Tanya Marquette wrote: i had
Not all. Wheat is inflammatory to dogs. A small amount of something like
rice bran is *necessary* to dogs as a pre-biotic to feed their gut
bacteria so that the bacteria can manufacture the butyrate, propionate
and acetate that we humans get via veg and fruit, but carnivores need
via gut bacteria. Of the 20 items researched to date - rice bran is the
most effective to feed canine gut bacteria.
(It's pricey compared with the junk fiber in most dog foods.)
There are no negative effects of dry food. Dogs drinkl water to hydrate
it. What matters is what the dry food is made of - not whether it is
dry. In fact dryu food is a lot better than any canned food as the
latter causes gingivitis - leads to swtomatitis etc. Dogs have no
mechanism to remove the goo formt heir teeth - and canned food for dogs
comes with gooey stuff that prevents nutrinet absorption in the gyt.
That's not in dry foods.
I recommend dry foods to my cat and dog owner clients (unless they make
the food, but most do not have time or inclination)) - but I am VERY
fussy what's in it - as far as that is possible with commercial food
that most clients need to use rather than making it.
Grains are the LEAST offensive aspect of commercial food as far as
inflammation goes:-)
The big no-nos are toxins to dogs like alfalfa, garlic, yucca, broccoli,
grapes, etc - and inflamamtory fats like canola, flax, etc.
The ingredients that DO belong in dog and cat food are well hidden in
scientific papers. It is "hidden" in a copyright set of books, hence not
on the usual PubMed database! Also the books have no index.....
But for those with the energy - the books of detailed research exist as
bound volumes of the International Feline and Canine nutrition symposia,
starting 1998. They are bound by Iams (a pet food company) whose food
looks terrible in the research they cleverly hide in the copyrighted
volumes with no index or search engine, off the internet:-)
I agree that a discussion on good food is part and parcel of *every* dog
or cat consult. I'm just concerned at how well the good information is
hidden. The so-called holistic diets are often the worst ones on the
market, due to toxins, as they have been designed to be healthy for
humans and with no regard for the dog or cat's inability to break down
many (most) plants properly into beneficial components.
I've spent 20 years doing research myself and I do not see that as a
MAJOR factor. Sure there are unscrupulous people in any orgqanisation
but scientific research is not a big money item for the scientist - and
the corruption is where the money is - in the drug/food corporations -
not with the scientists.
It's your assumption.
Usually the research organisation (university) wants to do specific
research and barters for money by offering to include research that
benefits a specific money-holder. They write up a "grant application"
that includes perhaps some expensive equipment they need, so that they
can use it for the research THEY want at the university (or for study or
training etc) - in return for ALSO doing research the company wants - to
get the financing.
The research facts so discovered are valid.
They are there to be read and interpreted.
The company for whom specific research was done - WILL interpret the
research results to their own tune - of course. But that does not mean
we need to do that or that the actual research findings are not facts.
We just need to put them in perspective - within the research parameters
of the specific study.
How long did you work in research to see this?
Isolated cases are indeed corrupt. But the MAIN body of scientific
research is valid and here I see it being advocated that ALL research is
bad. Not true any more than that all humans are bad:-)
Modern research is not done that way and for example the research paper
I described from 1991 that had more holes in its design than Swiss
cheese, could not happen today because scientists - those guys anad
their peers - are more on the lookout for such duplicitous situations,
and are faster to spot them and prevent them. They WORK at it. I've been
reading reseaerch since 1965 - and have seen it get worse and worse and
then now better and better as it is being better monitored by the
scientists.
Scientists are not all ostriches with their heads in the sand - they
also do not wish to be duped and are on the lookout for it:-) It's more
and more evident in how they word their conclusions these days - not so
adamant of results as they used to be - and with proper qualifications
to cater for study conditions.
We should not be so quick to throw out an area of fabulous factual
information (if we know how to read scientific papers properly) without
knowing properly the current status quo in that area. Don't tar everyone
with the same brush; it's not realistic.
It is different today when it comes to scientific fact at good institutions.
The *conclusions* that the FDA and/or drug/food companies spout and the
consequent actions - those are where the money is - where the corruption
is. Not the raw science.
Don't tar the science with the feathers deserved by the FDA, big pharma
and grain mill conglomerates.
If you ever want something to be done in the WORST possible way - give
it to any government to do:-)
NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."