# Study: Ability to digest starch is critical difference between wolves and dogs.



## RRs (Aug 31, 2011)

Ability to digest human foods important in domestication of dogs - Uppsala University, Sweden

Full study is published here, but there is a fee to subscribe and/or download. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11837.html#/access


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks for posting! This should be made a sticky so we don't have to answer ppl who claim over and over again that dogs can't digest starch and derive nutrients from plant material.
btw; Upsala is a top tier university.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Isn't it obvious dogs can digest some degree of grains since the majority of kibbles have a ton of grains in them?? LOL dogs would have died a long time ago if they weren't able to gain some benefit from grains. Seems silly to me. Sure they can survive on them and their body has adapted to live off them when meat ISN'T around but meat would always be their first choice. This just shows how amazing dogs are at adapting to what's around. Doesn't show this is a diet they'll THRIVE on. I survived for many years on a horrible, unhealthy diet with no issues (yet) but doesn't mean it was proper.

Just because they can digest them doesn't mean they'll thrive on them. Grains gave my pup horrible tear stains. Also, the grains dogs evolved to handle are nothing like the GMO grains being fed now....


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> Isn't it obvious dogs can digest some degree of grains since the majority of kibbles have a ton of grains in them?? LOL dogs would have died a long time ago if they weren't able to gain some benefit from grains. Seems silly to me. Sure they can survive on them and their body has adapted to live off them when meat ISN'T around but meat would always be their first choice. This just shows how amazing dogs are at adapting to what's around. Doesn't show this is a diet they'll THRIVE on. I survived for many years on a horrible, unhealthy diet with no issues (yet) but doesn't mean it was proper.
> 
> Just because they can digest them doesn't mean they'll thrive on them. Grains gave my pup horrible tear stains. Also, the grains dogs evolved to handle are nothing like the GMO grains being fed now....


I got a bnaturals newsletter in my email today with that story, and I thought the same thing. Aren't Carbs/grains already in dogfood? And how long have dogs been getting human foods like scraps after meals etc...? I thought DUH! 

And it sure doesn't mean it is actually helping them. We could live on fast food our whole life, but how is that going to really be helping us health wise in the future? Just because a dog can "live" on something doesn't mean they should.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

DaViking said:


> Thanks for posting! This should be made a sticky so we don't have to answer ppl who claim over and over again that dogs can't digest starch and derive nutrients from plant material.
> btw; Upsala is a top tier university.


My dog cannot digest grains hence the thousands and thousands I spent on her as a puppy to why she had constant diarreah. Some dogs are not able to process grains, just like people!


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

naturalfeddogs said:


> I got a bnaturals newsletter in my email today with that story, and I thought the same thing. Aren't Carbs/grains already in dogfood? And how long have dogs been getting human foods like scraps after meals etc...? I thought DUH!
> 
> And it sure doesn't mean it is actually helping them. We could live on fast food our whole life, but how is that going to really be helping us health wise in the future? Just because a dog can "live" on something doesn't mean they should.


It tells you a lot about animal food that they're doing thiss study AFTER animals have been eating it for years. Shouldn't they have tested this out BEFORE adding it to kibbles? LOL


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Someone brought up a good point on my FB page. If dogs have adapted to grains, why haven't their teeth adapted as well? Meaning no canine teeth for ripping and tearing meat and if only eating grains shouldn't their teeth NOT have to have dentals


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

RRs said:


> Ability to digest human foods important in domestication of dogs - Uppsala University, Sweden
> 
> Full study is published here, but there is a fee to subscribe and/or download. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11837.html#/access


So now it has been proven by science that dogs and wolves have significantly different brain and digestive genetics. 

Dog are not wolves and wolves are not dogs.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

I find it interesting that all of a sudden these studies are coming out when raw food is really taking off in a big way. I'd love to see who sponsored these studies. Who doesn't want to lose money


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

Dogs were not designed to digest carbs. Maybe we are seeing the first steps in the very slow process of evolution? Dogs are being FORCED to eat grains so rather than DIE, they manage. But even with managing, there are health issues that vets are dealing with daily. 

