Skip to main content

No-Hide Rebuttal Brings More Questions

Related News


  1. Michelle

    You are grasping Susan.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      Grasping at what?

    2. T Allen

      Nope, she’s dead on and you are right to be concerned.

  2. JMC

    I assume Susan loves dogs. What would she gain by “grasping” at any product or at Earth Animal? what does she stand to gain? Is she marketing a competitive product? Or is she just looking for the truth? I for one am grateful for the work she does as it makes my life easier and my dogs life safer.

  3. Robin M.

    Michelle, are you working for No-Hide? I mean seriously, that’s the best comment you could sputter out when someone’s dog is SICK from a product that has now been PROVEN BEYOND A DOUBT to contain ingredients it SPECIFICALLY claims it doesn’t. It is irrelevant how big or how small those ingredients are, and when an unbiased researcher describes salmon as MAJORITY BEEF in a NO-BEEF product, I cannot believe anything else they are trying to claim. That piece looks exactly like hide, it tested as hide, my dog (Great Pyr) inhales things as big as he can swallow, so dime size glued to a hundred other dime sized is bite size stomach twist for a big dog and potential death for a tiny one. Grasping??? Yeah, grasping…..but certainly not Susan. No-Hide is grasping…..desperately.

  4. landsharkinnc

    and just where did ‘DR’ Bowser get his degree ?? Do you really think his name is ‘Bowser’ ???

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      That really is his name – and he’s with University of Oklahoma. The pet owner has spoken with him numerous times – and he never once disclosed he holds this patent.

    2. Robin M.


  5. FeedThemRAW

    Clearly you didn’t read the title of the graph you posted where it states this does not represent volume of weight of the species. So the graph is not quantitative as you suggest. Also, is that really a replica? It looks like you simply cut and pasted it. Also, I read your previous blogs today. Are you not stating who sent in the samples because you are working with other pet food companies?

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      I am not sharing who tested the product – no. I was asked not to. I don’t work for pet food companies – ever. I work for pet owners. The results were published on behalf of the pet owner in Georgia. Yep – the graph is a replica with the data from our results.
      The following statement appears above the graph on both our DNA analysis from Authen Technologies as well as Earth Animal’s analysis from Authen Technologies: “Species Identification Test Results. The Y-axis is the total number of sequences identified for each species; this value is not representative of weight or volume of the species. “Other” category (if applicable) represents sequences not specifically identified.” The exact same test performed at the exact same lab with two very different results.

  6. FeedThemRAW

    Did they state their information was quantitative? You clearly do above. Just saying it shows it’s there, right? Not how much. I just think you need to represent the data properly.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      Again – they stated the exact same thing stated on our results as well as Earth Animal’s.

  7. FeedThemRAW

    Then why do you state in bold letters multiple times above that the assay is quantitative. I just read their report and they state it is not quantitative. It just determines if the DNA is present or not. Usually, you are good about representing the data correctly and let the pet owner review. In this case I think you need to correct your statement.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      My point was that Dr. Yamka was dismissing our tests – when actually one of our tests was identical to theirs. That was the point. Perhaps it wasn’t stated clear – which I will edit now.

  8. paponypal

    I think it’s appalling. to infer Susan is on the side of the company, when she has fought vigorously to show both sides by being impartial. Should you truly believe this, perhaps this is not the forum for you. In this age of trash talk made easy I am glad we have a Susan. We need more honest folk like her. Especially when she advocates for our pets. She spends hours of her time to educate us.

  9. FeedThemRAW

    I reread it. He clearly states that the testing does not support the statement “majority is beef” since the test doesn’t support weight or volume. It only supports the presence of DNA not the amount of the protein source.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    2. Susan Thixton Author

      Our results from Authen Technologies state: “The sample was analyzed using a universal animal DNA test, which identified it as Bos taurus. DNA from other animal species was also detected in relatively low abundance.” This does support the statement the product is ‘majority beef’.

      1. FeedThemRAW

        Not true. The lab clearly states on their website, ” **Please note that this is not a quantitative test and is not representative of the weight or volume of each species in the starting material”.

        For your reference:

        1. Susan Thixton Author

          So you’re telling me the document I have in front of me I can’t read? I copied it word for word. You can keep the argument going if you like – but I have absolutely nothing to gain for making information up. Think about it – why are the results presented in a graph if they are not somewhat representative of species found – amount found? Why not just present the data like Eurofins? If the graph represents nothing – why did the lab include it?

  10. T Allen

    Rawhide swells. A meat protein “matrix” would not swell. Nice sleuthing Susan! DR Bowser’s reputation just took a hit and Dr Yakima appears to be a “hired gun”. Too bad. Obviously a relatively intelligent guy but appears to be lacking in common sense.

  11. T Allen

    I’m NOT impressed with Dr Bowser’s testing methodology. You can tell from the pics that the strips of No-Hide chew are still swollen strips after 8 hours and he should have used strips of rawhide dog bone cut to the same dimensions. Sloppy work, OK for in house testing but not OK for a court case.

  12. Dianne & Pets

    And this is one of the reasons people with seriously allergic dogs end up switching to raw and or home cooked.

  13. Mr. Smith

    People, and apparently Dr. Yamka, Need to Re-read the report by Dr. Kallenberger. He clearly stated the No-Hides arrived in a 2 pack sealed bag. He also noted Blood Vessel “PASSSAGES”, Flesh Residual (In leather world, flesh or fleshings refer to the fat tissue clinging onto the cattlehide closest to the internal animal). Dr. Kallenberger noted the FIBROUS structure of the sample and, what should put this entire thing to bed, he noted the CORIUM FIBERS.. Look it up Dr. Yamka…. Dr. Kallenberger also noted the Blood vessel “Passages” , flesh fibers, and Corium Fibers were all IN TACT and impossible to come from a composite material of ground collagen or a paste. Dr. Yamka also incorrectly stated that Dr. Kallenberger made his conclusion because it contained “Flesh(blood vessels)” and Collagen……. This is entirely NOT what Dr. Kallenberger stated. Again, RE-READ his report. I’m shocked someone with Dr. Yamka’s resume – including his time a product R&D Director for Blue Buffalo, or his time as R&D at Hill’s,, or his time in product development at Hartz (including rawhides) would misinterpret Dr. Kallenbereger’s report so blatantly and obviously. Dr. Yamka also stated that Dr. Kallenberger did not know the ingredients. How did he know if Dr. Kallenberger knew the ingredients? If he received the 2 chews in an unsealed package, surely Dr. Kallenberger could read the ingredients…….. I hope all those who continue to defend EA and blindly agree with the so-called lab report by Dr. Yamka can take the blinders off and use their critical thinking skills to piece this entire thing together… I also hope Dr. Bob Goldstien reads this post, and every FDA inspector looking into this obvious and ridiculous attempt to concoct a dubious story about rice flour and gelatin and meat being extruded (surprisingly very white in color…)…….

  14. Peter

    I commented on another essay on TAPF about why (aside from this subject) I am personally convinced EA is not trustworthy: it is based on information from a one-on-one conversation with a former employee. It’s fine for some to be defensive of a company that they might personally like, but I am frustrated by the lack of understanding of the issues here, especially about why this controversy (about ingredients) was brought to public light in the first place. Now, there seems to begin a determined effort to improperly re-focus public awareness. I am beginning to associate EA with the excesses of Evangers…

Leave a Reply