Nancy1999 | 05-17-2015 02:04 PM | Quote:
Originally Posted by pstinard
(Post 4560231)
I really wish dogs could talk and tell us how they're feeling, but since they can't... If a dog is healthy, happy, and energetic, doesn't itch, has a beautiful coat and the underlying skin is healthy, has a healthy weight, no excess gas, AND has good results when blood tests are run, isn't that the best we can expect?
Using cloned dogs in food trials is something I've never heard of before, and I wouldn't have any objections from a moral standpoint, so long as they are treated like regular dogs, not harmed in any way, and taken off the diet immediately if their health starts to deteriorate. A cloned dog is like an identical twin--each has its own personality. There is nothing inhumane about it unless you treat them inhumanely.
Thanks for the interesting discussion! | When I first started studying, there were two schools of thought, one was as long as you got all the nutrients you need, and you’d be fine as long, as you weren't overweight. You could eat fast food and take a vitamin, and that was considered fine. Don’t get mad, but this is how a lot of dog food companies produce kibble, any combination of ingredients that fit the bill and then they add the extra synthetic vitamins as needed. Tested and approved. Just so all the blanks were filled; it didn’t matter if the protein was easy or hard to digest or if the vitamins are synthetic or not.
The other school of thought was that there was more to food than amino acids and vitamins and minerals, and eating foods with real vitamins allowed our bodies to use them better. While no tests could really show the differences at that time, new tests are showing some differences in real vs. synthetic vitamins. Also, I notice diet didn't make much difference when I was young, I think it was when I reached middle age that "you are what you eat" became more true for me. I do notice a great difference when I eat a certain type of diet. I've been studying this for over 50 years, and it's only in the last few years that I'm leaning toward what some call “biologically appropriate” and real vitamins vs. synthetic and whole food rather than processed foods. Dog foods that have these things are also tested, so I don’t know why people think they aren’t tested and approved. I heard one vet say something about a diet that is close to the moisture content of food they would eat in the wild and how it may make a difference as a dog ages because being in a state of constant dehydration might be stressful on the kidneys. Do we have proof of that yet, no but it is interesting. I wish I could be as sure as all of you are, but I have major doubts that a food is the best just because a vet nutritionist hired by a company approves it.
Also, does anyone know if you can even become a vet nutritionist without studying through one of the major food manufacturers?
On cloning, I think people just think it's not right to keep an animal in a lab all of it's life and then dissect it. It's not the cloning per say they are against. That's actually the way they did food trials in the past, but many of us don't feel like the knowledge is worth it. That's how they learned what minimum standards were and if they went below a certain level how bones and organs would suffer, those things aren't noticeable to the naked eye. |