I find it hard to believe that dogs and wolves are SO different when the basic general structure of their digestive tract is the same. Short route from mouth to anus...sharp molars as opposed to flat ones....I mean, I don't see how you can debate against this. 


Are we all at least in agreement that they DO NEED MEAT? Because with vegan dog foods becoming more popular, I really worry for all of dog kind.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

wolfsnaps88 said:


> Dogs were not designed to digest carbs. Maybe we are seeing the first steps in the very slow process of evolution? Dogs are being FORCED to eat grains so rather than DIE, they manage. But even with managing, there are health issues that vets are dealing with daily.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that dogs and wolves are SO different when the basic general structure of their digestive tract is the same. Short route from mouth to anus...sharp molars as opposed to flat ones....I mean, I don't see how you can debate against this.
> 
> ...


Love it......


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

wolfsnaps88 said:


> Dogs were not designed to digest carbs. Maybe we are seeing the first steps in the very slow process of evolution? Dogs are being FORCED to eat grains so rather than DIE, they manage. But even with managing, there are health issues that vets are dealing with daily.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that dogs and wolves are SO different when the basic general structure of their digestive tract is the same. Short route from mouth to anus...sharp molars as opposed to flat ones....I mean, I don't see how you can debate against this.
> 
> ...



Dogs were in fact "designed" to eat carbohydrates and grains. The comparison of the genetics proves the divergent evolutionary path of dogs and wolves. This should be clear as crystal to anyone that is intellectually honest. Your analysis of being forced to eat grains is not entirely accurate is this case. These "seed dogs" were already adapted with the proper genes to make the needed enzymes and a particular situation to use them was presented. Meaning these "seed dogs" existed and stumbled upon human settlements and socialized. That is how species evolve and diverge. 

By the way, wolves do just fine on kibble in zoos, but they need more time to generate the enzymes.

As for dogs needing meat, the answer is probably yes but certainly not exclusively and if the level, breadth and digestibility of plant-based proteins is adequate then perhaps not.

What is puzzling is why anyone would be upset about these findings. Now you don't have to worry about the cost of the "better" foods with dolled-up meat labels. I wonder when certain pet food companies will dial back the wolf advertising because now what they claim is false and arguably illegal.


----------



## shellbeme (Dec 8, 2010)

I also find it interesting that all these 'studies' are coming out right now, after the associations have taken a stand against raw feeding and right after several large companies have started to change their formulas, however still leaving in many of the grain type items that are being frowned upon. 

I don't believe dogs are wolves or wolves are dogs. There is what, about a 98.6% simularity in their dna, and how closely related are we to chimps? I have seen 98.5 to 99% listed for that as well. So, I don't buy the whole 'dogs are wolves' debate. They are not. They are different, bottom line for me.

I do believe they need meat-no debate there, and I have a pretty open mind when it comes to raw feeding-but I certainly don't know for a fact what they are designed to handle and it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the 'experts' do not KNOW either. We are just trying to do the best with what info we have at hand.

I do think evolution may be playing a part-but I don't KNOW that's what is going on. In a way I feel like there is this big fight against raw feeders, and I almost feel like big dog food is ganging up on them-again I don't KNOW that, and I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist I just find many recent events and articles, very interesting. I don't like bullies. I don't raw feed, but I still don't like bullies and I almost feel like raw feeders are being bullied into a corner. 

The article is definantly interesting


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Sprocket said:


> I find it interesting that all of a sudden these studies are coming out when raw food is really taking off in a big way. I'd love to see who sponsored these studies. Who doesn't want to lose money


That's what I'd like to know, too. You can tell A LOT but who funds the studies. I'd be willing to bet there is a conflict of interests.... there hardly ever ISN'T.

