unable to find "natural salt-lick is a legend" article
JC Dill
looking for "natural salt licks" and was unable to discover any in
many areas where there were large herds of healthy animals (deer etc.)
and who determined that it's a myth that these animals "need salt".
I've tried googling and all I find are stories/myths/legends that
discuss animals coming to a mythical or human-made salt lick or the
very rare natural licks (as near Salt Lake City) found in only a few
places in the world. I'm unable to find the article that discussed
the dearth of such licks in most areas of the world.
Anyone here have any hints on how to find this article?
Thanks!
jc
Charles Wm. Dimmick
I don't know about that, but I do know about natural salt licks
in New York, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming,
Virginia, and Illinois.
Charles
Billzz
news:OjAxe.2200$4m3....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Add California. Mono Lake is 45 acres of salt lick.
Lon
> I remember reading an article a while back about a researcher who went
> looking for "natural salt licks" and was unable to discover any in
> many areas where there were large herds of healthy animals (deer etc.)
> and who determined that it's a myth that these animals "need salt".
Those two issues need to be separated. As for "needing salt" that
indeed may not be the case, although it didn't take long to find
articles noting that such licks may contribute to the local animal
population.
As for "liking to lick salty soil areas" or that researchers
inability to find natural salt licks, I can only conclude that 150%
of the research was done on the concrete sidewalks in Lower Manhattan,
or by someone unable or unwilling to simply ask the locals. Oops,
hold that, I have personally observed salty remnants along even
the sidewalks of lower manhattan.
> I've tried googling and all I find are stories/myths/legends that
> discuss animals coming to a mythical or human-made salt lick or the
> very rare natural licks (as near Salt Lake City) found in only a few
> places in the world. I'm unable to find the article that discussed
> the dearth of such licks in most areas of the world.
I should hope so, as it is balderdash that such licks are in any
sense of the word rare. All it takes is an area where water can
collect and evaporate...which can be ongoing at the time or gone
some millions of years before.
It is much easier to find articles totally to the contrary.
Lon
Montana, Idaho, Washington, Utah, Colorado, California, Oregon,
etc. Might be a shorter, if non-existent- list of where they
cannot be found, as even sublimating ice can leave natural licks
behind.
danny burstein
> As for "liking to lick salty soil areas" or that researchers
> inability to find natural salt licks, I can only conclude that 150%
> of the research was done on the concrete sidewalks in Lower Manhattan,
> or by someone unable or unwilling to simply ask the locals. Oops,
> hold that, I have personally observed salty remnants along even
> the sidewalks of lower manhattan.
That's the very last time I let you treat me to dinner.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
TOliver
"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:OjAxe.2200$4m3....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
lick, they could simply wander down to the banks of the Brazos's Salt Fork
where the water is unpotably salty (as it is in a number of streams across
the US Plains). Then there Gyp Water - saltyish of flavor, but likely to
free up your innards'n loosen your bowels.
TM "Folks who drink from desert springs may unleash a torrent." Oliver
Hatunen
Not to mention Kentucky: http://www.saltlickky.com/
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Steve Howarth
"Hatunen" <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:24vec1p1lpv801nuj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:39:58 GMT, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
> <cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> >JC Dill wrote:
> >
> >> I remember reading an article a while back about a researcher who went
> >> looking for "natural salt licks" and was unable to discover any in
> >> many areas where there were large herds of healthy animals (deer etc.)
> >> and who determined that it's a myth that these animals "need salt".
> >> I've tried googling and all I find are stories/myths/legends that
> >> discuss animals coming to a mythical or human-made salt lick or the
> >> very rare natural licks (as near Salt Lake City) found in only a few
> >> places in the world. I'm unable to find the article that discussed
> >> the dearth of such licks in most areas of the world.
> >>
> >> Anyone here have any hints on how to find this article?
> >
> >I don't know about that, but I do know about natural salt licks
> >in New York, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming,
> >Virginia, and Illinois.
>
> Not to mention Kentucky: http://www.saltlickky.com/
>
then translated?
Steve Howarth
name_and_add...@hotmail.com
JC Dill wrote:
> I remember reading an article a while back about a researcher who went
> looking for "natural salt licks" and was unable to discover any in
> many areas where there were large herds of healthy animals (deer etc.)
> and who determined that it's a myth that these animals "need salt".
