This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is EXTREMELY biased and reads like an argumentative essay or an opinion column. Example:
"Now there are those people out there who simply refuse to believe a pet food company would use manure in their pet's foods. Let me ask you to think on this issue for just a minute and then see what you decide. Let's take a person, for instance, when a person begins the "digestion" process food is placed in the mouth for chewing. Digestion continues as the food passes to the stomach and is broken down to pass into the intestines for further digestion. Digestion is complete once the person has had a bowl movement and fully evacuated the food from the human body. Why would obtaining animal digest be any different from human digest?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.183.14 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that animal digest often contains carcasses from euthenized pets, which of course would include the drugs used to kill them. I'd like to know how accurate this is. 71.219.190.5623:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little perturbed about this being in my cat's food myself, but something we should probably keep in mind is this-- the article says that euthanized pets can be included, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are included. They aren't listed as a necessary ingredient, without which, an animal digest-like substance becomes something else. Simply enough, the definition is so broad, that if a manufacturer of the material chose to include such carcasses, they could. Just the same, fresh meat from a healthy deer could be included, were it convenient. One way or another, any pet food that includes the stuff is not going to be most nutritious option. What it really comes down to, is that if you aren't willing to pay the extra premium for pet food that isn't likely to include the dogs and cats that nobody wanted, then you need to come to peace with the presence of this stuff if the food. VanGarrett (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to feed thier pets this. Why would you not want to feed them food that is made for consumption. I would not feel comfortable eating my fellow mans digest. Then alot of pet foods have corn in them too. No one can digest corn, this is only used as a filler. No wonder our pets have a short lifespan. I have switched my pets to natural foods now. If it does not sound edible, then it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.56.5 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To really consider animal digest you have to understand that animal digest is natural flavour. This definition is found in another article in Wikipedia titled "Natural flavors" which lays out pretty well how this is true. Animal byproducts, bone, mechanically separated tissue, blood, ofal, and the like, from any specie in a world wide context, but limited to domesticated species excluding dogs, cats, pet snakes and the like, euthanized animals of any sort (they are poisonous) any poisoned animals, rats and other vermin, in the Commonwealth, EU, US, and most South American nations. These materials are chemically (Hydrolysis)and enzymatically disassembled to the basic proteins, their salts, esters, flavinoids, and other compounds which can be reassembled to add, improve, enhance the flavours which are already present. Sometimes to make a product like pet food smell nicer to the human serving it though not necessarily more flavourful to the pet. This is a multibillion dollar industry that has to hide its good taste because it seems, as above, "GROSS". J. Barbara Gershom, BSME, MSFS, PhD For more info goto www.fsis.usda/help/faqsJeaninegershom (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[1][reply]
As wikipedians, our job is stay neutral. Animal digest is what it is. Whether we like animal digest or not, whether we feed it to our pets or not, our job is not to convince people that it is bad, but to explain what it is. We need to stick to our guns and just report the facts. I may think the idea of animal digest sounds gross, but my opinion of what gross is counts, by Wikipedia standards, as original research.
OnTheMountainTop (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
