[Leaving in 3 parts to make it easier to refer to individual parts. BIG] To understand WHY many Americans consider bones bad for their pet while they were perfectly acceptable for millennia, you only have to study the history of the pet food industry and the close association they have with veterinarians (a parallel exists between the pharmaceutical industry and medical doctors). This is NOT implying veterinarians are in some sort of collusion with the pet food industry; THAT is the stuff of paranoid imagination. Still, there is more influence than anyone, including veterinarians, would admit, especially in the general acceptance of blanket claims made by pet food industry nutritionists (we are NOT talking about unbiased claims made by independent scientists, folks. If you think pet food nutritionists don't spin their claims to better present their product while at the same time "forgetting" to mention the negative aspects, well, shame on you!). This influence can be insidious and unrecognized, such as the only funds available for research are those offered by the pet food industry, awarded to scientists looking into questions the industry wants answered. Consequently, there is a tremendous amount of research into marginal (cheap) foods, especially in how to modify them to make them more palatable, improve nutrient availability, how to formulate them better, or extrude them more efficiently; that sort of thing. Yet, the number of studies on the effect of kibble on teeth, if an unrestricted diet of kibble shortens ferret lifespan, the influence of kibble on dental disease, the association of kibble to ferret insulinoma, or even something as innocuous as the risk of ferrets eating bones, is extremely limited. If an animal nutritionist REALLY wanted to show they were concerned with providing a better food for ferrets, they would look into such issues as the impact of a dry, extruded food on a ferret's teeth, oral health, gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and long term health. In a similar fashion, if a veterinarian REALLY wanted to know if eating bones is harmful to ferrets, they would quantify the data by observing how many animals had problems, how many were seen in the practice and compare that to the local pet population, how many problems resulted in minor, moderate, or major harm, how many resulted in death, what species, breeds, sex, age, physical impairment, etc., where involved, what were the outcomes and costs, and THEN compare those data to the health and enrichment benefits of eating bone. If all they say is, "I've seen the problem, and bones hurt ferrets," then they are blowing smoky opinion, not actual facts. Facts are testable, the results can be duplicated, and ANYONE with a cheap calculator can perform a Student's T-Test to check if the results are statistically significant. Additionally, there is a phenomenon (rather more of a concentration or distilling effect) experienced by medical workers that comes into play. Health care professionals only see those people sick enough to seek help, so rare events take on the appearance of commonality. You see a similar phenomenon on the FML where people with ferret health problems make highly visible pleas, making the actual risk of a problem seem far more significant than it actually is. Consequently, the PERCEPTION of risk cloaks the real, or ABSOLUTE risk. For example, a vet may see a single pet a week having one or more problems from consuming bone, so it carries the illusion of being a frequent predicament when it may actually be quite uncommon if compared to the TOTAL number of pets consuming bone within the community (or even the vet's practice). The veterinarian is seeing a distillation of pet problems, which, depending on the species and the client's perception of value, may be skewed towards more valuable pets, those having owners with close emotional bonds, or those suffering problems no more significant than a person cutting their gums on a corn chip, or having a coughing fit when the beer "goes down the wrong hole." It is this lack of strong scientific foundation that makes anecdotal stories so misleading and dangerous -- they ignore absolute risk, greatly exaggerating the perception of risk. Finally, look how the problem is addressed. Primary, obligate carnivores like ferrets are designed to eat animal carcasses. Ferrets evolved doing so, they have a unique physiology adapted to do so, and they ENJOY doing so. Kibble is an unnatural product designed to make a profit for pet food manufacturers, providing a product to people brainwashed into thinking pouring a dry, hard low-odor carbohydrate-rich biscuit lacking appreciable bulk or non-botanical fiber into a bowl satisfies a ferret's true biomechanical, sensory, physiological, nutritional, or psychological requirements. How do you get people to abandon traditional diets that have worked for thousands of years and start buying your product? you can insist only ANIMAL NUTRITIONISTS can formulate a safe diet; after all, they have the degrees behind their name (and HOW did ferrets EVER survive millions of years of non-animal nutritionist recommended carnivory as polecats, thousands of years of non-animal nutritionist supervision under domestication, and hundreds of years of non-animal nutritionist sanctioned feeding in the Americas? Suggesting ferrets were only "marginally" surviving? What condescending and conceited arrogance! If so, then don't make the claim, PROVE the friggin' remark, or get off the pot and flush!). ANYONE who can serve food to their children and prevent them from becoming malnourished, can feed a ferret safely. Bob C [Posted in FML issue 4162]