I am sorry your dog could not tolerate raw eggs, but it was unlikely to be because of the avidin. Perhaps an allergy.
Originally Posted by Megaladon
Actually, avidin is not toxic, but it binds biotin, so an animal fed nothing but raw eggs will end up deficient in biotin. Avidin is inactivated by heat. However, many species of wild animals, including wolves, coyotes, and foxes, will eat eggs when they can get them as they are such an excellent source of high quality digestible protein. Even animals we consider herbivores, such as deer, have been observed eating the eggs of ground-nesting birds.
Unless you are feeding a diet of nothing but raw eggs, avidin is unlikely to be a problem. The amount of biotin inactivated is approximately the amount the egg contains. I do feed my dogs a raw egg or two every day and have done so for many years without a problem. Many people worldwide have fed raw eggs to a very wide variety of species.
Good point, she very well could have been allergic to the avidin. I did feed my other dogs the raw eggs as well, and while they got mildly ill, it was nothing compared to this dog. Perhaps (because my hens lay tons of eggs) I fed too much. However, I will no longer feed raw eggs to my animals, only cooked.
Originally Posted by Houndhill
JB, hook us up with a good link about why cats should not eat raw eggs whites. Afraid I let the cats eat raw eggs. TIA :)
I have to beat my dog to the spot one of the hens lays in as she'll take and eat them. I find the shells on the front deck.
There are a zillion links that say the avidin inhibits absorption of B vites. To my knowledge, Vit B is an essential vitamin for cats, as in, they don't make it (or enough) on their own.
Horses are pretty good at making those things which may be why raw eggs are not a problem for them, especially given their size:egg ratio which is much, much larger than a cat's.
I don't know about dogs.
Interesting thread. Maybe a safe alternative to those who are skeptical would be the egg-whites-in-a-carton they sell at the grocery store. I buy that for myself at times. As a bonus, it's easy to pour.
This is my thought exactly. I think the USDA says that 1 in 20,000 eggs has salmonella (I could be off in that number)... I have no idea if horses are as susceptible to it as we are, but I'm not willing to find out.
Originally Posted by Whitfield Farm Hanoverians
I would not feed my horse an animal protein. I cannot see how it would benefit the horse in any way??
I would guess eggs produced free range from healthy free roaming hens are a lot safer than anything from a factory farm battery hen kept "productive" with antibiotics. If there is salmonella present, it is very unlikely to be one of the very dangerous antibiotic resistant strains.
I've never heard of feeding eggs to horses but I've fed them a few times a week to my JRT's and they are the picture of health. I also feed them raw, shells and all, to my pigs. Pigs think they are delicious and it gives me a use for eggs that are cracked and not suitable to sell. Pigs are omnivores though and do fine with animal protein. I don't feed them meat however..just the eggs.
Last year my vet pumped raw eggs into my mare, 12 at a time, twice a day, for a couple days. Her protein levels were extremely low. She wasn't eating or drinking anything, and this was one convenient way to get inexpensive, easily digestible protein into her, along with water and meds.
He said he had done it several times in emergency situations.
Sorry to disagree, I wish you quit saying that, have already explained that the latest studies shown organic food to be as if not more contaminated, for obvious reasons.
Originally Posted by Daydream Believer
This is only one of several studies out there now.
The USDA produce inspection figures have already been indicating this to be so for some years now:
---"Is organic food worth it?
Our view: The label suggests 'healthier' but a new study says otherwise
September 06, 2012
Not so long ago, only "health food nuts" preferred organically grown fresh fruits, vegetables and meats over their industrial agriculture equivalents. Nowadays, lots of people look for the words "organically grown" when they want to eat healthy. But what if turns out those little labels don't actually mean what people think, and that the foods they feel so good about eating aren't that different from the store brand — except for the price tag at checkout?
That's the question raised by researchers at Stanford University in a study published this week, which found that the health benefits of organically grown produce, meats, eggs and cheeses are negligible when compared to their non-organic counterparts. Not only were foods labeled organic no more nutritious than other foods, which tend to be substantially less expensive, they were just as likely as the store brand to be contaminated by bacteria like E. coli and other dangerous germs."---
Bluey, DDB didn't say anything about organic in that post of hers.
It IS proven that free range hens produce eggs that ARE a lot healthier than caged hens. The variety of food, which includes food high in Omega 3, and other things, makes for eggs significantly higher in O3 and significantly lower in cholesterol. That's irrespective of being organic or not.
Having an "organic" label on something absolutely doesn't automatically make something more nutritious. You can legitimately call something organic, fits by all standards including no antibiotics, no chemical sprays, etc. But when talking about, say, a pepper, if you aren't fertilizing the soil with anything, if you're just planting and watering, then there may well be less nutrition in that pepper than one grown in well fertilized soil from non-organic sources.
I also agree that organic does not always mean safer - if "organic" to someone means absolutely no pest control, then if you've got a mouse/rat problem and they're pooping on your veggies, well, that's a helluva lot more dangerous than a sprayed plant or farm which keeps the varmints away.
But on the subject of eggs, while free range hens living in lots of open space do have a lower risk of salmonella contamination, it's not low enough to want to take the risk, sadly :( :( Salmonella Enteritis (SE) is the most common salmonella variety likely to take up residence in chickens, from what I've read. Most of the time it's only in places where it affects the shell, which we obviously, as people (and when feeding to our cats/dogs/etc) aren't eating. But it can also get into the repro tract of the hen, and when that happens, it's in the egg itself. It is, the vast majority of the time, present in amounts small enough to not even bother people - about 1/10th IIRC of what it takes to start producing symptoms. But it still can, and has been, present in high enough amounts to cause problems for us, even free range on many acres, even truly organic.
Why? Because the source is often things we can't control - rodents, birds, and other critters.
Thankfully for the chickens, they're pretty immune to this but on the flip side, it makes it very difficult to know if a hen is affected. So, we should assume the possibility is large enough to take precautions, like cooking.
Sorry, that also doesn't hold with current studies, that show that commercial agricultural production, while no one is saying is perfect, is better in many ways to other, because of the technology that permits it to be better controlled for so many factors that small operations can't quite manage, not consistently.
Originally Posted by JB
What you and DB are saying is what people thought when this niche marketing started a couple of decades ago.
Now, after time seeing the difference, we know better.
Check other sources than those that promote niche marketing or commercial production, unbiased ones and you will find reflected there what I am saying.
Real data really doesn't lie.
What doesn't hold with current studies?
You seem to be making arguments against something that neither DDB nor I are talking about :confused:
I never said some commercial practices aren't better than the "old days" - I even said as much with the pepper example that there is something to be said for doing things the new way, or that the old way is not always better.
I realize this study might not satisfy you, but it IS a study of eggs from various places around the country that shows, compared to traditional store-bought (ie caged) eggs, more O3, less saturated fat, and less cholesterol.
Please show me a study that proves otherwise - my mind is open, promise.
Well look at this, Rutger's says you can feed 1-2 pounds of eggs a day.
HAH.... Well I wish I had read this thread before I ordered that bag of Calf Manna....
You could feed pasteurized eggs if you are worried about Salmonella.