NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/pets/4144

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.9 KB | 89 lines

Newsgroups: rec.pets
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!fs1.ee.ubc.ca!jmorriso
From: [e-mail] (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Purina Rabbit Chow and wood-chip litter (was Re: bunny questions)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:26:51 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (LaRocheNJ) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>> Purina, Country Green Rabbit Chow.
>> ...Then they give a guaranteed analysis (maybe someone who knows can
>> say whether this is good)
>>
>> Crude protein:  minimum 15%
>>       fat       minimum  2%
>>       fiber     maximum 18%
>
>The House Rabbit Handbook recommends 14-18% protein and 16-20% crude
>fiber.  Older rabbits should have relatively lower protein, so the 15%
>sounds very good for them and adequate for younger rabbits.  The 2% fat
>is excellent--most of the major brands seem to have more.  And of
>course, the fiber falls in the middle of the recommended range.
>

Since it says minimum 2%, there is room for upward movement. To be useful,
the package should say minimum 2%, maximum X%.

I think there was about 1 or 2% minerals; So  15% + 2% + 18% + 2% = 37%,
which leaves 63% of ingredients unaccounted for. Would this be carbohydrates?
Or would the protein and fiber be higher (Since the specs say minimum, they
could put more in)

>On the negative side, it doesn't mention any of the probiotics (enzymes
>that digest protein and starches, including hairballs).  Or did you just
>not include this?

The bag didn't mention enzymes. It did say you could write Purina for the
ingredients of the feed. But unless these enzymes are naturally occurung,
I think it is asafe to guess that they haven't added any.
>
>>                                             ...We use a paper based litter,
>> instead of regular cat litter. The paper/pulp has no dust and is soft; if
>> we use regular cat litter, the rabbit feels like chalk if you pick him up.
>
>You're referring to clay litter and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
>
I think the bunny agrees too. He sort of cringes when we have to use clay
litter ('cause the other stuff ran out, and we can't get to a store until
a weekday).

The dust is just awful. The clay cat litter isn't meant to be lived in
(cats just crap in the litter box, but they don't live in the litter box.
While bunnies spend a fair bit of time in their cages)

I wonder about the dust: do rabbits roll around in dust? He doesn't have
any ecto-parasites (ie fleas, mites), but do bunnies have an instinct to
roll around in dust?

>> (cedar chips are even more expensive, and they are really messy with an
>> open wire cage. Cedar doesn't absorb much water either)
>
>Most of all, cedar chips (in fact, any wood chips) emit phenols that
>cause liver damage if the phenols can collect in the air the rabbit
>breathes.  (I suspect the same is true of hamsters, mice, and all the
>other small animals for whom wood chips are sold!)

True. It probably isn't as big a concern for hamsters, rats etc. since
they have much shorter lifespans than bunnies. I think damage from
chemicals would be cumulative, and would be a bigger threat to a long lived
animal (just like smoking cigarettes: cancer and stuff only show up
after 20+ years of use/exposure. If people only lived 20 years, smoking
probably wouldn't be a big deal risk over a lifetime)
>
>Nancy LaRoche (HRS)
>att!drutx!njl


--
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |
 University of British Columbia, Canada |
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 [e-mail]              VE7JPM |
________________________________________|_________________________________