Interesting site:

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/

In article ,
wrote:
Interesting site:

Sure, if you're interested in the opinion of a random crank
with some odd biases who's reviewing feeds based on what's
printed on the bag rather than on how it actually performs
when fed. The site's main (only?) value seems to lie in its
publication of ingredient lists, guaranteed analyses, and
other stuff printed on feed bags.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Interesting site:

Sure, if you're interested in the opinion of a random crank
with some odd biases who's reviewing feeds based on what's
printed on the bag rather than on how it actually performs
when fed. The site's main (only?) value seems to lie in its
publication of ingredient lists, guaranteed analyses, and
other stuff printed on feed bags.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

It's unfortunate you did not take the time to review the site.

"A random crank" as you call it is Eurofins US laboratories.

When you say "Reviewing feeds based on what's printed on the bag" are you
referring to their statement that they provide "analytical services to the
highly specialized Pet Food industry for many years" with the capability to
perform Amino Acids Analysis, Fatty Acids Analysis, GMO Testing, Inorganic
assays, Lipid and Oil Testing, Tests for Meat Species identification &
contamination, Microbiology Testing, Mycotoxins Analysis, Tests For Sugar
And Starch, Vitamins?

There are some that would like to see if what is "printed on the feed bags"
is found to be true when analyzed by an independent lab. In the mean time
you are free to use your tried and true analysis of "how it actually
performs when fed" (whatever that means).

In article ,
wrote:
It's unfortunate you did not take the time to review the site.

I did review your site. I think some of your judgments
(blanket condemnation of corn, failing to discriminate
between different corn components, for example) are
ignorant, while others (automatically rating grain-free
feeds higher) are simply dubious. Your "reviews" are
valuable if 1) the reader shares precisely the same
idiosyncratic opinions as the "reviewers," and 2) the reader
doesn't think feeding trials matter. In that sense you
remind me of Hills employees.

"A random crank" as you call it is Eurofins US laboratories.

I'm No Mountain North American Laboratories. How do you do?
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
It's unfortunate you did not take the time to review the site.

I did review your site. I think some of your judgments
(blanket condemnation of corn, failing to discriminate
between different corn components, for example) are
ignorant, while others (automatically rating grain-free
feeds higher) are simply dubious.

Your "expert" opinions are noted. But I hope you understand I would prefer
to follow the findings of an independent lab than a "random crank."

In article ,
wrote:
Your "expert" opinions are noted. But I hope you understand I would prefer
to follow the findings of an independent lab than a "random crank."

I have a pretty good handle on why you're lying about your
relationship to the site, but I'm less clear on why you
appear to be lying about who's behind the site and who's
doing the evaluations. The ignorant stuff you're saying
about grains and the role of carbohydrates is, I think,
sufficient to suggest that you guys really don't know that
much about actual nutrition, but the fact that you're
asserting a relationship with a lab that doesn't seem to
acknowledge your existence, on the one hand, and that your
site doesn't seem to acknowledge, either, undermines your
credibility in general.

Here's what you say yourself about who's doing the
evaluations:

The ratings given and comments made about the foods
assessed on this site and ingredients listed are the
opinion of the Editors, who are a small team of
volunteers each with a long standing interest in dog
nutrition.
[ ... ]
DogFoodAnalysis is a part of BoxerWorld.com, one of the
largest and longest running dog forum communities on the
internet.

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/about.html
There's nothing in there about reviews done by a lab,
independent or otherwise.

And here's what the lab says about dogfoodanalysis.com:






--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Melinda Shore wrote:

DogFoodAnalysis is a part of BoxerWorld.com,

1. So that's what passes for an "independent lab"?
2. I wouldn't touch anything produced by BW with a barge pole, just
on principle.
3. Funny that they're accusing you of being a "random crank." I
guess they really know their cranks, eh?

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Your "expert" opinions are noted. But I hope you understand I would
prefer
to follow the findings of an independent lab than a "random crank."

I have a pretty good handle on why you're lying about your
relationship to the site, but I'm less clear on why you
appear to be lying about who's behind the site and who's
doing the evaluations.

They pay me 2.5 cents per post to promote it. I figure in about 35 years I
will be able to purchase a new lap top.

The ignorant stuff you're saying
about grains and the role of carbohydrates is, I think,

Please cite what I "said" about grains and the role of carbohydrates.

sufficient to suggest that you guys really don't know that
much about actual nutrition, but the fact that you're
asserting a relationship with a lab that doesn't seem to
acknowledge your existence,

LOL. This is quite the scenario you are creating. You should spend your
energy writing more fiction - preferably mystery stories.

on the one hand, and that your
site doesn't seem to acknowledge, either, undermines your
credibility in general.


You are indeed a crank. I will say it was fun playing with you but I think I
am "feeding the beast" and that is inhumane.

In article ,
Shelly wrote:
1. So that's what passes for an "independent lab"?

No, this guy asserted that the reviews were performed by
Eurofins Labs, which is a real lab that does actual chemical
analyses of pet foods looking for various toxins and
whatnot. However, dogfoodanalysis.com doesn't mention
Eurofins and Eurofins doesn't mention dogfoodanalysis.com,
and if you do a Google search for something describing a
relationship between the two you get ... nothing. Also, as
nearly I can tell Eurofins simply does not do subjective
evaluations of feeds. And as I pointed out,
dogfoodanalysis.com says that they've got volunteers
(volunteers who apparently aren't that interested in
nutrition) doing their reviews. So, I think this guy almost
certainly belongs to the Brotherhood of the Flaming Pants.

2. I wouldn't touch anything produced by BW with a barge pole, just
on principle.

I was wondering about that. Sometimes you find really great
information in some of those fora and sometimes, well, you
don't. I don't know enough about Boxer-land (that is to
say, I know nothing about Boxer-land) to know about Boxer-
specific venues.

3. Funny that they're accusing you of being a "random crank." I
guess they really know their cranks, eh?

I actually do regard myself as a random crank. I try to
look stuff up to keep the randomness under control.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Melinda Shore wrote:

No, this guy asserted that the reviews were performed by
Eurofins Labs,

Ah! I missed that part. I admit to a gnat-sized attention span, so
until BW was mentioned, I didn't pay much attention to the thread.

I was wondering about that. Sometimes you find really great
information in some of those fora and sometimes, well, you
don't.

I'd consider BW to be in the latter category, which is sad, because
it used to be a decent place to go for breed-specific information.
Even sadder is that there aren't any really good, thoughtful,
English-language, Boxer-specific fora.

I actually do regard myself as a random crank. I try to
look stuff up to keep the randomness under control.

Clearly, then, there are (at least) two sorts of cranks!

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)