My immediate response to this is "aren't the large herds of healthy
animals themselves natural salt licks?".
I am sure I have seen horses licking eachother for salt. But I haven't
been able to verify whether cows sweat over much of their body surface.
I know that dogs don't sweat much, for example.
Paul Cassel
>
>
> I don't know about that, but I do know about natural salt licks
> in New York, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming,
> Virginia, and Illinois.
>
supplements and that I don't know. The creatures are salty (just bite
into one) so they must get it somewhere. Do the plants they graze on
naturally in those places have trace amounts of salt? I don't know.
JC Dill
wrote:
>JC Dill proclaimed:
>
>> I remember reading an article a while back about a researcher who went
>> looking for "natural salt licks" and was unable to discover any in
>> many areas where there were large herds of healthy animals (deer etc.)
>> and who determined that it's a myth that these animals "need salt".
>
> Those two issues need to be separated.
By who, for what purpose?
I'm just trying to find the article I read before. Once I find it, if
you want you can read it, THEN maybe you can bring up your contention
that the "two issues need to be separated".
> As for "needing salt" that
> indeed may not be the case, although it didn't take long to find
> articles noting that such licks may contribute to the local animal
> population.
Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
"natural salt licks" cited on the 'net. Most links that discuss said
salt licks discuss putting out salt because there is no salt lick
nearby and "everyone knows animals need salt licks".
In another post people were listing states. That's rather useless -
wild herds don't roam "statewide". If a given state has only one
known natural salt lick, it couldn't supply all the wild herds in that
state. For natural salt licks to be *necessary* for wild animal
health, they would have to be available everywhere in the grazing
animal range, if not as frequently as natural water sources then at
least within 1 day's range from each herd's grazing area.
Yet, these supposedly necessary "natural salt licks" are not found in
that abundance, as the article I read had shown. If I could FIND that
article I could CITE that article. Then you would be welcome to
debunk it.
> As for "liking to lick salty soil areas" or that researchers
> inability to find natural salt licks, I can only conclude that 150%
> of the research was done on the concrete sidewalks in Lower Manhattan,
I find it amazing that I read this tripe on AFU, a forum where people
usually do their research first before casting aspersions.
jc
Lon
Some will accumulate more than trace amounts of salt, inside their
structures and as external crystals.
? Wonder what grazes on sugar beets...other than the bonnevillian
jackrabbit--fastest hopper in the west.
Derek Lyons
>Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
>other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
>"natural salt licks" cited on the 'net.
And why would you expect to find *any* cited on the the 'net?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Lon
>
> Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
> other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
> "natural salt licks" cited on the 'net. Most links that discuss said
> salt licks discuss putting out salt because there is no salt lick
> nearby and "everyone knows animals need salt licks".
I'm not finding the links that claim that "everyone knows animals
need salt licks." I wonder if we are talking about the same thing.
The biggest salt area around Salt Lake City is the salt flats that
are largely table salt. However, a;; over that general area [as in
for hundreds and hundreds of miles in any direction I can think of]
are generic "salt" licks composed of differing minerals. In many
areas these form visible whitish surface deposits year round. The
licks sufficiently far from human habitation all tend to be visited
by wild animals. I can't recall any area of the united states where
these licks are at all rare, rather the opposite--being so common as
to be totally unnoteworthy.
> In another post people were listing states. That's rather useless -
> wild herds don't roam "statewide". If a given state has only one
> known natural salt lick, it couldn't supply all the wild herds in that
> state.
Yeah, except first you have to accept the false premise that natural
salt licks are that rare. Once you get past that leap of faith, it
is easy to presume that the tooth fairy carries each and every animal
in any given state to the one and only salt lick. Or that the salt
lick travels around the state, occasionally meeting the lick from
the neighboring state at the border for gossip sessions.
> For natural salt licks to be *necessary* for wild animal
> health, they would have to be available everywhere in the grazing
> animal range, if not as frequently as natural water sources then at
> least within 1 day's range from each herd's grazing area.
Actually there is not a thing in the above statement that is true.
The licks can be rare or scattered every millimeter or so, and their
necessity in the animal diet is totally unaffected.
>
> Yet, these supposedly necessary "natural salt licks" are not found in
> that abundance, as the article I read had shown. If I could FIND that
> article I could CITE that article. Then you would be welcome to
> debunk it.
