This series of posts are meant to show how preconceptions will often lead
to a mythology of belief that is not necessarily in the ferret's best
interests.  We are all still learning about ferrets, and for some serious
problems, solutions may not be available or even feasible.  For example,
without a doubt, a meat-based diet is far better for ferrets than a
kibble diet, yet, the majority of ferret owners lack the discipline, or
perhaps the basic ability, to safely maintain their ferrets on a homemade
diet.  The solution is for a pet food company to design a food that
minimizes dietary problems of excess starch consumption in ferrets, yet
still provides the owner a convenient and safe diet that meets the
ferret's nutritional needs.  Can such a diet be formulated?  Absolutely,
but it won't be cheap, nor nearly as convenient.  Do you think a costly,
inconvenient food can compete against cheap, convenient kibbles?  If not,
then why should ANY pet food manufacturer make a better food?  The point
of the series wasn't necessarily to give answers to any one problem, but
to point out problems and misunderstandings exist, and that a mythology
of preconceived notions often gets in the way of better care.  Only with
THAT understanding can change be accomplished.
 
Some of my remarks may have offended some people, perhaps even angering
them.  Que sera, sera.  As far as I am concerned, if you can't have your
preconceptions challenged without getting angry, you are too immature to
debate anyway.
 
A short discussion of the concept of a hypothesis is in order.  In
this series of posts, I have mostly discussed data and observations,
explaining current scientific theory, and offering the occasional
hypothesis.  Some people think offering alternative hypotheses can refute
observational data.  For example, I have spent perhaps 5 years learning
what happens to bone when it is exposed to boiling water, gastric
secretions, acid, alkaline, distilled water, and even sea water.  In that
extended study, I have made thousands of observations (and photos) using
scanning electron microscopes.  When I report the changes of bone in
the stomach of a carnivore, I am directly reporting observations, NOT
offering a hypothesis.  In this case, the exact mechanism of change to
the bone (acid dissolution of mineral salts) might be expressed in a
hypothesis, but the observation that bones dissolve in carnivore
digestive tracts is NOT a hypothesis, but an observation.  Likewise,
the discussion of how carnivores gnaw bones and what happens to the
bone is an observation, NOT a hypothesis.  Use a bowl of marbles as an
example.  Finding there are 1000 white marbles and 500 black ones is the
observation; how they got there is the hypothesis.  Hypotheses are used
to explain observations, and being able to suggest a hundred hypotheses
CANNOT change the observational data.  So, some readers may take
exception to my conclusions that eating bone is safe, which is fine,
but in order to argue against them, they have to create an alternative
hypothesis that can explain the same observations.  THAT will not be
easy, but I strongly encourage the attempt.
 
Any questions?
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 3943]