These arguments together constitute a tautology, or circular,
self-supporting argument that lacks evidentiary proof.  They all come
back to hypothesizedbut unproved or supportedgenetic transformations
that have caused changes to ferret nutritional requirements.  The basic
tautology is: "Ferrets have different nutritional requirements because
of domestication, demonstrated because we can keep domesticated ferrets
on a diet different than the one they evolved consuming." Feeding peanut
butter sandwiches to an orca is not evidence they have changed during Sea
World captivity any more than feeding carbohydrates to a ferret proves
they have different nutritional requirements compared to polecats: simple
adaptation is not evidence of genetic change.
 
There is little doubt that ferrets can adapt to many changes in the diet,
surviving on donuts, beer, and candy (my favorite food groups), but that
is not evidence that such diets are good for them, and it is definitely
not evidence that genetic changes have taken place.  All evidence
suggests ferret domestication has mostly resulted in behavioral changes
(which ratters and rabbit hunters disliked, hence the frequent breeding
to polecats), with some minor shifts in coloration, mostly depigmentation
and pie balding.  Skeletal changes are mostly due to present-day removal
of sex glands, and there are no significant changes to the teeth, other
than a bit of crowding.  I need more than just a verbal suggestion to
make me accept the outlandish idea that domestication has changed basic
ferret digestive physiology to the point where it is different from the
progenitor.  Polecats have zero carbohydrate requirements, feral New
Zealand ferrets have zero carbohydrate requirements, and all the members
of Mustela have zero carbohydrate requirements.  If anyone expects me to
accept ferrets have had their basic physiology changed by domestication
so that they have a carbohydrate requirement, notwithstanding centuries
of introgression (hybridization) to polecats, they had better back up the
claim with anatomical, physiological, dietary, and genetic evidence.
That is not a bridge I am willing to buy without first investigating the
deed to make sure it is authentic.
 
So, what does it mean when a kibble maker proclaims, "no one knows what
the carbohydrate requirement is for ferrets"?  We already KNOW it is
zero, so what they are really saying is "We don't know how many
carbohydrates are SAFE to feed to ferrets." If someone says that and at
the same time does not publish the amount of digestible carbohydrate in
their food (or ANY carbohydrates in their food), I tend to suspect they
are hiding something, or at least not trying to discuss the real issue
for reasons of marketing.  A real problem is that we know some ferret
food makers are highly motivated to produce the best food possible, but
others are just on the money-making band-wagon.  How can the average
ferret owner who doesn't subscribe to the FML know the difference?  One
way is for the honest kibble makers to publish the carbohydrate load of
their product on the package (and web sites), regardless if they legally
have to or not, and to stop saying the carbohydrate requirement of
ferrets is "unknown" when what they are attempting to say is that the
"safe levels are unknown." To me, honesty confirms integrity.
 
The point of all this carbohydrate discussion is that an identical
argumentative process can occur with dental issues; a kibble maker could
deny the results (regardless of the evidence), and proclaim the problem
is due to any number of other suppositional factors.  And just like in
the carbohydrate controversy, that while people are tossing out
suppositional ideas as if they were probable and denying evidence, it
is highly probable that ferrets are being harmed.  Think about this for
a minute; what happens when the link between insulinoma and high daily
intakes of processed carbohydrates is finally proved?  Will the kibble
makers apologize and try to make your ferret better?  Will there be any
accountability for anyone who has ridiculed or minimized the dangers of
the diet?  Think about who it is that suffers in these instances.
 
THAT is why I waited so long to discuss the results (I wanted to be
absolutely sure) and why I am continuing the skeletal study for the next
few years.  I don't want it mired in the type of meaningless argument
that has marred the carbohydrate question to such a point that most
people can't follow (or care to follow) the debate, while in the meantime
ferrets are still being harmed.  I have studied the dental question
extensively, I have consulted numerous experts, I have backed up the
argument with current research, and as this subject enters the field of
publication, I will have answered most questions and eliminated the silly
and suppositional ones.  Since my data includes wild as well as domestic
animals, since the number of animals investigated is rather large, since
I can show any subset of my population lies within the variance of the
overall population, and since the animals include a large number of
animals from private breeders as well as commercial stock, I have
already eliminated nearly all objections.  I've even accounted for the
differences between sables and albinos.  The reason ferret teeth wear
down so rapidly compared to wild populations is because they are eating
kibble.
[Posted in FML issue 4876]