Pet Food: Research and Development
- Thread starter mininik
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
Equuisize
Well-Known Member
May be my computer but I cannot open that link.....takes me to a member center and says
Page is not Available.....
Is there another way to access it?
Page is not Available.....
Is there another way to access it?
Last edited by a moderator:
iluvwalkers
Well-Known Member
[SIZE=14pt]hadn't thought about how they figure out all of those %...
...animal testing as a whole is not pretty...some of it does save lives just wish there were other ways...not sure if this is really needed though
, Nikki[/SIZE]
Equuisize
Well-Known Member
Thanks for reposting that new link. I was able to access
the article.
It's going to take a bit to assimilate all that information.
While I appreciate what they are doing so that our dogs
can have a quality diet - I am sad for the pups that only
get to go out and play so infrequently and a live such a
cloistered existance.
the article.
It's going to take a bit to assimilate all that information.
While I appreciate what they are doing so that our dogs
can have a quality diet - I am sad for the pups that only
get to go out and play so infrequently and a live such a
cloistered existance.
If those Purina, Science Diet, Iams/Eukanuba, Pedigree, Ol Roy, etc. products don't look totally nasty to pet owners after reading that article, I don't know what will. There are many pet food companies out there that don't prescribe to those sorts of things and yet they are able to put out an excellent quality product. Keep in mind that you can also feed raw or homecooked.
Last edited by a moderator:
MiniHGal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 0
Hmm. I'm probably going to get my butt shot off for this...but I don't really see the horrible wrongs that this doctor is doing to these animals?? Sure, they stay inside most of the time....but it sure sounds like they are well taken care of. Clean, roomy (maybe not as roomy as say, an outside dog would have), food and water. What is the big problem?
People keep their dogs inside 24/7 except for potty breaks in many areas. Are they mistreating them? Hmm.
And having a port in the side is not a big deal. If the dogs were constantly irritated by them, they would have torn them out (or there would be E-collars on all the dogs). Besides you want the animal to be as comfortable as possible to minimize stress related problems and constantly having to replace things.
The only big wrong thing that I find is the historical notes on the doctors that withheld vital nutrients to see what was necessary and allowed a painful death to result. That is cruel. Fortunately, we don't need to do that anymore and such practices would not be allowed by any of the current inspectors (I don't know about USDA, but IACUC certainly has very strict regulations on animal use, as they inspect all of the UC Davis facilities and keep them on a tight rope).
Maybe I am not finding the shock 'n awe factor in the article, but I don't see anything wrong with well managed facilities such as Dr. Fahey's. And as mentioned many times, this research can be very important for both human and animal quality of food (and life). It is not like makeup testing, which I do find repugnant.
Ethically, if the animal is not suffering (mentally or physically), is in good health (or all possible steps are taken to return the animal to good health), has room to move around/lay down/stretch, has food, water, and a clean living environment, then the the basic requirements of our duty to animals are met. Obviously, many people take it further, but animals with these met are doing well and it is not unethical treatment.
Personally, I find the vegetarians that fed their cats non-meat diets far far worse in the world of animal cruelty in regards to nutrition. Only they did so out of ignorance, but that does not excuse them from ignoring the basic requirements of a carnivore (and not at all an omnivore).
People keep their dogs inside 24/7 except for potty breaks in many areas. Are they mistreating them? Hmm.
And having a port in the side is not a big deal. If the dogs were constantly irritated by them, they would have torn them out (or there would be E-collars on all the dogs). Besides you want the animal to be as comfortable as possible to minimize stress related problems and constantly having to replace things.
The only big wrong thing that I find is the historical notes on the doctors that withheld vital nutrients to see what was necessary and allowed a painful death to result. That is cruel. Fortunately, we don't need to do that anymore and such practices would not be allowed by any of the current inspectors (I don't know about USDA, but IACUC certainly has very strict regulations on animal use, as they inspect all of the UC Davis facilities and keep them on a tight rope).
Maybe I am not finding the shock 'n awe factor in the article, but I don't see anything wrong with well managed facilities such as Dr. Fahey's. And as mentioned many times, this research can be very important for both human and animal quality of food (and life). It is not like makeup testing, which I do find repugnant.
Ethically, if the animal is not suffering (mentally or physically), is in good health (or all possible steps are taken to return the animal to good health), has room to move around/lay down/stretch, has food, water, and a clean living environment, then the the basic requirements of our duty to animals are met. Obviously, many people take it further, but animals with these met are doing well and it is not unethical treatment.