The article is balderdash. Period. As many folks have attempted,
obviously vainly, to point out, natural salt licks are common in
every area of the USofA. Or the earth, take your choice.
>
> I find it amazing that I read this tripe on AFU, a forum where people
> usually do their research first before casting aspersions.
>
Yeah, it is amusing how many folks come in here totally ignorant, and
insist on leaving that way. Speaking of which, don't trip over the
salt lick on the way out...
JC Dill
wrote:
>JC Dill proclaimed:
>
>
>>
>> Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
>> other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
>> "natural salt licks" cited on the 'net. Most links that discuss said
>> salt licks discuss putting out salt because there is no salt lick
>> nearby and "everyone knows animals need salt licks".
>
> I'm not finding the links that claim that "everyone knows animals
> need salt licks."
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22horses+need+salt%22>
<http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22salt+lick%22+%22need+salt%22>
> I wonder if we are talking about the same thing.
> The biggest salt area around Salt Lake City is the salt flats that
> are largely table salt. However, a;; over that general area [as in
> for hundreds and hundreds of miles in any direction I can think of]
> are generic "salt" licks composed of differing minerals. In many
> areas these form visible whitish surface deposits year round. The
> licks sufficiently far from human habitation all tend to be visited
> by wild animals. I can't recall any area of the united states where
> these licks are at all rare, rather the opposite--being so common as
> to be totally unnoteworthy.
Well, looking on the web I find many things that would be
"unnoteworthy" that are none-the-less well represented. But not
natural salt licks. And the *article* I'm trying to find came to the
conclusion that these salt licks that "everyone knows about" are
actually quite rare, and not found in abundance enough to indicate
that "all animals need salt".
You claim above that there are many generic salt licks for hundreds of
miles in all directions from SLC. OK, how about citing some of these?
Any in Idaho? Wyoming? Colorado? Montana?
BTW, I'm not trying to debate the issue of if animals need salt, I'm
trying to FIND THE ARTICLE. Once I have found it, I'll cite it and
THEN we can discuss if the data and conclusions are valid. OK?
>> In another post people were listing states. That's rather useless -
>> wild herds don't roam "statewide". If a given state has only one
>> known natural salt lick, it couldn't supply all the wild herds in that
>> state.
>
> Yeah, except first you have to accept the false premise that natural
> salt licks are that rare.
I don't see where you have disproved this premise. You keep saying
that there are many natural salt licks, but you haven't provided any
evidence to support this factoid.
>> For natural salt licks to be *necessary* for wild animal
>> health, they would have to be available everywhere in the grazing
>> animal range, if not as frequently as natural water sources then at
>> least within 1 day's range from each herd's grazing area.
>
> Actually there is not a thing in the above statement that is true.
> The licks can be rare or scattered every millimeter or so, and their
> necessity in the animal diet is totally unaffected.
If they are rare as in "only one every 500 miles" then they can't be
necessary as many grazing animals would never travel to that
"necessary" salt lick. A wild animal in Wyoming isn't going to travel
to salt licks near SLC.
>> Yet, these supposedly necessary "natural salt licks" are not found in
>> that abundance, as the article I read had shown. If I could FIND that
>> article I could CITE that article. Then you would be welcome to
>> debunk it.
>
> The article is balderdash. Period.
Interesting how you come to this conclusion without reading it.
> As many folks have attempted,
> obviously vainly, to point out, natural salt licks are common in
> every area of the USofA. Or the earth, take your choice.
So far all I've seen are people saying "everyone knows". Not a single
site to these abundant salt licks! This isn't the AFU I used to
know...
>> I find it amazing that I read this tripe on AFU, a forum where people
>> usually do their research first before casting aspersions.
>>
> Yeah, it is amusing how many folks come in here totally ignorant, and
> insist on leaving that way. Speaking of which, don't trip over the
> salt lick on the way out...
"Come in here"? I've BEEN here, for years.
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/msg/77b58c5100511a85?dmode=source&hl=en>
jc
Lon
>
> Well, looking on the web I find many things that would be
> "unnoteworthy" that are none-the-less well represented. But not
> natural salt licks. And the *article* I'm trying to find came to the
> conclusion that these salt licks that "everyone knows about" are
> actually quite rare, and not found in abundance enough to indicate
> that "all animals need salt".
