Quote:
Originally Posted by dottiesyrky  For the pet owner layman I believe that the qualitative facts given in the article are useful and alarming. Making all the excuses as to why the data should be rejected seems unfair too me. Is it not rather negative to go to all these lengths to disparage the results? If the DNA were degraded during processing for chicken, why not for pork? I would think that DNA would degrade similarly in most animal meat processing. Perhaps ANYTHING written by this author is by definition suspect and has to be disproven? I find that hard to do, if that is your opinion and advice. |
I actually stated that the facts of the article ARE useful and alarming. The only flaws in the article are for when they say a protein source is NOT present in the food. I agree with the article that when they find a protein that is not supposed to be there. And that's a problem for dogs with allergies. I am NOT making excuses for rejecting all of the data, I'm just saying that the comments about Hill's are flawed.
Why might DNA be degraded for one ingredient and not for another? (1) I didn't say it WAS, I said it was a possibility. (2) It could easily happen if the different protein sources are processed in different ways. For instance, a higher cooking temperature, or the age of the meat that is used. Not all of the meat sources were necessarily cooked on the same day or in the same manner, or slaughtered on the same day.
Personally, I'm tired of people attacking ME due to misunderstandings. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask me for a clarification, or don't comment, but DON'T attack me.