Nieft / Secola wrote:

> Rex:
> >Those on this list that have raised livestock know that a huge percentage of
> >the eat-this/eat-that/cook-it/don't-cook-it dietary arguing here is so much
> >b.s.   For instance, those people know that good hay makes for thriving
> >animals and poor-quality hay makes for sickly, non-producers.
>
> And they often do better with mineral blocks which include what raw
> foodists would consider non-foods (free minerals, mollasis, etc.).
>

ABSOLUTELY---they can't make it on poor grass.

>
> And modern chicks usually do better with grain supplements (sometimes
> including borderline stuff) even if allowed to forage.

ABSOLUTELY!---birds need high-quality vegetation

>
> We, too, are a domesticated animal and that may have changed some of the
> nutritional rules for some of us.
>

ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY!!!---our food is junk.  You've got to learn
how to measure quality and then DEMAND it.

You've summed it up.  When someone claims they simply couldn't do well on a
particular diet (raw, cooked, fruit, whatever), they are talking b.s. unless they
have considered the QUALITY of that diet.  Person A on a high Brix diet will
thrive even as person B, on an apparently similar, but low Brix diet, is failing
to make a go of it on toxic matter.

"A [good] apple a day will keep the doctor away."
[but a modern junker will autodial him.]

Thanks, Kirt.
Rex

BTW, let up on your toxic-talk about Wes.  Who are you going to have left after
you've run off everybody?  You're sounding too much like Jeff Ross.