register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
MarchHound
Dogsey Veteran
MarchHound is offline  
Location: Cheltenham, UK.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,887
Female 
 
08-11-2011, 10:12 PM
Originally Posted by SLB View Post
Pssst - Heart is a muscle - not classed as Offal!
I know, but some people say offal is anything inside the body ^shrugs shoulders^ Doesnt make much difference to me Jin gets heart/liver/tripe/fish at least once a week.
Reply With Quote
smokeybear
Dogsey Veteran
smokeybear is offline  
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 12:34 AM
Of course it is offal, the two are not mutually exclusive, the fact that anything from the INSIDE of the animal is OFFAL does not preclude it from being a muscle.
Reply With Quote
SLB
Dogsey Veteran
SLB is offline  
Location: Nottingham, UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,540
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 07:14 AM
Originally Posted by smokeybear View Post
Of course it is offal, the two are not mutually exclusive, the fact that anything from the INSIDE of the animal is OFFAL does not preclude it from being a muscle.
But everything I have read says that it may be from inside the animal but it is more Meat than it is Offal.. unless all my research has been wrong...

Found what I was getting at and what I meant in the first place ( - go to bed earlier!)

Originally posted by MoonsMum:
as heart is an organ it's technically offal. However you count it as part of the muscle meat ration, not the 10% offal for prey model. Same as tripe, technically offal, but considered muscle meat for prey model ratios
Reply With Quote
smokeybear
Dogsey Veteran
smokeybear is offline  
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 07:40 AM
Originally Posted by SLB View Post
But everything I have read says that it may be from inside the animal but it is more Meat than it is Offal.. unless all my research has been wrong...

Found what I was getting at and what I meant in the first place ( - go to bed earlier!)
The word "offal" refers to ANY of the INTERNAL organs of an animal.

Whether those organs are muscle or not is immaterial.

I think the problem is that people really do not understand the actual MEANING of words.

If I go to a butcher I know he sells "meat" is that term refers to ANY of the flesh of ANY animal.

Lamb, Pork, Beef is the TYPE of meat.

Leg, shoulder is the PART of the meat.

If I give my dog a leg of lamb it is a RMB WITH the bone, but only muscle meat WITHOUT the bone.



Lamb Heart is an organ.

It is a muscle - because it pumps blood round the body

It is offal - because it comes from the interior of the sheep

It is meat - because it is animal flesh

It is lamb - because it comes from the sheep

None of the above descriptions are incorrect.
Reply With Quote
SLB
Dogsey Veteran
SLB is offline  
Location: Nottingham, UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,540
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 07:51 AM
True - but the quote I put in was what I was getting at.. you don't feed it as Offal in the ratios..
Reply With Quote
smokeybear
Dogsey Veteran
smokeybear is offline  
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 07:57 AM
Yeah, I am not that scientific I am afraid, it is all meat to my dogs, I am sure I am doing it completely wrong.......................................
Reply With Quote
krlyr
Dogsey Veteran
krlyr is offline  
Location: Surrey
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,420
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by SLB View Post
But everything I have read says that it may be from inside the animal but it is more Meat than it is Offal.. unless all my research has been wrong...

Found what I was getting at and what I meant in the first place ( - go to bed earlier!)
I think the wording is what's confusing matters - in your quote Amanda words it the same way I would. For raw feeding purposes, many people treat heart as muscle meat but like SB says, technically it is offal.

It's like me..running a drama class for example, and saying "For the purposes of this lesson, my name is Ethel and I'm a 90 year old woman". That doesn't mean I AM called Ethel and am 90 years old but in a certain context I am saying act as if I am. So for the purposes of raw feeding, heart is considered muscle to many people, even if it really is offal. Or muscle. Or meat. but the statement "heart is not offal" would be deemed incorrect.
Reply With Quote
lozzibear
Dogsey Veteran
lozzibear is offline  
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
Female 
 
09-11-2011, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by SLB View Post
But everything I have read says that it may be from inside the animal but it is more Meat than it is Offal.. unless all my research has been wrong...

Found what I was getting at and what I meant in the first place ( - go to bed earlier!)
I think that is where people can get confused when raw feeding. I know that heart is technically offal, but I don't think of it as being offal, coz for feeding Jake, it isn't.

I think people, especially those starting out, need to know that for raw feeding it is a muscle... It could easily lead to dogs being under fed offal like liver and kidney etc, coz people think they are covering the offal by feeding heart.

I have never considered heart as offal when it comes to raw feeding.

