall, corn is about 54% digestable for dogs.  My unqualified hunch is humans digest it better than dogs. 

>>However, although feathers are a by-product that doesn't automatically mean that these are included in the food

True, but since there are foods that contain NO by-products, why risk it by feeding one that does?

>>I would say that collecting roadkill is labour intensive not to mention the cost of fuel

Here, I have seen highway department trucks picking up road kill.  What happens to it from there is anybody's guess.  We had a boarder's horse die a few months ago.  A rendering company picked that up.  He was driving a big truck and it was full of carcasses.  This was like the end of May or first part of June.  Very aromatic.  :-)

>>Before you repond be prepared to qualify your answer.

Who died and left you in charge of this board?

>>Who died and left you in charge of this board?

:D :D :D

I can't believe that I have been around this long and never heard of roadkill and euthanised pets being used for pet food.  I still think it wouldn't be cost effective.  Cheaper to just dump the roadkill to nearest landfill rather than transport all over to factories.  Wouldn't there be a health and safety concern over feeding pets with animals that had died from lethal injections?  No, it's too far fetched for me to believe.  You'd have to provide evidence for that one.

here you go Chez swa :)

http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html

Here are a couple of exerpts from the article.

>As discussed in Chapter Two, companion animals from clinics, pounds, and shelters can and are being rendered and used as sources of protein in pet food. Dead-stock removal operations play a major role in the pet food industry. Dead animals, road kill that cannot be buried at roadside, and in some cases, zoo animals, are picked up by these dead stock operations<

>At the rendering plant, slaughterhouse material, restaurant and supermarket refuse, dead stock, road kill, and euthanized companion animals are dumped into huge containers. A machine slowly grinds the entire mess.<

This is an American site,but dont be fooled into believing that stuff like this doesnt happen all over the world,there are always ways and means around laws!

I know that pedigree etc. lovers will pick the above article apart,ask for credentials blah blah blah and try and make it look like BS. Just letting you know i have no interest in proving the proof :) You asked,i delivered,there's not much more i can say on this topic.

Thanks for that Hailey it was very interesting.  Nothing shocks me, I am not a person who prefers to shut their eyes rather than see the truth.  However, to my mind, no one does anything for nothing and I cannot see a profit in roadkill in the way we know it in this country.  In the US their wild animals are a darn sight bigger than ours and I would like to know more details before I accepted what they are trying to portray as happening.  When they talk about roadkill I would expect in US them to be on the lines of animals the size of deer if any, which although we have here there are not enough would be killed by cars to make a viable profit IMO.  As for pets the same applies, I would not expect them to be talking cats and dogs but more on the lines of horses.

I am still sceptical though as having had a quick scan of the internet it would seem to me that the dog eat dog scenario is more to do with the underhand marketing tactics of the rivalry pet food companies.  I would like to see a more objective article.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who simply can't believe that there are trucks scouring the countryside picking up squashed hedgehogs and rabbits to transport them hundreds of miles to the nearest pet food factory. They certainly don't do it around here because I pass ancient roadkill every day - the crows and magpies dispose of them eventually.

>>I am not a person who prefers to shut their eyes rather than see the truth.

Unlike another contributor to this thread who, by her own admission, doesn't get to wrapped up in what actually goes into the food that she feeds her dog.  :-)

>>I would like to see a more objective article.

I am not sure what it would take to be considered objective by you. 

I was talking earlier about a show on Discovery Channel.  It is called "Dirty Jobs."  Someone said you can't get Discovery over there and maybe that is true.  But here, if you have satellite, you can get like 3 million channels from all over the world.  Okay, maybe not quite that many, but a lot.  Anyway, in the rendering plant episode, which featured a rendering plant in the US, the guy who ran the plant said there are two major industries that buy their rendered product.  Those industries were pet food and fertilizer companies.

While I don't recall any mention of companion animals in that show, they did pick up road kill and livestock that had died on the farm or arrived dead at feed yards and slaughtering plants.  The plant rendered these products, which removes the moisture, then sold it, as I mentioned in the above paragraph.

I am not saying that there is anything fundamentally wrong with using products like this in pet food.  I just don't know.  However, I would prefer to feed my dog food comprised of ingredients that is human quality.

>This is an American site,but dont be fooled into believing that stuff like this doesnt happen all over the world,there are always ways and means around laws!<

Hailey, here in the UK dead pets often go into landfill and most local authorities and vets have contracts with either the pet crematoria or landfill sites. As there is an exemption on waste disposal tax for pet crematoria and the actual dosposal facilities are often located on land not valuable for anything else (i.e. cheap to buy), it's more cost effective to dispose of them that way than shove them back into dog food.

As previously stated, the laws in the UK are much stricter than the USA, mainly due to the trouble we've had with BSE. And there's always been the old chestnut that better quality ingredients go into dog food than baby food as the standsrds are more strict!

So best thing to do if you feed complete/tinned and anybody is worried is buy dog food manufactured in the UK and check the labels scrupulously. I always steer clear of anything that says 'derivatives' as god only knows what's in it. At least if it says lamb or chicken, you know what the protein source is.

>>That's because you've never seen my dogs choosing to snap off and eat ears of ripening wheat, and chewing on corncobs. Have you never let yours try?

As someone pointed out to me in a PM, some dogs will eat poop too.  :-)

Of course, the fact that dogs naturally eat poo is one of the reasons they were domesticated in the first place - they cleaned up the human settlement! :) If other dogs have a diet that's so high in nutrients that the excess is excreted, it would be a foolish scavenger (one that nature would destine for extinction) that didn't make use of it.

>>Of course, the fact that dogs naturally eat poo is one of the reasons they were domesticated in the first place - they cleaned up the human settlement!

LOL.  Maybe I outta get a few more dogs to clean up my settlement.

Reckon a possibility why some dogs still eat poop is because they are fed food like Pedigree or Purina?  :-)

>>>Of course, the fact that dogs naturally eat poo is one of the reasons they were domesticated in the first place - they cleaned up the human settlement!<<<

>LOL.  Maybe I outta get a few more dogs to clean up my settlement. Reckon a possibility why some dogs still eat poop is because they are fed food like Pedigree or Purina?  :-)<

Actually it's true and in some primitive societies to this day, dogs are used as an alternative to baby wipes and disposable nappies! I saw it on the Discovery Channel where a woman (I think it was a tribe in the Congo) called a dog over to her baby and he cleaned the baby up thoroughly with his tongue. Now I doubt that dog knew anything about any brand of commercial dog food.

>> Now I doubt that dog knew anything about any brand of commercial dog food

I think you're right.  IMO there is too much fuss being made about pet food generally.  There is a choice take what suits, as long as the dog is generally happy and healthy I think more effort should be in addressing the puppy farming industry that is doing more harm to the dog population in general.

I came to the conclusion that too much fuss is being made of the content of food when I was watching my dog this afternoon jumping from one muddy puddle to another (and I mean thick mud puddles on football pitches) and taking great delight in drinking quite a lot of it.  She's ignored her water bowl all day!

>>I think more effort should be in addressing the puppy farming industry that is doing more harm to the dog population in general

Talk about your apples and oranges.  :-)  And I won't even ask you to qualify that statement.  Am I a peach or what?

You're right actually, very naughty of me to switch the topic. It wasn't deliberate, it was just watching my dog drink dirty water in the park that I thought, what's the point of worrying too much about food content?  So long as she is getting the nutrients she needs surely her system will deal with the rest as it needs to.  It's only when the grotty stuff has a negative affect that I would need to re-consider the situation, which is what I did anyway and what other people do as well.

I looked up corn gluten meal.  It is a by-product resulting from a wet milling process from which they derive corn syrup and corn starch.  It has little, if any, nutritional value.  So in Pedigree, we have 2 by-products listed in the main ingredients.  It must cost them about 50 cents to produce a 40lb bag of this crap food.