>
> You claim above that there are many generic salt licks for hundreds of
> miles in all directions from SLC. OK, how about citing some of these?
> Any in Idaho? Wyoming? Colorado? Montana?
Montana, yes. All over the place. All it takes is mineral water
that either evaporates or sublimes. Of course I could be making this
all up, but I *did* grow up in the Flathead Valley area and tended to
wander all over the area from about Missoula west to Spokane a lot.
Idaho, yup again, but spotted them only as a visitor. Wyoming, all
you need to do is get out of the vehicle along I-80 and walk a few
hundred yards, looking for the whitish telltale sign. Colorado, again
yup..admittedly as a visitor heading thru there every year in the past
15 plus living just west of there in Utah [Green River, Moab] where
you couldn't spit without hitting natural salt deposits or dinosaur
bone.
>
> BTW, I'm not trying to debate the issue of if animals need salt, I'm
> trying to FIND THE ARTICLE. Once I have found it, I'll cite it and
> THEN we can discuss if the data and conclusions are valid. OK?
You seem to be on a crusade here. If you *do* find such an article
prepare to have it declared hogwash in advance... Particularly if
it in any way claims salt deposits are rare. Even the most casual
journey out west would prove that whoever wrote that natural
salt licks, complete with animal footprints, are literally all over
the place.
> I don't see where you have disproved this premise. You keep saying
> that there are many natural salt licks, but you haven't provided any
> evidence to support this factoid.
Meet me in the western USofA and I'll stuff your thick head in one.
Silver Peak Nevada, head southeast about 100 yards, enjoy. What the
heck, start in the same place, head about 50 yards due west. Or drive
along I-80 and look for the deposits. Or US 50. Or I-15, or US 93, or
US 2 once you get much east of Cutbank. Or I-70 from Grand Junction
to the end near Nevada. Or east from Las Cruces up and over the
Organ mountains, down into the flats, then stop just past Holloman
AFB and head west to Lake Lucero. Or cut east into the Dona Ana
range. Or head south of Kalispell MT to Elmo and head west into
the old lava flow areas. Or head SW of Las Vegas to where the
Colorado river peters out into an old irrigation ditch leak. Or north
of Vegas along US 95 and look along either side of the highway for
telltale white powdery crystals--watch out as you pass Mercury as
some of the salts may glow in the dark.
>
> If they are rare as in "only one every 500 miles" then they can't be
> necessary as many grazing animals would never travel to that
> "necessary" salt lick. A wild animal in Wyoming isn't going to travel
> to salt licks near SLC.
I have a strong hunch you wouldn't recognize either a natural salt
lick or a wild animal if you fell into the thank you gifts those
animals leave near salt licks.
> Interesting how you come to this conclusion without reading it.
This is possibly true. However, the article as *you* characterize it
is definitely balderdash, presuming it exists in the first place.
> "Come in here"? I've BEEN here, for years.
>
Try going outside.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Did a little checking for my relatively small state of Connecticut.
Famous salt sources in colonial times included Salt Rock in Baltic, CT
and Mineral Springs in Stafford Springs, CT., although at Mineral
Springs the salt is subordinate to the sulphur compounds.
Charles
Trianna
>
> Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
> other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
> "natural salt licks" cited on the 'net.
Let me commend www.google.com to you. It's an excellent search engine.
I entered the phrases "natural salt licks" and "united states" and came
up with an awful lot of them.
T.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
wrote:
I didn't bother with the quotes or the united states and got this, as
the fourth item in a long list:
: Natural salt licks as a part of the ecology of the mountain goat.
: Hebert D, Cowan IM. MeSH Terms Animals British Columbia
: Calcium/analysis Ecology* ...
<www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5557898&dopt=Abstract>
It's not just popular supposition, it's documented in peer-reviewed
publications.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
JC Dill
Shafer)" <reunite....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I didn't bother with the quotes or the united states and got this, as
>the fourth item in a long list:
>
>: Natural salt licks as a part of the ecology of the mountain goat.
>: Hebert D, Cowan IM. MeSH Terms Animals British Columbia
>: Calcium/analysis Ecology* ...
><www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5557898&dopt=Abstract>
>
>It's not just popular supposition, it's documented in peer-reviewed
>publications.