Also, your first post on this issue was 'Pssst - Heart is a muscle - not classed as Offal!'... so, you didn't say it wasn't offal... you said it isn't 'classed' as offal... very different! Some people can come across so rude (Not you SLB!)
Reply With Quote
sandymere
Dogsey Junior
sandymere is offline  
Location: Devon, UK
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 93
Male 
 
28-11-2011, 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by rueben View Post
Just another point on the view that raw feeding is best. Once food has been cooked the chemical stucture is altered and enzymes are damaged making it harder to digest.A dog that is allergic to a food in cooked or processed form may be able to tolerate the same food in it's natural raw state.
I have reviewed the claimed benefits of raw pet diets previously, as well as the potential risks of these diets (1,2,3). The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence that these diets have any health benefits or that they are safer or more nutritious than conventional commercial diets or properly formulated cooked homemade diets. Given they have small but clear risks, there is reason to avoid them. There is now a small bit of additional evidence arguing that, in fact, the nutritional value of cooked meat is actually greater than that of raw meat.

Carmody, RN. Weintraub GS. Wrangham, RW. Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011 [EPub ahead of print)

One of the authors, Richard Wrangham, is an ecologist who has studied the impact of food on the evolution of humans and other primate species. Last year, in his book Catching Fire: How cooking made us human, Dr. Wrangham presented the thesis that a key event in human evolution, the rapid development of a large brain, was made possible by the discovery of cooking, which not only made food safer by destroying parasites and infectious microorganisms, but also increased the energy available in the food. He was able to cite extensive evidence that the difficulty finding adequate calories is a key constraint on the health and reproduction of animals in the wild, including early humans, and that cooking made dramatically more energy available from plant foods. As the authors of the current study put it, “Energy availability is a routine constraint on metabolic processes, including growth, disease suppression, and reproduction, and therefore, it is a key variable for human nutrition and evolutionary fitness.’ The same is, of course, also true for other animals.

In his book, Dr. Wrangham was also able to report studies showing that modern humans relying on exclusively raw foods, for ideological reasons, are chronically undernourished as a result. A missing piece in his argument for the value of cooking, however, was evidence that cooking increases the caloric value of meat, which was suggested by a number of indirect studies but which hadn’t ever been clearly demonstrated. This new study supplies this missing piece.

The study compares the energy intake and weight gain of mice fed either sweet potato or beef. Different groups were fed these foods unprocessed, pounded but not cooked, cooked but not pounded, or pounded and cooked. The results for both sweet potato and beef showed that the mice gained more energy from the cooked foods than from raw or pounded foods, and that cooked foods were preferred.

Of course, dogs and cats are not mice, and they are not fed individual ingredient diets. The point of this study is not to evaluate the issue of the benefits and risks of raw pet diets, which is a much more complex subject. However, it does challenge one common claim made in support of raw diets, which is that raw foods have greater nutritive value. While cooking does reduce the levels of some nutrients, it makes others more available. One crucial nutritive component of food is the energy it provides, measured in calories. And this study demonstrates that the energetic value of both starches and meat are increased by cooking.

Since many of our pets are overweight, one could argue that we shouldn’t care about the greater calorie value of cooked foods since calories are not a limiting resource for domestic animals, as they are for wild animals. Clearly, we need to limit the caloric intake of our pets to maintain a healthy body condition. However, there is still no reason to think that raw diets are superior to cooked diets for this purpose, since the best way to ensure appropriate calorie intake in our pets is to feed them an appropriate quantity of nutritionally balanced food and monitor their body condition. The notion, often advanced by proponents of raw diets, that cooking is an entirely destructive process in nutritional terms is clearly not supported by this study, which reinforces the fact that cooking has been universally practiced by human populations for tens of thousands of years because it improves the nutritional value and safety of food.

(skeptvet.com)
Reply With Quote
Gnasher
Dogsey Veteran
Gnasher is offline  
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
Female 
 
28-11-2011, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by sandymere View Post
(skeptvet.com)
I would say this ... and this comes from an avid raw feeder, so obviously I am biased.

Homo sapiens is an omniverous species ... we have the specific teeth designed to eat vegetables, fruits, nuts, all plant matter raw or cooked - we have the grinding molars for such food. We also have the canine teeth at the front and the slightly sharper molars next to them for the tearing and cutting of meat (not so efficient as dogs, but we have them).

There is no doubt whatsoever that when homo sapiens discovered fire it was a huge leap for them, because cooked meat is much, much easier to eat, digest and to therefore obtain nutrition. Certain vegetables, such as potatoes, are virtually inedible raw, but on the whole we are able to eat and digest and benefit from a vast array of raw plant material, as well as cooked.

Dogs are primarily carniverous, with a very small herbivorous requirement. They have the teeth to eat and grind up raw plant material as well as bones, but their over-riding weaponry are their canine teeth and their razor sharp grinding canines, specifically designed to eat raw bones and raw meat, to grind raw meat and bones up sufficiently to enable digestion. Therefore it has to be nonsense to say that dogs will benefit from a diet of cooked meat over and above a raw diet.

There is nothing wrong per se with cooking meat (bones of course should not be cooked) for our dogs, but it is far, far better for a myriad of reasons to feed them their natural diet of raw meat and bones.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 5 of 12 « First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top