There has been a thread on "wild" diets that has an underlying "given" that
I dispute.  Several people have mentioned that the wild, natural diet is
superior for this reason or that.  They seem to imply that prey were
designed for optimum food value of the predator.  It's the other way around.
The predator adapted to food available.  The presence of fur and bones and
other indigestibles don't necessarily make it better.  The predator has
developed so these create few problems.  I know that the bulk aids the
elimination process, but that can be present in prepared foods.  The "peanut
butter test" is not perfect, think of pulpy paper, all fiber and no body.
This is how various plant hulls and whatever in dry food are.  Small bits,
but just as indigestible.  It's fine to feed meat, pigs knuckles or other
scraps, but you may be subtracting value, not adding.  The balance of
nutrients is what is important.  Adding more meat (fat and protein) along
with indigestibles may be unbalancing the mix.
 
Just because people used to feed bread soaked in milk or still do it
overseas doesn't mean it's better.  They also heat their homes by burning
dung in areas, but I don't hear anybody supporting that to fight pollution.
Humans evolved in a high nitrogen gas atmosphere, but that doesn't mean it's
optimum.  In high pressure environments (e.g., deep sea) it is harmful and
helium is used instead.  Just because something works in nature does not
mean that it is the best solution.  It is just one that was available and
works.
 
BTW - Bill, microwaving doesn't heat enough or do it evenly, so it doesn't
kill bacteria in food reliably.  Annie wanted me to tell you this.
 
   ( )--(a)
   (@=@=) \     Till next time.......Rudy the ferlosopher
   O__)  \ \___
      \   \
      /\ * )  \
[Posted in FML issue 1396]