Next time you might want to read the material you cite before you
claim that it proves what you want it to prove. Googling on the title
of this paper, I quickly found a PDF of it online at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr246.pdf>
I searched the PDF for the term "salt lick" in the PDF and this was
the first (and only) paragraph in that paper (aside from the title and
reference to an earlier paper with the term in the title) that uses
the term "salt lick":
>Mineral deficiencies in the diet can result in use of mineral licks by goats, and this
>sometimes results in use of otherwise poor goat habitat (Hebert and Cowan 1971,
>Singer 1978). The use of mineral licks is generally greatest in spring and early summer
>and is thought to correspond primarily to high sodium needs at that time of year (Hebert
>and Cowan 1971, Stevens 1983). No reports have been made of goats using natural
>mineral licks in coastal areas of Alaska. Relatively high sodium content found in a common
>summer forage species (Carex macrochaeta; see footnote 5) of goats in coastal
>Alaska suggests that goats might fulfill their sodium requirements from forage alone
>and could explain why they do not use salt licks in this region.
Note the "no reports have been made of goats using natural mineral
licks" and the following "goats might fulfill their sodium
requirements from forage alone" sections.
As I said in my original post in this thread, I read an article that
described many areas that had no natural salt licks, and the author
thus concluded that animals in those areas met their salt/mineral
needs thru forage and did not "need salt". This peer reviewed paper
describes one of the two things the article I read mentioned, namely
that the animals get their salt needs from forage and do not need to
have access to salt licks.
I sure wish I could find the article I read before (which was my
request in my original post) so I could cite *exactly* what it
claimed.
jc
TOliver
"JC Dill" <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aivmc1lecs2ksi011...@4ax.com...
>
> I sure wish I could find the article I read before (which was my
> request in my original post) so I could cite *exactly* what it
> claimed.
>
Some quaint personal assides......
Salt licks are plentiful in Texas, once the bottom of a great salt sea, gone
partially through evaporation.
About a mile from my house, just above old South Bosque Crossing, sits one.
As for those coastal mountain goats, the same applies to cattle (of which
most domestic raisers provide mineral supplements - salt licks purchased
down at the feed store). Over the years, I've run some cattle down in the
Coastal Plain of Texas (site of a lot more cattle raising both back then and
now than the open rangelands of West Texas). The Plains stretches in a Belt
up to 150 miles or more wide from East of Houston to below Corpus. Because
of the soil's high mineral content, it's occasionally referred to as "Salt
Grass Prairie". All along its length, it's broken by "Salt Domes", tell
tales for oil & gas scouts. Little Bayous, often brackish - some tidally
so - meander across it. Its lush pastures front on vast shallow bays where
the salt content exceeds that of the already saltier than most Gulf. All in
all, its a giant "salt lick" about thousands of square miles, and the
mineral supplements set out on ranches there are fewer and certainly need no
sodium.
Inland, in the plains and Cross Timbers, the "crust" of the long gone sea
often lies below the natural beds of limestone (all those little sea-shelled
critters) and clays. Rather than traditional salt licks, little springs
(seeps) of highly mineralized (by passage through "salt" beds) water break
the surface, along with "pans" where heat and sunlight have evaporated
water, both rain and ground, concentrating minerals. Cattle and other
animals frequent them where available, but even folks who cultivate deer for
hunters put out mineral blocks, because so much of the water available to
live stock and wild animals is now "conservation" water, rain runoff
impounded in "tanks", clay or other impermeable bottomed structures behind
earthen embankments, less mineralized and "salty" than natural water.
In far West Texas are the "Huecos" shallow rock pans which collect
rainwater. Some of them are potable. Others are filled with water which
has run across "salt". They ain't, but attract amzing concentrations of
wildlife for what is essentially a "desert". Flying over the Panhandle to
Lubbock or Amarillo, in a wet Spring/early Summer, some of the great
"playas" of former centuries can still be seen, boiling down to salty crusts
in the unending sun.
Upriver from me the well known "Salt Fork" of the Brazos collects minerals
from depositis along its length and is far too salty to drink or for most
any agricultural use.
As in Africa, the appeal of "salt" to animals, wild and domestic, is
apparent at both natural salt licks and the blocks set out by ranchers.
TMO
Barbara Needham
Hi, JC, from Barbara who knows you've been here for a long time and that
you weren't asking for a discussion of *Salt Licks* [although also since
you've been here a long time you know that meanders and
mis-understandings and total hijacking are just part of afu] but
***WHERE TO FIND THE BLINKIN' ARTICLE***
I think maybe people are saying that there is no such article -- but I'm
willing to go with your remembrance that there is one.
