I saw where you mentioned the pink slime in hamburger. I had no problem with beef like of roast or the steak. Every time I tried ground chuck it would make me sick. A friend told me about a store that had really good meat. So I went there and bought some ground chuck. It did not make me sick. That was when I found out the store I was buying my ground beef from use the pink slime. The one my friend recommended does not use the pink slime in their ground beef. I also found out that some places use that same pink slime in their chicken nuggets. That is probably the reason I had problems when I ate chicken nuggets to.
We have so many additives in our food nowadays that it's hard to avoid them.
Mary Rue
--- In boxerlovers@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Wiser <lawiser@...> wrote:
>
> First off, think in human terms. Do you stay healthier and well fed
> eating junk or well planned meals?
>
> The cheaper dog foods use CHEAP ingredients ... and things that might
> "fill" up the belly, but not help the dog. For example. I feed raw beef.
> Have to because of my dog's allergies (Read pretty much any dog food
> label ... she's allergic to something in it). Sounds expensive? Well,
> no. I have a butcher nearby that does local beef and takes the "scraps"
> that aren't "People Food" packages it and sells it for "animal food"
> (remember the "pink slime" story with hamburger -- that's what I'm
> getting prior to being "slimed" and the chemcials added -- it's meat,
> organ, stomach, esophagus, bone, etc) -- .89/lb and she get 24-25 oz
> (yes oz) / day. That's determined by weight. When she was eating
> processed dog food, I still fed the likes of Blue Buffalo. With our
> first boxer (talking 1957 here) she was fed Purina -- that was, then,
> one of the "best" dog foods available.
>
> So now let's compare "poops" (get used to it -- dog people are "poop
> attentive" because it tells us a lot about our dogs). Purina through a
> boxer? Poops the size of a large grapefruit / small canteloupe. With the
> better foods (Eukanuba, back when it was The Good Stuff or Blue
> Buffalo), poop less than half that. Feeding Raw? Maybe, at most 1/2 c
> total. What's the difference? The "filler" the dog doesn't use, that
> goes through them and comes out the other end and is wasted but you paid
> however much per pound for. So, yes, better foods means more "bang for
> the buck" as far as eating.
>
> Next -- let's go health. On Blue Buffalo my dogs were very healthy. More
> health means less vet $$. Oh, I've had some humdingers of vet bills for
> select dogs, but that was not necessarily food related (in fact, I lost
> a young male a year ago that I got an additional year with because he
> was eating the raw diet ... processed food, even top of the line, wasn't
> keeping him strong enough to fight the chronic colitis he had).
>
> So -- is more expensive better? Yeah. The FOOD is more expensive, the
> long term affects makes it less expensive. Good factoid in no matter
> what you look at: CHEAP is always more expensive in the long run.
>
> LisaW
> Alice Miller wrote:
> >
> > She is feeding Nutro Natural Choice Lamb and Rice Puppy Large Breed,
> > which is very expensive. I like the lamb, our Bishon really likes the
> > lamb in Purina One Lamb and Rice formula. This is going to sound like
> > a silly question, but I don't do a lot of switching with dog food, and
> > haven't fed the very expensvie food to my dogs. Does higher quaility
> > food mean they are more easily satisfied and eat less? I don't feed
> > dog chow, ol'roy or store brands, but use Purina One, and Purina Pedigree.
> >
> > --
> >
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (16) |
0 comments:
Post a Comment