So, here it is the night before I spend a long day traveling and I have
my usual bout of severe insomina. So, using my dear host's computer, I
thought I would mention a few ideas, discoveries and observations I
have made while on this trip. Maybe some of you can read these tidbits
of information so that after I return, we can have a profitable
discussion.

1. I do not think there are any significant behavioral or physical
differences between European ferrets and their American counterparts
that cannot be explained by a) nearly neutering, b) diet, c) cage
environment, d) handling, and e) hybridization to wild polecats (M.
putorius and M. eversmannii) and European mink (M. lutreola). I have
heard this argued from both sides of the Atlantic, but after inspecting
thousands of American ferrets and hundreds of European ones, I just
cannot see much of a difference. From this point forward, I will reject
any argument that suggests otherwise unless it is accompanied by
reliable, repeatable empirical evidence. Yes, there are differences,
but they are few and not scientifically significant when compared to
the similarities.

2. Dental disease exists in both wild and pet populations. Kibble is
guaranteed to be 10% or LESS moisture; concrete contains about 15%
(water percentage from memory -- it could be different). Dry kibble is
very abrasive and impacts the moving part of the jaw apparatus (the
mandible) more than the stationary part (the maxilla). This damage is
measurable, indentifiable, predictable, and there is a large body of
supporting evidence that explains exactly why the damage occurs and
can predict the dental damage to any species of animal. SEM photos can
positive identify microscratches made by kibble. The data from this
last trip was NOT able to falsify the above statements, supporting all
of them.

3. Feeding raw food or foods scalded but not cooked is a very common
practice in Europe, without apparent harm to the animals involved. This
finding is consistent with several outstanding papers on the subject,
as well as with CDC documents that shows most Salmonella infections
come from raw eggs rather than from meat, and that most deaths are in
immunocompromised individuals. Many of the studies used by some vets
to argue against a raw diet contain fatal flaws; for example, ferrets
housed in sterile conditions with no ability to reduce stress may have
Salmonella infections, but they may occur due to a depressed immune
system secondary to stress rather than from the food consumed. Many
papers are reports where animals are purposely infected and do not
reflect a realistic infection rate, nor expressed disease rate (the
ability to get a disease does not prove the RATE of a disease). It is
extremely important to ignore the abstracts of such papers and read the
entire article to look for procedural problems and other things that
can have a direct bearing on the observations and interpretation of
results. This is especially important in the attempt to observe fatal
flaws which are NEVER mentioned in the abstract.

4. The link between carbohydrate and beta cell hyperplasia is not as
unproved as one would be lead to believe. For example, in 2001 a well
reviewed paper demonstrated that excess exposure to glucose increases
the size and number of beta cells. These findings have been duplicated
in many species (even this year) and appears to be a common
physiological response in mammals. I have heard of people arguing these
findings are not applicable because the species investigated were not
ferrets, but often the same people argue against a raw diet using
reports of experiments not done in ferrets as well. Others argue that
studies of diabetes are not applicable, but they are in fact very
important because while the end results are different (excess insulin
rather than a lack of it), until that moment, the basic development of
the two diseases are quite similar. Why some species stop producing
insulin and others go hog-wild is unknown, but the basic events leading
up to that point are becoming understood and they are not dissimilar.
To deny this link is to take the same position as the tobacco industry
did in denying the links of smoking to heart disease and lung cancer.
My position is that if the ferret food industry REALLY cared about
ferrets instead of cash, they would spend some money to investigate the
issue.

5. The evolutionary diet IS the best diet for any species that evolved
consuming it. The pet food industry has carefully created a set of
standards that duplicate the standards by which ALL species are judged,
those being the ability to consume a food, survive, reproduce, and
raise the infants to adulthood. Not only has the pet food industry
created a set of standards that mirror natural selection, NOT A
SINGLE PET FOOD MAKER HAS EVER PROVED THEIR FOOD IS BETTER THAN
THE EVOLUTIONARY DIET! The best they can ever suggest is that a
manufactured diet equals an evolutionary diet, but they can not prove
it is better. ALL evolutionary diets meet the same AFFCO standards as
kibble. Since AFFCO standards are a "pass-fail" test (by meeting a
minimum standard they are "good enough"), NO pet food manufacturer can
argue their food is better based on meeting that standard. Maybe one
is better than the other, but AFFCO standards will not prove it.

6. Arguing that kibble is better than a raw diet because a raw diet
increases the risks of bacterial infection makes the assumption that
kibble does not become infected with its own set of micro-pathogens. It
is possible, even probable given that most ferrets contaminate kibble
with fecal material (directly or indirectly) and that many ferret
owners rarely toss out the kibble at the end of the day, that infection
rates from kibble equal or exceed those of a raw food diet. The US
government monitors food infection rates, but no one monitors and
reports on kibble infections rates. Assuming there are no food
infections from kibble is dangerous and irresponsible. Without such
studies, the two foods cannot be directly compared and the suggestion
that kibble is safer is without scientific merit. In other words,
without peer-reviewed comparative studies, not a single kibble advocate
can suggest the dry, hard, and carbohydrate-laced diet is better or
safer than one made from raw foods. Sorry; science happens.

7. Arguments that raw foods and manufactured foods have their own
set of good and bad issues and are essentially equal is disingenuous
because it implies parity in the foods being offered. There are NO
studies that show ANY manufactured food is to equal to or can exceed
the health benefits of an evolutionary diet, so parity between the two
has NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED! I am not willing to make that assumption,
given dental disease and insulinoma. I have just inspected the teeth
of hundreds of wild polecats, and have looked at more than 400 pet
ferrets, so I can tell you the two diets do not provide health parity.
After I return home, I will work up the risks statistics for the two
diets based on published papers. The relative risks show dietary parity
does not exist.

There are more points I can bring out, such as small testing samples
for short time periods by pet food makers compared to thousands of
years of testing for animals eating an evolutionary diet, but I
actually have to finish packing my bags to go home. I will write far,
far more on these subjects after I return home.

Bob C talktobobc at yahoo.com

[Posted in FML 5430]