The only detail needed is that the ingredient description (AAFCO 2016 pg 210) for any one of the terms in the ingredient list is too vague to be certain of the nutritional value for 2 reasons:
1. The "terms" used in the ingredient list although ‘defined’ are of little to no value to anyone. They are defined for the player in the industry – not veterinarians, nutritionists or pet owners.
Example of the nasty terms rating web sites like to pick on: "by-products" (vegetable or animal type).
First, the definition of any “by-product" is simply the second product resulting after some processing of the primary intended product. If corn meal is the primary intended product, then the oil removed is a by-product and vice versa. It means nothing more than that.
Organ meats (kidney, livers, etc) are by-products of animal processing because the muscle meat was the first intended product. A pet food manufacturer could list "meat by-products" if the ingredient came as a mix of organ meats, or they could list the organs individually (liver, kidney, hearts, etc) on the label.
AAFCO definitions (paraphrased): rendered = cooked; non rendered = raw
‘Meat’: the clean flesh derived from the slaughtered mammals and limited to skeletal muscle, tongue diaphragm, heart, or esophagus with fat, skin, sinew, nerve and blood vessels. AAFCO 2016 pg 375.
‘Meat by-products’: non-rendered clean parts other than meat derived from the slaughtered mammals. May include lungs, spleen, kidney brain, liver, blood, stomach or intestines (excluding the contents of the stomach or intestine). This definitions goes on to specifically exclude hair, horns, teeth and hoof. AAFCO 2016 pg 375.
Now people think they know what ‘meat’ is and do not think twice about eating it themselves when served up in a restaurant but do not realize that in pet food term ‘meat’ includes tongue, esophagus etc and probably would think twice before they themselves eat a hamburger made of what AAFCO has defined as ‘meat’ although still nutritious.
The term ‘meat’ is for mammals so there are similar definitions for ‘poultry’. Another definition that people are unaware of is that “meat” can only be from beef, pig, lamb or goat. So there is no room for the exaggerated claim about horses, zoo, birds, wildlife, or game animals, etc in the meat definition. No dogs or cats either - The FDA developed a canine and feline DNA test and then tested pet foods and found no evidence of dog or cat DNA in any pet food products. So
‘Meat and bone meal’ is a cooked product of mammals that includes bone but cannot include blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide, manure, stomach contents or added extraneous materials (such as what some have claimed, i.e., floor sweepings or saw dust). AAFCO 2016 pg 377.
‘Meal’ is simply the ground product after the water has been removed by cooking. Water has no nutrient value, expensive to ship and can always be added back. So those who are anti-meal are simply not thinking.
There are additional calcium and phosphorous content specification on this particular ingredient so the pet food manufacturer using this ingredient can gage the amount of bone included. Some want high bone content to help with the final calcium and phosphorous content of their pet food, some do not because the calcium and phosphorous is coming from a different ingredient. There is no right or wrong here … it depends on pet food formulation desired and the other ingredients being used such that the FINAL nutrient profile meets AAFCO nutrient recommendations.
And here is what’s worth talking about and what does separate the good from the ugly……..
It is entirely the responsibility of the manufacturer to test each ingredient for nutrient value and a list of known contaminants before accepting and using that ingredient in their pet food product. The better manufacturers have very specific contracts with ingredient vendors which outlines the nutrient profile, and double check the ingredient nutrient profile in their own labs before using that ingredient. So when I see specific pet food manufacturers on the FDA recall list repeatedly for things that should have been discovered at the point plant delivery and before incorporation into their product ( such as aflatoxin or most recently …. pentobarbital) speak volumes to me about their quality control (QC).
Ingredient lists are virtually meaningless in evaluating a pet food but the reason why certain manufacturers come up on the FDA Pet Food Recall list speaks loudly about QC. The nutrient profile of an INDIVIDUAL ingredient is worthless to the pet owner and nutritionist because the nutrient profile of FINAL pet product is controlled, stated on the label and usually available upon request.
2. If not defined specifically, then a common or usual name can be used. AAFCO 2016 pg 210.
Many pet food manufacturer are using this 2nd 'escape' clause to attract pet owner as when they list individual fruits, e.g. apples. No doubt a common name and we all think we know what an apple is but there is NO way to known what parts of the ‘apple’ was used in the pet food: whole, skins, core, pomace, stems, pieces a by-product of making apple pies, etc are actually used in the food. Yes manufactures may have a picture of a wholesome looking shiny red apple on their website but there is no way to know if that accurately represents the ingredient used in the product – not without going to the plant to see for yourself.
If the definitions were tight with specific nutrient profiles we would all be happier but that is simply not plausible. The people rating pet foods based on the label simply are ‘rendering’ opinions without a full education on the subject – dangerous but allowable somehow on the web. Majority of those self-anointed pet food gurus have never been in any manufacturing plant, never worked for a manufacturer or been an ingredient vendor to know firsthand of what they speak. Then most website simply copy the rhetoric on another. So now we a whole slew of website repeating the same bunk in a never ending circle - absent of any reality check or first hand knowledge. Then pet owners visit these multiple “cut and paste made” web sites thinking they are all separate independent first-hand knowing web sites, and then the pet owner thinks they themselves have done “research” on the topic of pet foods – having read not one primary source of information. The whole thing is a house of cards…..
Very few people are given pet food manufacturing tours, veterinary nutritionist are among that select group (myself included), and notice how those individuals do not ‘rate’ pet foods. In fact most will tell you, the ingredient list is of very limited value to them in making pet food recommendations. Why?
Because in the end, any one ingredient, no matter how defined, does vary widely in nutrient content. The definitions are much too vague to "rate" any one ingredient and so no one can rate the entire ingredient list and say that it represents the entire pet food product. IF the information in the building blocks is vague and lacks detail, how can that poor quality information suddenly become a fine tuned instrument for “rating” the whole pet food product? It can’t and truth is it was NEVER intended by AAFCO that the ingredient list could be used to ‘rate’ pet foods. It is a very poor tool. The whole rating game online and in pet journals has no true value to the individual pet owner trying to do best by their dog or cat.