Personally, I find the vegetarians that fed their cats non-meat diets far far worse in the world of animal cruelty in regards to nutrition. Only they did so out of ignorance, but that does not excuse them from ignoring the basic requirements of a carnivore (and not at all an omnivore).
Last edited by a moderator:
Much of the testing sighted was for trivial things such as poop size, or what cheap fillers can be used in dog food. If Dr. Fahey was taking a look at how to best feed dogs to avoid, help or cure health problems, for example, I could see the validity in his research. However, just because many owners fail to meet the basic necessities for keeping their dogs balanced (which would include healthy diets as well as daily exercise, play and training) does NOT make mostly solitary confinement an okay deal for those research dogs. I'd like to know if YOU would enjoy being one of Dr. Fahey's research animals? Keep in mind that maximum security prisoners are also provided with basics, as well, yet even they are not forced into research programs. Could you see yourself being content in solitary confinement as someone's labratory experiment? Don't forget that the tests would be to determine what to feed you to make your poops smaller, or what cheap ingredients the corporations can feed you to cut their bottom line, etc., not finding a cure for cancer.
Last edited by a moderator:
MiniHGal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I would not. But animals are NOT humans. You can not use the same brush to paint all species the same. While dogs are gregarious creatures, it is not cruel to keep them in solitary confinement. Not ideal, surely, but they are not suffering. And they do get human companionship, minimal though it may be.
And incidentally, I do think poop size is an important factor for dog owners. As Dr. Fahley says, a basic diet can meet all their needs...but there is a LOT of undigested material that goes right through. That means food is wasted. Would it not be better to ensure they get the maximum amount of energy and nutrients possible from the food, instead of garbage going right through? Also, as we become a more crowded society, more dogs will be inside for periods of the day, meaning they must hold their bowel movements. If there is a lot of stuff going through, that is not possible. This results in upset dog, upset owner, and a dirty house. Extreme scenario being the dog is taken to the pound for messing--and voila, they are in a tiny cage with no socialization, and then, are put down if not adopted.
The basis for my reasoning is also that, not all animals are human, though all humans are animals. The perception is different, the reasoning is different. They do not have rights, per say, as we do. This does not give us the right to treat them cruelly or take away their basic needs, but demands that we fulfill their needs, while not diminishing our own. Animal welfare requires that these needs are met. Here, they are.
So whether or not his studies are enormously important (as we have somewhat differing views), the dogs are not unethically treated. Therefore I do not see the problem with his methods.
And incidentally, I do think poop size is an important factor for dog owners. As Dr. Fahley says, a basic diet can meet all their needs...but there is a LOT of undigested material that goes right through. That means food is wasted. Would it not be better to ensure they get the maximum amount of energy and nutrients possible from the food, instead of garbage going right through? Also, as we become a more crowded society, more dogs will be inside for periods of the day, meaning they must hold their bowel movements. If there is a lot of stuff going through, that is not possible. This results in upset dog, upset owner, and a dirty house. Extreme scenario being the dog is taken to the pound for messing--and voila, they are in a tiny cage with no socialization, and then, are put down if not adopted.
The basis for my reasoning is also that, not all animals are human, though all humans are animals. The perception is different, the reasoning is different. They do not have rights, per say, as we do. This does not give us the right to treat them cruelly or take away their basic needs, but demands that we fulfill their needs, while not diminishing our own. Animal welfare requires that these needs are met. Here, they are.
So whether or not his studies are enormously important (as we have somewhat differing views), the dogs are not unethically treated. Therefore I do not see the problem with his methods.
Interesting viewpoint. I guess there should be a line started for those who would like to undergo invasive experimentation in a labratory environment to help the human race reduce our poop size, since there are billions of us on this poor planet. Seriously, shouldn't we all be eating "scientifically formulated" diets so that we're getting every bit of the nutrition we need, plus useless fillers, binders and chemicals?
woodnldy
Well-Known Member
LOL I have to agree with MiniHGal, Those animals they use in those experiments are better treated than 3/4 of the rest of the animal population on this earth. They have to be or all the tests would be totally wrong. How else can they find what works the best.?? The size of the poop indicated how much of the feed is being utilized. It is important. Be reasonable. Animals are not human as much as we try to give them human traits and try to say they have human emotions. They still look at things differently, from a basic view. Our horses are happier if they are out and can pick their own foods,tho many times for our convenience we keep them in and choose for them. We take our pets and attribute human thoughts and feelings to them,they are our babies,our surrogate children,our companions,but they are still animals not human. I will get off my soapbox, I need to go take care of my babies too, Very interesting article.