I'm dying laughing at people using this as an excuse to feed kibbles filled with poor quality, genetically modified ingredients and feel food about it LOL You'd think they're labeling them as OMNIVORES bases on some people's reaction.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

monster'sdad said:


> Dogs were in fact "designed" to eat carbohydrates and grains. The comparison of the genetics proves the divergent evolutionary path of dogs and wolves. This should be clear as crystal to anyone that is intellectually honest. Your analysis of being forced to eat grains is not entirely accurate is this case. These "seed dogs" were already adapted with the proper genes to make the needed enzymes and a particular situation to use them was presented. Meaning these "seed dogs" existed and stumbled upon human settlements and socialized. That is how species evolve and diverge.
> 
> By the way, wolves do just fine on kibble in zoos, but they need more time to generate the enzymes.
> 
> ...


So tell me Monster's dad, if they have evolved so far away from the wolf, why haven't their teeth shown some evolving too?


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> That's what I'd like to know, too. You can tell A LOT but who funds the studies. I'd be willing to bet there is a conflict of interests.... there hardly ever ISN'T.
> 
> I'm dying laughing at people using this as an excuse to feed kibbles filled with poor quality, genetically modified ingredients and feel food about it LOL You'd think they're labeling them as OMNIVORES bases on some people's reaction.


Dogs were officially classified as omnivores years ago. The study we are talking about now confirms the genetic make-up and the evolutionary path which dovetails with that classification. In 2006, The National Research Council of the National Academies published something called "A Science-Based Guide for Pet Owners". You should read it. These are the people that wrote the guidance:

COMMITTEE ON NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF DOGS AND CATS

DONALD C. BEITZ, Chair, Iowa State University
JOHN E. BAUER, Texas A&M University
KEITH C. BEHNKE, Kansas State University
DAVID A. DZANIS, Dzanis Consulting & Collaborations
GEORGE C. FAHEY, University Of Illinois
RICHARD C. HILL, University Of Florida
FRANCIS A. KALLFELZ, Cornell University
ELLEN KIENZLE, Zentrum Für Lebensmittel Und Tierernährung, Oberschleissheim, Germany
JAMES G. MORRIS, University Of California, Davis
QUINTON R. ROGERS, University Of California, Davis

There are no credible scientists that consider dogs as we know them to be carnivores.


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

And Pluto was a planet for the longest time too. Just because some scientists put them down in the books as omnivore does not mean they are correct.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

whiteleo said:


> So tell me Monster's dad, if they have evolved so far away from the wolf, why haven't their teeth shown some evolving too?


That is easy to answer. The mouth structure was already adapted to eat a more varied diet. There is nothing in the design of the mouth of a dog that precludes it from eating something other than meat. Grey Wolves eat kibble in the zoo, right? Proof the design is flexible enough for many food types.

There are other reasons why experts consider domesticated dogs to be omnivores. The one that is particulary important is that dogs can make Vitamin A from plants sources while cats cannot.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> That is easy to answer. The mouth structure was already adapted to eat a more varied diet. There is nothing in the design of the mouth of a dog that precludes it from eating something other than meat. Grey Wolves eat kibble in the zoo, right? Proof the design is flexible enough for many food types.


How is this any proof other than zoos are cheap and want the cheapest food to feed the animals?

Canines clearly were meant to eat meat based on the fact raw fed dogs don't need teeth cleanings. Wolves found in the wild don't have rotten teeth. A canine will sustain life on a diet that isn't meat/bone/organ but they'll have rotten teeth and many other issues. If we want our canines to have good teeth and good health, GMO crops and carbs are not the best way. Again, grains are not what they used to be. No living creature is adapted to eat GMO ingredients.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Monster's Dad, 

Even if they are omnivores, the foods you recommend are horrible examples of what an omnivore should eat. We can debate all day long if they need/benefit from anything other than meat/bones/organs. However, there's no doubt the majority of foods out there use inferior ingredients not fit for ANY LIVING THING.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

There was one interesting thing I read about this study. Just because those genes are there doesn't necessarily mean they are functioning genes. There are certain genes that don't function in different animals. Who says this couldn't be one? Or that it could even be a mutation?


