My apologies, but this isn't the first time we have disagreed on the accuracy of the US nutrition database...usually with the same outcome.
-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
I Need A Recipe Alteration
- Thread starter lalagimp
- Start Date
I have never made any claim about the accuracy of the usda database in this thread or any other. I have only made factual statements about what it is and about how it can be helpful when formulating our home-made diets. Why you take offense at that is something I find difficult to understand.My apologies, but this isn't the first time we have disagreed on the accuracy of the US nutrition database...usually with the same outcome.
So anyway, back to the main topic....
lalagimp
...do you have enough info to decide what number you want to assign to bone ratio on necks and do you want/need further assistance with calculations? As mentioned, you can probably safely use either number or an average and have your final mix well within a healthy range for calcium content.
lalagimp
...do you have enough info to decide what number you want to assign to bone ratio on necks and do you want/need further assistance with calculations? As mentioned, you can probably safely use either number or an average and have your final mix well within a healthy range for calcium content.
Tracy at HT has gotten back to me. She acknowledges that the meat and bone percentages on their skinless chicken necks web page is in error and that it should show the necks being 41% meat and 59% bone rather than the 64% meat and %36 bone currently shown.
She said she would correct the web page.
She said she would correct the web page.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
For those interested, Hare Today web page for chicken necks has been corrected:
Product | Hare Today, Gone Tomorrow
Product | Hare Today, Gone Tomorrow
Yay! You could get a temporary gig as Raw Bone Content Ninja Warrior Consulting Company. Offer a fee-based service to audit and change numbers to the government data. 
Before looking at Tracy's site yesterday, I pulled the data off this site (which matches HT's previous numbers). There could be a lot of work out there for you.
https://perfectlyrawsome.com/raw-fe...-bone-guide/bone-percentages-in-cuts-of-meat/
Before looking at Tracy's site yesterday, I pulled the data off this site (which matches HT's previous numbers). There could be a lot of work out there for you.
https://perfectlyrawsome.com/raw-fe...-bone-guide/bone-percentages-in-cuts-of-meat/
The error wasn't in the USDA data. The error was Tracy using the wrong USDA database entry.
Certainly, if everyone uses the same number, even if it's wrong, everyone would get consistent results. In analytics, consistency in using the same base data is more important than the accuracy of that data.
You may think it doesn't matter that someone may unintentionally feed their pet a diet far higher in bone than intended but I assure you anyone who has ever had to deal with a constipated cat feels otherwise.
Anyway, what on earth is your problem with me pointing out that incorrect information was posted at Hare Today and in getting that information corrected? I assure you Tracy was quite appreciative of my pointing out the error. Why would you have a problem with it?
Anyway, what on earth is your problem with me pointing out that incorrect information was posted at Hare Today and in getting that information corrected? I assure you Tracy was quite appreciative of my pointing out the error. Why would you have a problem with it?
I have no problem with you asking her to change the data. In fact, I thought it was a good consulting business idea for you to "tidy up" data out there and get everyone using the same data, whether the data is exactly accurate or not.
If 36% is too low and 59% is too high, but everyone uses one or the other wrong numbers consistently, then at some point the general recipe gets tweaked from 10% bone target to a higher or lower number...so that the majority of cats have perfect poops! Plus, most people will naturally add or subtract bone content from their batches after seeing if the ratio they use is working for their cat(s).
If 36% is too low and 59% is too high, but everyone uses one or the other wrong numbers consistently, then at some point the general recipe gets tweaked from 10% bone target to a higher or lower number...so that the majority of cats have perfect poops! Plus, most people will naturally add or subtract bone content from their batches after seeing if the ratio they use is working for their cat(s).
What utter nonsense. I DID NOT ask her to change the data. I asked her where the data came from. She replied with a link to the USDA database entry for skin on chicken neck. I pointed out that the entry was for skin on necks and asked her if her product wasn't for skinless necks and provided a link to the USDA entry for skinless necks. It was purely her decision to modify the data she shows for her product. How you can imagine that I would have any influence over her decision making is ludicrous.
I'm done humoring your nonsense.
I've been getting a lot of questions with regards to the information in this thread. I hope this clarifies things:
Prior to 8/19 the Hare Today web site listed their skinless chicken necks as being 64% meat and 36% bone. Tracy (owner of Hare Today) said that her values were from the USDA Food Nutrient database. I pointed out that the values on the web site were actually inconsistent with the USDA database. She investigated, discovered that she had used the incorrect entry from the database and updated her web page to reflect the actual values from the database. That is that a skinless chicken neck is 59% bone and 41% meat.
For anyone interested in using the data source mentioned below:
If anyone still has questions feel free to pm or email me.
Prior to 8/19 the Hare Today web site listed their skinless chicken necks as being 64% meat and 36% bone. Tracy (owner of Hare Today) said that her values were from the USDA Food Nutrient database. I pointed out that the values on the web site were actually inconsistent with the USDA database. She investigated, discovered that she had used the incorrect entry from the database and updated her web page to reflect the actual values from the database. That is that a skinless chicken neck is 59% bone and 41% meat.
For anyone interested in using the data source mentioned below:
... I contacted the web site owner, Ronny Lejeune and he said he also uses the USDA Food Nutrient database for the data shown on his web site. I pointed out that the bone percentage values he lists for chicken necks, both skin on and skinless, are inconsistent with what is in the database. It has been several days and I haven't heard back from him. I'll post again if he does respond.
If anyone still has questions feel free to pm or email me.
Nice work!
I've had several email exchanges with Ronny (who, btw, is a she and not a he). I have not been able to make her understand why the data she has posted for skinless chicken necks is inconsistent with the USDA database which is where she says she got the data.
Currently her web site shows both a skin-on and a skinless chicken neck as being 36% bone which I think even the most pugnacious individual would have a hard time arguing makes sense.
Currently her web site shows both a skin-on and a skinless chicken neck as being 36% bone which I think even the most pugnacious individual would have a hard time arguing makes sense.
