The article was from 2006, so I think there are probably some additional research studies that have been done on raw since then. I read until I got to a part that this biologist said that 'chicken meal.......means the breast has been taken out for human consumption and the rest goes into dog food'. IMO that statement is not only inaccurate, it makes the man sound like a fool. He also said that it's more ideal to have 'whole chicken' as the first ingredient. Umm........no - a meal will already have the water removed and will stay as the first ingredient during processing, a wet meat will lose alot of it's weight during processing and will drop to 3rd or 4th on the ingredient list. IMO any of his students should really be questioning anything he teaches them - which is maybe why he's not on the University website anymore. I don't feed raw, but just reading that far through the article was enough for me to decide that this is one person's opinion that I don't think holds any water.
Livin in a Newfie Drool Zone