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Except there's a difference between eating whole unprocessed grains and the broken down/processed flour that's in the kibble. I'd like to see how well dogs digest whole corn and oats.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Another thing - if these foods are so appropriate for canines, why do they need to be cooked? LMAO dogs were designed to only benefit from something that's been cooked? Think about that one. Makes no sense. Mother nature didn't equip the canines with stoves in the beginning


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

whiteleo said:


> So tell me Monster's dad, if they have evolved so far away from the wolf, why haven't their teeth shown some evolving too?


And why can they inner breed?


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

wolfsnaps88 said:


> Dogs were not designed to digest carbs. Maybe we are seeing the first steps in the very slow process of evolution? Dogs are being FORCED to eat grains so rather than DIE, they manage. But even with managing, there are health issues that vets are dealing with daily.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that dogs and wolves are SO different when the basic general structure of their digestive tract is the same. Short route from mouth to anus...sharp molars as opposed to flat ones....I mean, I don't see how you can debate against this.
> 
> ...


It's possible it could be the very first stages of evolution for dogs, which can take hundreds if not thousands of years. It has also been the cause of the extinction of a number of species from the past. In that case, it would be humans fault, since WE are the ones who developed kibble. Scary thought.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

shellbeme said:


> I also find it interesting that all these 'studies' are coming out right now, after the associations have taken a stand against raw feeding and right after several large companies have started to change their formulas, however still leaving in many of the grain type items that are being frowned upon.
> 
> I don't believe dogs are wolves or wolves are dogs. There is what, about a 98.6% simularity in their dna, and how closely related are we to chimps? I have seen 98.5 to 99% listed for that as well. So, I don't buy the whole 'dogs are wolves' debate. They are not. They are different, bottom line for me.
> 
> ...


99.8% similar...there is a 0.2% difference at most.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

monster'sdad said:


> So now it has been proven by science that dogs and wolves have significantly different brain and digestive genetics.
> 
> Dog are not wolves and wolves are not dogs.


Last time I checked dogs were classified "canis lupus familiaris" canis meaning carnivore....meat eater.

I will send you a link with the studies they did on dog/wolf dna....the dog is the wolf's closest relative...dogs are closer to wolves than the wolf's closest wild cousin, the coyote, wich differs 0.4% from the wolf. That is pretty significant monster, you can not argue this fact. Dogs are domesticated wolves.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> 99.8% similar...there is a 0.2% difference at most.


Yeah, seriously. It's silly to say such a thing. 

Can you breed with a chimpanzee? Didn't think so.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

monster'sdad said:


> Dogs were in fact "designed" to eat carbohydrates and grains. The comparison of the genetics proves the divergent evolutionary path of dogs and wolves. This should be clear as crystal to anyone that is intellectually honest. Your analysis of being forced to eat grains is not entirely accurate is this case. These "seed dogs" were already adapted with the proper genes to make the needed enzymes and a particular situation to use them was presented. Meaning these "seed dogs" existed and stumbled upon human settlements and socialized. That is how species evolve and diverge.
> 
> By the way, wolves do just fine on kibble in zoos, but they need more time to generate the enzymes.
> 
> ...


Funny you should mention the wolves in the zoo's. Just yesterday I contacted the lady who owns and runs the wolf sanctuary in Eastern cape, South Africa. I asked her what a wolf's diet should consist of. She replied saying she finds this an odd question, wolves are carnivores, they need meat....not pellets, not canned food, meat! Those were her words. She also replied that her wolves get 19 - 20 years old.....she feeds them meat of course.


