Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Cooking history

Expand Messages
  • Se´┐Żn McCormack
    I ll respond within the body of the email: ... stronger acid and much shorter digestive tracts. ... I don t understand the conclusion here. ... I think you
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'll respond within the body of the email:

      On 6 February 2012 14:48, <anmlpepl@...> wrote:

      > All three of these are questionable contentions.
      > This is the strongest of the lot:
      > (a) dogs have very different digestive systems to humans
      > Indeed there are significant differences, since dogs evolved from
      > the carnivore family, & probably last shared a common ancestor with humans
      > while dinosaurs still thrived.
      > But there are also significant similarities, not least because
      > dogs & humans have largely shared the same diet for a time equivalent to
      > about a quarter to half of human existence as a distinctive species,
      > depending on which of several possible measuring points are used to define
      > the starting point for modern humans.
      > In evolutionary terms, humans are closer to bats than to dogs,
      > but our diet is closer to that of dogs than to the diet of any of the
      > insectivorous bats.
      > So we agree, not disagree, that dogs have different stomachs, with
      stronger acid and much shorter digestive tracts.

      > (b) kibble is about as processed as you can get
      > Not more so than turds, which are not only pre-cooked but
      > pre-digested. Take away turds from the historical canine diet and dogs
      > would not still be among us.
      > The worst that could be said of kibble is that it simulates the
      > content of turds plus whole rats & mice.
      > I'm really not sure the point of this. Have turds been shown to be healthy
      > for dogs, especially when cooked until dry and fed exclusively?
      > and (c) the longest lived dogs ate raw, meaty bones as the staple of
      >> their diet?
      > This is just plain unsubstantiated bunk.
      > First of all, good records for the longevity of dogs have not
      > existed for very long. Such record-keeping began in Victorian England
      > barely 200 years ago, where most pedigreed dogs were fed raw meaty bones,
      > meaning that both the longest-lived and shortest-lived dogs would have
      > been eating essential the same diet.

      I don't understand the conclusion here.

      > Tracking dog longevity didn't reach the largely vegetarian culture
      > of India for about 100 years, and even then, was done mainly by purebred
      > dog fanciers, who assumed that the Brits knew what they were doing &
      > emulated all things British in forming kennel clubs & building kennels.
      > Tracking the longevity of dogs who live as dogs mostly have for
      > most of history has barely begun to be done even now.
      > Meanwhile, we have very good data on dog longevity from the U.S.,
      > beginning from the mid-20th century. Commercially produced kibble became
      > widely available in U.S. supermarkets just about 50 years ago. Since then,
      > pet dog longevity has more than tripled.

      I think you mean the mean or average has tripled, not the longevity.
      According to all sources online, the average age for a dog currently is 13
      years at most.

      > There are many reasons for this. Among them are the increasing
      > frequency of dog sterilization, the increasing tendency of pet keepers to
      > keep their dogs from roaming, and improvements in veterinary care. But
      > the first two of these transitions had largely been accomplished to present
      > standards before 1990 -- and the most dramatic increase in pet dog
      > longevity has occurred since then.

      Can I see the sources for dog longevity? The oldest dogs, according to
      online resources at least, were all farm dogs not fed kibble. And they
      lived more than double the average for the current population.

      > Dog diet faddists, including raw foodists, like to point out that
      > internal cancers were little known in dogs in the pre-kibble era.

      I think it rather a stretch to call raw feeding the fad when it's been the
      staple for at least 33,000 years and convenience pellets have only been
      popular since the early 1940s. I know my own grandparents fed all their
      companion animals on raw, meaty bones and table scraps just as their
      parents had done. The fad is, of course, commercially driven, as most are,
      and it's the convenience pellets.

      > This is true -- because internal cancers are mostly conditions of
      > age. Until under 30 years ago, very few dogs lived long enough to even
      > reach the latter third of a normal dog lifespan.

      Most of the cancer-killed dogs I know, like their human counterparts, were
      relatively young.

      > As recently as 1992, when we founded ANIMAL PEOPLE & used American
      > Veterinary Medical Association mailing lists as part of our early
      > promotional effort, one could just about count the number of canine
      > geriatic specialists and canine oncologists on the fingers of one hand each
      > -- because there was no clientele for them.
      > Now there is: huge and growing.

      Veterinary services are indeed expanding, but to claim that we only
      recently have specialists on aging because dogs have only been aging
      recently is a wild claim. We only had dental vets comparatively recently,
      but we know from archaeological records that dogs still had teeth before
      that. Does a current lack of puppy vets mean that dogs have been skipping
      that stage?


      Merritt, if cleverly marketed, highly processed, grain-based convenience
      pellets really were, by some wild stretch of the imagination, healthier
      than fresh food, I would be campaigning for it like crazy, because my goal
      is to further the welfare of companion animals. I'm not here to win an
      argument to promote raw feeding per se. Maybe, in the future, we really
      will have found a way to make processed foods healthier, and I'll welcome
      that, especially if those foods are vegan, as I am. But all my research has
      shown me that raw-fed is healthier by far, and the youthful but aged dogs
      currently bouncing around our sanctuary are the result of following that
      wisdom. Again, we can argue history, semantics, biology, etc. all day, but
      it means nothing in light of the results of feeding raw, the benefits of
      which I've listed extensively elsewhere.

      > --
      > Merritt Clifton
      > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE
      > P.O. Box 960
      > Clinton, WA 98236
      > Telephone: 360-579-2505
      > Cell: 360-969-0450
      > Fax: 360-579-2575
      > E-mail: anmlpepl@...
      > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org
      > [Your donations help to support ANIMAL PEOPLE, providing original
      > investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide since 1992. Our
      > global readership includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal
      > protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any
      > other entity. Free online; $24/year by post; for free sample, please
      > send postal address. Our annual Watchdog Report on Animal Charities,
      > evaluating 174 of the most prominent animal charities in the U.S. and
      > abroad, is $25.]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.