|Barked: Tue Sep 11, '12 3:45pm PST |
|Sure! We (legal team) have no issues with anyone sharing the info privately.
Peer reviews were private via veterinary nutritionists which doesn't qualify as being peer reviewed IMHO. But that was to be expected (arguably) because I have no issues with raw feeding (whereas there can be bias in some veterinary circles) and I'm not a veterinary nutritionist. The reason I know that the analyses we did were as accurate as possible is because we did so many samples, and from a variety of sources to emulate what the average person buys. The reason I know that other analyses aren't (or weren't at the time we printed the book) is because I'm aware of the lab that was used and the number of samples that were sent. It's common knowledge (per any lab you speak with, and any analyses you look at) that there are variables and lab errors are possible. To minimize the possible glitches, you need to send a lot of samples - and even then, it'll never be perfect because every piece of food will differ. But you can arrive at a mean this way whereas the mean of 1-3 samples can't represent much. Nothing is perfect, but we did the best possible.
Anyway, I appreciate your questions and hope I've clarified that I'm not against sharing the info. Just don't want to have it on a public forum.
Hope all of your dogs are healthy and remain that way for a long time, and really hope the info in the book will help you to help your dogs.
|my posts|| [notify]|