Dr Lonsdale (4 Voer Natuu
Another 'writer' (well, i won't mention his name ) says that it takes 20-24 hours after a large meal for the stomach to be empty
Is that true? We think it should be 12-15 hours.
Thanks in advance
*Tom Lonsdale answered, 28 Jun, 2006:
Thanks for the message.
Stomach clearance time is variable and dependent on the texture and digestibility of the food. So a large meal of just intestines and meat, the sort that wolves eat first when gorging on prey, gets digested quickly and voided fairly soon after that. More fibrous cartilagenous bony food takes longer to pass through the stomach. I don't have range of figures immediately available.
Regardless of stomach emptying times final voiding of faeces takes place under voluntary control. So that may occur within a few hours to a couple of days later depending on circumstances.
This stomach/bowel transit time is not so important except to junk food makers with their desire to lessen the adverse impact of their junk food and thus experiment with different fibre sources.
It's also of consequence when assessing diseases of stomach and intestines. We use barium meals or tablets to assess the passage of ingesta, but this has medical interest only.
Maybe you can do a Google or PUBMEd search for figures. But if I were you I would not attach much importance to this.
[quote="Tom Lonsdale"]You mention 'Prey model'. I should mention that it's not a term I use or recommend. There's some comments in this regard at: http://secureshop.rawmeatybones.com/newsletter/view.epl?id=41
This is the above mentioned comment:
[i]In reaction to barfmania a new strand of thought says that instead of a recipe for minced meat, vegetables and supplements pet owners need a recipe for different organs. ‘Prey-model’ is the term applied and imposes strictures on the amount of meat, bone and certain organs that should be fed to a pet. Head, hide and guts are left out of the reckoning. To my way of thinking, although well meaning, ‘prey model’ is another piece of jargon and best avoided.
What we can be sure of is that Nature has had lots of practice and practice makes perfect. If we feed our pets according to Nature’s model we’ll get the best available health, vitality and longevity. Whole carcasses of other animals set the standard in canine cuisine. Next, I suggest, comes a diet based on raw meaty bones. It’s the physical side of ripping, tearing and chewing meat from bone that is central to the needs of a carnivore diet. By all means include whole carcasses as often as possible; include meaty bones and offal from a range of fish, mammals and birds. For fuller practical details on feeding dogs please see Work Wonders: Feed your dog raw meaty bones. For a fuller exposition on diet disease and the five facets of the pet-food fraud please see Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health. www.rawmeatybones.com [/i]
I do wonder how you would try and explain your way of feeding in a short manner if you had to. Since I and many others on this forum frequently use the term "prey-model" because we think it's the term that suits our way of feeding best. I do consider the percentages given (e.g. I don't like to feed much liver, so I keep to a maximum of 5%, as this is approximately the maximum amount of liver in a whole prey animal also) as "guidelines" instead of strictures, and I think most of us do.
Also, I do include heads. And hide and guts when feeding whole prey. My cats and ferrets don't eat the guts though, when it comes to preys larger than a mouse, and they avoid eating the hide also when it comes to rats, rabbits, ... Anyway, I just want to say, that I think many people that say they "feed according to the prey-model" don't necessary exclude head, hide and guts, and also try and feed whole prey whenever possible. And it's an easy term to use.
Just wondering :wink:
*Tom Lonsdale answered, 28 Jun, 2006:
Hi **** and all,
Thanks for the enquiry. 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet' and so it is with feeding pets. Please don’t take my comments personally. You mention cats and ferrets for which feeding whole prey is an easy option. Prey model is mostly a term that I believe is misused in connection with feeding dogs.
As mentioned in previous posts the breakthrough in vet thinking in Australia occured when we saw the immense significance of raw meaty bones in the biology of the carnivore. For many years folks extolled the benefits of various ingredients and touted the value of different organs. But getting to the crux of the matter, we needed to consider the vital chewyness of the food, to give full scientific expression to Aesops fable of the dog and a bone.
Having caught a glimpse of what the creator had in mind was powerful stuff. If you read Raw Meaty Bones, Chapter 14 you can see this is potentially of immense significance to science, economy and the planet at large. If eating raw meaty bones is the secret to regulating carnivores and if carnivores during this Age of Mammals regulate the planet we are talking about huge issues that deserve the maximum attention.
Now the contemporary framework of our discussions is vitally important too. As per the Raw Meaty Bones Lobby’s approach we need to:
a. Disseminate sound dietary info to vets and the public at large involving a reliance on raw carcasses or raw meaty bones and a few table scraps.
b. Combat the junk pet-food industry scourge.
c. Combat the veterinary collusion and corruption.
To deal with a.) we in Australia expounded the vital significance of raw meaty bones. We knew that if people get that right then nearly everything else falls into place. For sure things can be tweaked and there's a three page easy diet guide at:
Whilst making sure of maximum reach into the community using plain English we needed to fight the junk pet food war to the maximum and thus deal with items b, and c.
As previously explained the barfers saw the power and simplicity of the pivotal raw meaty bones message and for commercial reasons came up with a new term to promote their interests and down-play and deflect interest from the crucial aspects of ripping and tearing at raw meaty bones.
From my observations proponents of the so-called 'prey model', whilst not seeking commercial gain have not crafted their message to reach a wider community at a; and have not joined the pet food wars dealing with b and c. Prey-modellers without any scientific backing find fault with and down-play the significance of raw meaty bones.
Closer examination of the so-called model leads to various interpretations:
1.) Recipes of various percentages of organs (and we are talking about feeding dogs here) without reference to heads, guts and hide become a mantra.
2.) Feeding whole animals i.e. whole prey, but calling it ‘prey model’.
3.) Plagiarising what's been accepted as a raw meaty bones based diet http://www.rawmeatybones.com/translations/Netherlands/Diet%20guide%20Ned.pdf but re-labeling it ‘prey model’
4.) Attempting to shoe-horn rather nebulous and unsubstantiated concepts in between the first best option, prey, and what hitherto was accepted as second best option, raw meaty bones based diet.
Besides being unnecessary jargon 'prey model' makes improper use of a technical term. Try a Google on 'prey-model' or 'prey model' and see what I mean.
Perhaps, if prey modellers could demonstrate leadership and determination to reach the vast majority of pets and consumers, if they showed determination to deal with the junk pet food monster and its protective cordon of corrupt vets then these would be important advances requiring our attention. When I raised these issues with prey modelers on the Raw Vet list my concerns about the broad issues were waived aside. When I tried to press the point the post was banned.
Yes, on this side of the raw feeding spectrum there's some cult like behaviour that should receive as much criticism as barfmania.
Below I’ve posted a 18/3/06 message from the Raw Vet list that elicited defensive responses but no useful advance.
There’s much to be done if we are to awaken the sleeping giant that is the community at large. Meanwhile the giant junk pet food industry and the giant vet profession make a mockery of our efforts.
Let’s pull together and make a big difference to the health and welfare of all on this planet.
From: Tom Lonsdale
Subject: [RawVet] Jargon, was Feeding philosophies
Hi ***** and all,
The emergence of the hybrid term 'prey model' seems to me to be a retrograde step -- jargon that neither enhances our understanding nor increases our store of knowledge. Or am I mistaken?
It seems to me the term, as I've seen it defined, fails on several counts.
'Parts of animals in which they are found' usually turns out to be an arbitrary and ill-defined set of numbers.
The hide, hair and guts are not included in the 'model'. From the point of view of being tough and chewy the hide and hair has it. But doesn't get a run.
The guts, complete with chyme are the genuinely different part of the prey with distinct nutrient makeup. They never get included in the 'parts list' due to bacterial contamination, putrefaction, storage, smell, health regulations and aesthetic concerns. As a result the chyme of part digested vegetable matter, digestive enzymes and the bodies and breakdown products of the biofilm 'whole prey' don't appear on the menu.
Apart from liver, the 'parts of animals' that are included in this 'model' comprise heart, tongue, kidney, maybe lung and sometimes tripe. Brain that might contribute different fatty acid profiles and pancreas that might include enzymes don't appear to feature much.
But in any case, from a scientific point of view, why would anyone spend much time and effort mixing and matching according to a formula or model (supposing that was an accurate formula or model) if there is no scientific rationale?
Liver apart, can someone tell me what is the nutrient profile difference between the items on a list of 'prey model' offal and say tripe which might form the basis of a diet. Similarly what is the nutrient profile difference between 'prey model' offal compared with the muscle, marrow, collagen framework, vasculature, osteoblasts/clasts and assorted cells in say a chicken backs and frames based diet? What are these 'prey model' offal parts supposed to add that is not in a predominantly raw meaty bones and table scrap diet with the haphazard addition of liver?
Isn't the calciumhydroxyapatite of bone, apart from where chemical gradients appear, largely an inert substance as far as the carnivore is concerned and excreted accordingly?
It seems to be me that these 'scientific' questions need answers backed up with substantial evidence.
Of course whole prey are easily the number one food (and medicine) source for carnivores. But when it comes to the economics it's often, for most folks, hard to feed the optimum diet and a second best needs to be found. How do the dictates of the 'prey model' assist with economy when compared with, say, a raw meaty bones based diet or a tripe and raw meaty bones based diet?
Practicallities perforce prevail. If you can't get it you can't feed it. What does the elaborate, and rather arbitrary offal list offer that should persuade us to battle impracticalities to find, for instance, heart or kidney? For those who find chicken backs and frames an easy practical option with sometimes a pig's head thrown in or for those who can access ruminant stomachs by the barrow load, why should they worry there's no tongue or trachea in the mix? (Of course I assume the tripe/omasum fed animals also get some large pieces of raw meaty bones for variety and tooth cleaning.)
Do those who have hit on economic, practical options need to feel embarrassed or that they are in some way inadequate?
We've seen the discredited barf, vomit, puke, technicolour yawn jargon spew forth. Do we really need more jargon which according to the dictionary is:
1 a : confused unintelligible language b : a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect c : a hybrid language or dialect simplified in vocabulary and grammar and used for communication between peoples of different speech
2 : the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group
3 : obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words
Early and mid game:
To my mind anything we do now should be coherent, internally consistent and anticipate the end game.
Right now in the early stages of the raw feeding revolution we need to deal simultaneously with what I believe to be the five facets of the junk (cooked or barf) pet-food fraud:
• Cruelty, ill health and suffering of pets 10%
• Misused and abused ‘science’ 20%
• Blocking of significant scientific breakthroughs 30%
• Economic, human health and natural environmental consequences 20%
• Failure of the democratic, administrative and legal systems to deal with a cashed-up cabal 20%
The percentages are admittedly approximations, however I reckon they give an indication of the importance of each facet.
'Cruelty, ill health and suffering of pets' is listed at 10% because that's the easy bit to understand and is the most easily fixed. It comprises about 5% dietary information and 5% understanding of disease processes.
The 5% dietary information needs to be unadulterated and clearly articulated. Language and concepts should not create stumbling blocks that impede our attempts to deal with the 95% of issues deserving the bulk of our attention.
If we anticipate taking this all to a conclusion then we will need to get serious. And that means fighting the political fight and mixing it in the legal arena too. 'Barfmania' has done untold harm to our prospects of fixing things for pets, people and the wider community. If we burden ourselves and dependent public with a further hybrid and misleading term we shall live to rue the day.
The politicians, media and judiciary only need half an excuse to dismiss us as members of an obsessive sect.
To my mind the raw diet revolution is too important to become weighed down with more unwelcome baggage -- or am I mistaken?
At 08:26 AM 17/03/2006, you wrote:
*** I feed my own dogs, cats, and ferrets either whole prey, or prey
model, that is, feeding parts of animals in the proportion in which
they are found in the whole animal.
Hi Dr. Lonsdale,
since this is one of the many points of discussion on this forum, I would like to hear your opinion on vaccinating dogs, cats and ferrets. (against which diseases? frequency, age? none at all? etc.)
*Tom Lonsdale answered, 29 Jun, 2006:
Thanks for the question.
Sorry, but I don't venture into that area of discussion, not just because I am rushing to get ready for tonight's meeting but because it's a rather overheated area that tends to detract from the main (diet) issues.
That there are drawbacks with vaccines is uncontestable. That vaccines confer advantages is uncontestable. Just where the boundaries lie is often a shifting proposition.
One thing is certain though. Vaccine 'damage' is smaller than a tiny part of minuscule when compared with the consequences of diet induced disease. Although the vaccine debate has brought some benefits the lasting legacy is its detraction from the main issues. Mars, Nestle and Co must think that pet owners really are a complete push-over.
But I should not be hard on pet-owners. The problem lies not with the followers, but with the 'leaders' of the vaccine debate who, for their own reasons, have elbowed the diet issues to one side.
That said I had better dash now.
Been a real pleasure being here. Thanks for the thoughtful questions and helpful behind the scenes coordination. Look forward to meeting you all in the next couple of days. Let's have some fun and give this diet, health and disease issue a good shake.
Best wishes to all,
|Unless otherwise stated, all information, articles, reports, photos and images on this web site are the copyright of UKRMB. Permission to reproduce anything from this web site must be obtained from email@example.com.