----------



## Kassandra (Jun 6, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> Yeah, seriously. It's silly to say such a thing.
> 
> Can you breed with a chimpanzee? Didn't think so.


Well TECHNICALLY we don't know this.. or did you try it out :wink::banplease:

But really. Like Sahara said, do we even know if these genes are functioning? And of course they can survive on it. But do they need it? And is it GOOD for them??? I could eat McDonalds for every meal but would I be healthy? No. Would I survive? Yes. I might have issues down the road but I will survive for now anyways.

And kibble fed in Zoos is disgusting to me.. Take the animal out of their natural habitat, feed it something completely unknown to them, put so much stress on their bodies. Of course the majority of them don't actually know any different but I've read on multiple websites that usually they live VERY short lives and are usually sick. A lot of them also end up being put down rather than dying of old age. 



Unosmom said:


> Except there's a difference between eating whole unprocessed grains and the broken down/processed flour that's in the kibble. I'd like to see how well dogs digest whole corn and oats.


I feel like an idiot asking this...... But can humans even digest whole corn or oats?? I know if broken down and smushed up we can but the WHOLE???


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Kassandra said:


> Well TECHNICALLY we don't know this.. or did you try it out :wink::banplease:
> /QUOTE]
> 
> No, LOL I have yet to find myself having an attraction to chimps BUT if it did happen, due to our difference in chromosomes, the offspring wouldn't live long and wouldn't be fertile. Dogs/Wolves have the same amount of chromosomes which is why they can breed and breed fertile offspring


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Except there's a difference between eating whole unprocessed grains and the broken down/processed flour that's in the kibble. I'd like to see how well dogs digest whole corn and oats.


Its the same for people. Humans evolved cooking the foods, and the "village dogs" with the genes were are talking about were selected out in the evolutionary process.

Noone is disputing that cooking aids in the digestion. Uncooked grains can however be digested so long as they are cracked or ground.

The whole discussion is not that wild canines evolved to handle grains very efficiently, rather that certain of them had the enzymes to co-evolve with humans that started to cook foods.

That is the point. Not one person here has a Wolf, we all have domesticated dogs.

It is pretty clear now that dogs have the genetics and digestive structure for grains, so arguing against it is completely intellectually dishonest. It is also equally clear that the evolution of dogs is far different than the romancing of certain food companies and certain people. Dogs as we know them were years and years ago scavengers, hanging out in early human settlements looking for and stealing scraps and garbage, just as they do now in certain parts of the world.

Anyone that lives in a rural area and has animals will tell you coyotes will eat any plant-based feed product they can find.

The domesticated dog and the coyote are much closer cousins than the wolf.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Its the same for people. Humans evolved cooking the foods, and the "village dogs" with the genes were are talking about were selected out in the evolutionary process.
> 
> Noone is disputing that cooking aids in the digestion. Uncooked grains can however be digested so long as they are cracked or ground.
> 
> ...


I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing dogs have adapted, not evolved, to survive off grains. This still shows no proof a dog will THRIVE on grains. This also shows none, whatsoever, that dogs will thrive on the state of grains put into kibbles. We're not dealing with boiled rice here added or whatnot. If you think this justifies feeding low quality ingredients that are in most kibbles, you're wrong and your animal will suffer because of this.


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

I do believe that dogs can do well on kibble. But saying that dogs are not similar to wolves is just not true. Wolves will scavage in garbage as well. Easier picking than hunting. Dogs and wolves breed and produce fertile young, depending on the "amount" of each determines if the offspring will show more wolf or dog like characteristics (don't know about coyotes, have no experience with them). 
Even the studies have said that some dogs have more markers than others indicating the ability to use carbs effeciently. 
As far as feeding kibble in zoos, Zoos also feed Maned Wolves kibble, even though it's been proven that they don't do as well on that type of diet (i.e. health issues)
Going to stop now, babblefest over.


