I stumbled onto this link and thought it was a good read. I am naturally distrustful of 'animal rights' orginizations, so please help me varify if this information can be trusted.

Thanks.
http://www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=79

As with most, bits of truth - but mainly crap.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Chad Stahl:
but mainly crap.

Yeah, I think most of us know that petfood is mainly crap or something equivalent. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Chad,

What exactly do you take exception to?

I did not take time to read through all of it, several points are presented in misleading ways. For example the statement that we do not know the true bioavailability of proteins from by-products do to batch to batch variation. While that is a true statement, we wouldn't know the true bioavailability of chicken breast meet from one animal to the next. There is always variation, and it would be impractical to conduct animal bioavailability studies on every batch, and doing so would mean very little since the animal to animal variation in the test subjects vs our pets is also very high. I am always extra suspicious of any animal rights group that thinks that the pet food industry is not doing enough animal testing.
Also, rendered fat products are not rancid, and Extrussion can improve the bioavailability of many nutrients.
If people are truely interested in animal nutrition, pick up a text book on nutrional biochemistry and then one on animal nutrition (not one recommending a certain type of diet). After reading through those you should be able to see most of the flaws in some of these groups arguements.