All you have to do is cook the pork then you can feed it to your dogs that simple just make sure you take out all the bones, it aint rocket science lol.
All you have to do is cook the pork then you can feed it to your dogs that simple just make sure you take out all the bones, it aint rocket science lol.
it already is poor quality meat, imagine the quality fter cooking it
WordOriginally Posted by R2L
Poor quality meat? Maybe yawl jewish, muslim or something? LOL
I threw out the pork earlier today as I mentioned I would. I just want to know if ya'll think the other meat maybe contaminated by being in the container with the pork while still at the store.
No, I just have actually read the nutrition profile comparisons, so I am informed not ignorant.
Jack
Informed by Google?
So are you saying pork meat can't compare to chicken necks, backs, gizzards, livers and hearts?
FYI, Google doesn't "inform," it is merely a search engine that (yes) can lead a person to be informed in a variety of ways by a variety of means.
You might want to try it sometime.
Yes, that is pretty much exactly what I am saying. Have you always been this quick, or does it usually take a thing to be said 3x before you get it?
One thing I would like to point out, however, is your automatic default to chicken backs/necks is not something I would do either, as these are sucky compared to other parts of the chicken. I feed leg quarters.
If you ever care to use the tool of Google, or read any books on nutrition, you too will find pork to be on the low-end of the totem pole, nutritionally, as far as meats go.
Jack
Naw Jack , you can stick to your internet info , I prefer to get mine through actual experiences.
Do not know for sure, but since it can contaminate a living organism, why dead flesh should not fall in the same category?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote