Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
34thgiraffe
· 9 years ago
· FIRST
They might have USED every part of a buffalo, but they didn't EAT every part of a buffalo.
31
harmonywho
· 9 years ago
I'm actually curious about why people get so upset about meat biproduct tbh... It's just everything else after the meat is stripped off. The cleaned and processed organs of the animal, the blood (I do agree that that should be left out, there's no nutritional value), the bones. I mean, dogs at least eat bones anyways. Why can't it be processed and made safe to be consumed by them?
6
guest
· 9 years ago
But blood has iron.........mmmm iron.............
2
harmonywho
· 9 years ago
So do livers
1
Show All
guest
· 9 years ago
Considering there were no domesticated dogs in America in the Time of the Native Americans, the only "dogs" were wild. They would use the bones for crude tools and utensils.
▼
harmonywho
· 9 years ago
Okay well we're talking about now, not then. My comment was based on COMPANIES using the rest of what's left over for pet food. I know very well that Native Americans used everything as well as they could for themselves.
4
deleted
· 9 years ago
I use bones to make bone broth. Good source of calcium, phosphorus, and other trace minerals. I like having the whole animal or as much as I can. More varied nutrients that way.
3
harmonywho
· 9 years ago
Why not give our pets that stuff then? If it's just going to go to waste otherwise (on an industrial level), then it's okay. I just don't get why people are so against things like chicken biproduct meal.
·
Edited 9 years ago
chu
· 9 years ago
i thought blood was rather nutritious...
▼
guest
· 9 years ago
It is actually not true that they used every part of the animal. Ever hear the stories or them running herds of buffalo off of cliffs? They took the choicest cuts of meat and left the rest.
1