Of course, now that I've bathed you with understanding, I still don't
know how to find the article. I would have put my bucks on Charles [the
retired professor in Connecticut] being able to locate it.
Here's some thoughts:
1. Did you read it on-line, or in a dead-tree magazine?
2. If a magazine, was it newsprint or glossy?
3. Did you read it at home, or in drs. office.
4. Was it something on the order of Readers Digest, or more like
Scientific American or National Geographic?
Come to think of it, does searching National Geographic come up with
anything?
5. Or do you have access to real scientific journals where you might
have read it?
These are just meant to be memory joggers.
And the rest of you, read for meaning. ARTICLE is the item in question,
not SALTLICK.
JC Dill
Needham) wrote:
>Hi, JC, from Barbara who knows you've been here for a long time and that
>you weren't asking for a discussion of *Salt Licks* [although also since
>you've been here a long time you know that meanders and
>mis-understandings and total hijacking are just part of afu]
Yes, I know that. I don't mind thread drift as long as people don't
blame ME for the things they say in the thread drift. What made this
so frustrating was that people misread my post and then attacked their
misinterpretion of what I was asking for.
> but
> ***WHERE TO FIND THE BLINKIN' ARTICLE***
>I think maybe people are saying that there is no such article -- but I'm
>willing to go with your remembrance that there is one.
Thanks Barbara, it's nice to learn that someone understands my quest
here!
>Of course, now that I've bathed you with understanding, I still don't
>know how to find the article. I would have put my bucks on Charles [the
>retired professor in Connecticut] being able to locate it.
>
>Here's some thoughts:
>1. Did you read it on-line, or in a dead-tree magazine?
Online, several years ago. It was a site or page with extensive
information about many areas that had no or few natural salt licks and
how the wild animals in that area managed just fine without access to
natural or man-provided salt licks, and the conclusion that the
animals didn't really "need" salt licks but that they were attracted
to them for the taste rather than for nutritional requirements.
>Come to think of it, does searching National Geographic come up with
>anything?
Nope, not a thing. All I found were some articles that talk about
observing animals at a salt lick. Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't
tried searching there.
>5. Or do you have access to real scientific journals where you might
>have read it?
No, I read it online. It wasn't the type of article that would have
been in a "real scientific journal", it wasn't a peer-reviewed paper
but it may have been an article *about* a peer-reviewed paper. Who
knows, it might have been total bunk but until I can find the article
again we won't know. I remember at the time being impressed with the
data the article cited and how in many areas there were simply NO
natural salt licks to be found.
>These are just meant to be memory joggers.
Thanks!
>And the rest of you, read for meaning. ARTICLE is the item in question,
>not SALTLICK.
Hopefully this will spur some other ideas on how to find this article.
jc
Karen McMurray
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:54:47 -0700, barba...@newsguy.com (Barbara
> Needham) wrote:
>
> > ***WHERE TO FIND THE BLINKIN' ARTICLE***
> >I think maybe people are saying that there is no such article -- but I'm
> >willing to go with your remembrance that there is one.
>
> Thanks Barbara, it's nice to learn that someone understands my quest
> here!
> Hopefully this will spur some other ideas on how to find this article.
I've found what may the article you're remembering, blinkin' or otherwise,
at
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/kicksalt.html
(I Googled on "wild animals need salt", sans quotes, on the theory that the
phrase "salt lick" was a red herring.)
It's full of revelations such as the following:
----
THE TRUTH ABOUT SALT
Would you use sodium, a caustic alkali, to season your food? Or chlorine, a
poisonous gas? "Ridiculous questions," you say. "Nobody would be foolhardy
enough to do that."
Of course not. But the shocking truth is that most people do so... because
they
don't know that these powerful chemicals constitute the inorganic crystaline
compound-salt.
----
The bit about animals and the scarcity of natural salt licks is at the end.
If I'm reading it correctly, the author of that part is saying that a) salt
licks are rare; and b) they contain little or no sodium chloride; therefore
c) we shouldn't put salt on our food.
Karen "kippered" McMurray
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I've found what may the article you're remembering, blinkin' or otherwise,
> at http://www.living-foods.com/articles/kicksalt.html
[....]