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

And just to point out..while we do all have dogs here, there are a few with wolf dog mixes so there is a wolf or two here as well. 

And adaptation is what drives evolution....just had to say it 

I know of wolf rescue/santuaries that feed a mostly raw diet. Just because a zoo does feed kibble doesn't mean it should.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

Zoos only feed kibble because its donated, or cheap and convenient. The good ones feed raw.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

monster'sdad said:


> The domesticated dog and the coyote are much closer cousins than the wolf.


Please show me the data that supports this theory.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Please show me the data that supports this theory.


 They're not. They are all in the same family, and are very closely related. In fact, dogs and wolves are just slightly closer in relation. Heres a link about it. It gets into the genetics/DNA about halfway down.s/dogs-origins.hthttp://www.floridalupine.org/publicationml

They are so close they can all inner breed.

That link didn't seem to work, here it is again. http://floridalupine.org/publications/dogs-origins.html


----------



## danea (Oct 25, 2008)

Actually, studies on digestibility existed long before this one.

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/77/8/2180.full.pdf
The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods
http://www.mtt.fi/afs/pdf/mtt-afs-v13n1_2p005.pdf


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

danea said:


> Actually, studies on digestibility existed long before this one.
> 
> http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/77/8/2180.full.pdf
> The Use of Sorghum and Corn as Alternatives to Rice in Dog Foods
> http://www.mtt.fi/afs/pdf/mtt-afs-v13n1_2p005.pdf


Yes, there are many of these studies, but only recently, like last week, were the actual genetic differences identified comparing wolves and dogs.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Crap, that link doesn't work, but it's floridalupine.org.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Sprocket said:


> Zoos only feed kibble because its donated, or cheap and convenient. The good ones feed raw.


Right? I don't know why the person keeps stressing this. It doesn't make it okay just because a zoo does it. Most zoos are a FOR-PROFIT business. Zoos already aren't the most ethical thing around so I don't get why this person is acting like the zoo is the basis for how we should feed animals. A zoo feeding their wolves kibble clearly doesn't have their best interests in mind. But then again, since when were zoos known for having animal's interests in mind?


----------



## danea (Oct 25, 2008)

Forgot to put a quote.
It was actually a comment on *Sheltielover25* post 


> It tells you a lot about animal food that they're doing thiss study AFTER animals have been eating it for years. Shouldn't they have tested this out BEFORE adding it to kibbles? LOL


I just wanted to point out that they did studies before. Before this one nutritionist already knew that dogs could digest grains, know they know why.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

monster'sdad said:


> So now it has been proven by science that dogs and wolves have significantly different brain and digestive genetics.
> 
> Dog are not wolves and wolves are not dogs.


Here you go: https://docs.google.com/document/d/125Pj8OH9qyP-UcLngi2oEmehpkelRwulyAYbIrax6aQ/edit


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Here you go: https://docs.google.com/document/d/125Pj8OH9qyP-UcLngi2oEmehpkelRwulyAYbIrax6aQ/edit


That is a fantastic site. That's exactly the truth, and man at the depth of info on DNA. It lost me on it. When you click the link though you have to click another for a "permission" of sorts to view. An hour or so later I got the info in my email. I saved it for future reference.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

naturalfeddogs said:


> That is a fantastic site. That's exactly the truth, and man at the depth of info on DNA. It lost me on it. When you click the link though you have to click another for a "permission" of sorts to view. An hour or so later I got the info in my email. I saved it for future reference.


Sorry about that..I didn't know it was locked, I've now unlocked it so anyone can view.


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

That is interesting. I will admit I didn't read the whole thing and yes it lost me. But I found the end very interesting.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

What I liked about it was that it's the actual data published on the actual studies they did....not an internet website that can basically be written by anyone. Is this not the kind of proof monster is always looking for?


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

I think so. It covers everything he was talking about it looks like, he just hasn't commented about it yet? That's unusual.


----------