> The bit about animals and the scarcity of natural salt licks is at the end.
That part is written by Herbert M. Shelton (1895-1985), a chiropractor
and naturopath, noted for curing cancer with sun bathing and fasting.
He ran for President in 1956 on the American Vegetarian Party ticket.
The main objection I have to most of Shelton's voluminous writings
is that he usually does not properly document any of his statements
or findings, other than quoting himself or quoting other "naturalists"
who also don't document any of their "findings". He is founder of
"Natural Hygiene" and has been accused of practices which led to the
death of various patients. For instance:
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/dietaryLifestylesPartFourNaturalHygiene.html
The natural hygiene movement began around 1850 and has several mutations
and philosophies, which range from rational to extremist. The most
recent promoter of the movement is Herbert M. Shelton, who ran an
unaccredited "school" in Texas from 1928 to 1981. After the school
closed, in 1982, a federal court awarded US$873,000 to the family of a
patient who died while being treated at Shelton's school. In the last
month of his life the patient had lost 50 pounds and was the sixth
person to die in five years while undergoing treatment at the school.
He also seems to have been one of those proponents of the idea that
diseases are caused by being vaccinated against them.
Charles
JC Dill
wrote:
>"JC Dill" <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4f4oc11bk1tfnev2r...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:54:47 -0700, barba...@newsguy.com (Barbara
>> Needham) wrote:
>>
>> > ***WHERE TO FIND THE BLINKIN' ARTICLE***
>> >I think maybe people are saying that there is no such article -- but I'm
>> >willing to go with your remembrance that there is one.
>>
>> Thanks Barbara, it's nice to learn that someone understands my quest
>> here!
>> . . .
>> Hopefully this will spur some other ideas on how to find this article.
>
>I've found what may the article you're remembering, blinkin' or otherwise,
>at
>http://www.living-foods.com/articles/kicksalt.html
>
>(I Googled on "wild animals need salt", sans quotes, on the theory that the
>phrase "salt lick" was a red herring.)
That's getting closer. Sheton's stuff is a bit less well documented
than the article I remember reading, so I don't think it was Shelton
himself that the article was written by or about. It might be that
the article I remember was one of Shelton's uncredited sources.
Thanks for the search tip! I hadn't yet found a good way to drop
"salt lick" and still find the types of results I was hoping for.
I'll give that a try and see if I uncover any more.
jc
TeaLady (Mari C.)
>
>>Mineral deficiencies in the diet can result in use of
>>mineral licks by goats, and this sometimes results in use
>>of otherwise poor goat habitat (Hebert and Cowan 1971,
>>Singer 1978). The use of mineral licks is generally
>>greatest in spring and early summer and is thought to
>>correspond primarily to high sodium needs at that time of
>>year (Hebert and Cowan 1971, Stevens 1983). No reports have
>>been made of goats using natural mineral licks in coastal
>>areas of Alaska. Relatively high sodium content found in a
>>common summer forage species (Carex macrochaeta; see
>>footnote 5) of goats in coastal Alaska suggests that goats
>>might fulfill their sodium requirements from forage alone
>>and could explain why they do not use salt licks in this
>>region.
>
> Note the "no reports have been made of goats using natural
> mineral licks" and the following "goats might fulfill their
> sodium requirements from forage alone" sections.
>
In Alaska.
> As I said in my original post in this thread, I read an
> article that described many areas that had no natural salt
> licks, and the author thus concluded that animals in those
> areas met their salt/mineral needs thru forage and did not
> "need salt". This peer reviewed paper describes one of the
> two things the article I read mentioned, namely that the
> animals get their salt needs from forage and do not need to
> have access to salt licks.
>
If they are finding salt in the vegetation they eat, then the
need for a salt *lick* is abated. They still need salt - just
not the "lick".
> I sure wish I could find the article I read before (which
> was my request in my original post) so I could cite
> *exactly* what it claimed.
--
TeaLady (mari)
Sunshine is not conducive to the efficient work environment.
Therefore all access to the outdoors shall be limited to those
persons who perform non-productive tasks, and managers.
TeaLady (Mari C.)
>
> That's getting closer. Sheton's stuff is a bit less well
> documented than the article I remember reading, so I don't
> think it was Shelton himself that the article was written
> by or about. It might be that the article I remember was
> one of Shelton's uncredited sources.
>
>
Here's one I found - different from the paper cited earlier - no
way of knowing if it is what you read:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs40.htm
JC Dill
<spres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:aivmc1lecs2ksi011...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>>Mineral deficiencies in the diet can result in use of
>>>mineral licks by goats, and this sometimes results in use
>>>of otherwise poor goat habitat (Hebert and Cowan 1971,
>>>Singer 1978). The use of mineral licks is generally
>>>greatest in spring and early summer and is thought to
>>>correspond primarily to high sodium needs at that time of
>>>year (Hebert and Cowan 1971, Stevens 1983). No reports have
>>>been made of goats using natural mineral licks in coastal
>>>areas of Alaska. Relatively high sodium content found in a
>>>common summer forage species (Carex macrochaeta; see
>>>footnote 5) of goats in coastal Alaska suggests that goats
>>>might fulfill their sodium requirements from forage alone
>>>and could explain why they do not use salt licks in this
>>>region.
>>
>> Note the "no reports have been made of goats using natural
>> mineral licks" and the following "goats might fulfill their
>> sodium requirements from forage alone" sections.
>>
>
>In Alaska.
So far this is the first peer-reviewed paper I've found that discusses
wild animal salt requirements and it points towards the type of data
that was in the article I had read a few years ago. Thus, the article
is more likely not a bunch of BS like some here have claimed.
>> As I said in my original post in this thread, I read an
>> article that described many areas that had no natural salt
>> licks, and the author thus concluded that animals in those
>> areas met their salt/mineral needs thru forage and did not
>> "need salt". This peer reviewed paper describes one of the
>> two things the article I read mentioned, namely that the
>> animals get their salt needs from forage and do not need to
>> have access to salt licks.
>>
>
>If they are finding salt in the vegetation they eat, then the
>need for a salt *lick* is abated. They still need salt - just
>not the "lick".
I never said animals don't need salt, I said that the paper I read
(and am trying to find) determined that they don't need added salt
from visiting salt licks (which are supposedly very uncommon in many
areas) because they get plenty of salt from a proper diet.
jc
JC Dill
<spres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:tuaoc1511khgf937o...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> That's getting closer. Sheton's stuff is a bit less well
>> documented than the article I remember reading, so I don't
>> think it was Shelton himself that the article was written
>> by or about. It might be that the article I remember was
>> one of Shelton's uncredited sources.
>
>Here's one I found - different from the paper cited earlier - no
>way of knowing if it is what you read:
>
>http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs40.htm
Thanks for the link, but that's not it either. The paper I'm looking
for is relatively modern (~1970-1990). It claimed that there are many
areas with no salt licks and that the animals in those areas do not
"travel long distances to reach salt" as the paper above claims but
that they are perfectly healthy with the natural salt that is present
in their normal diet.
jc
TOliver
"JC Dill" <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
> I never said animals don't need salt, I said that the paper I read
> (and am trying to find) determined that they don't need added salt
> from visiting salt licks (which are supposedly very uncommon in many
> areas) because they get plenty of salt from a proper diet.
>
I don't need saloons. My body doesn't really require alcohol.
But like convivial domestic and wild animals, I sure frequent locations of
good taste.
I suspect that many species of animals (like humans) are partial to the
"taste" of salt and in the course of natural events seek locations where it
is available. Obviously, many mammals, (like humans) have the capacity to
process and excrete excess salt. Those of us who live in hot climates can
quickly assure you that the buildup of mineral salts on a baseball cap worn
working or playing outside is sizeable, visible, rapid and quite apparent to
the taste.
If you've no easy access to natural salt licks, I commend you to the lands
of any nearby cattle raiser or dairy operation. The popularity of the salty
mineral blocks set out for the critters weill be evident, grass worn to
nought, trails from every direction, and usually a couple of old girls
passing the day in the equivalent action to nursing a beer or port'n lemon.
I know of no studies of coronary disease among Herefords, Brangus,
SGertrudis, Rangemasters or Corrientes that hang around the mineral
supplements blocks. As long as there's a demand for ribeyes, mostt of them
will not get old enough for infarcts.
TM "Head'em up! Move'em out!" Oliver
JC Dill
wrote:
>If you've no easy access to natural salt licks, I commend you to the lands
>of any nearby cattle raiser or dairy operation. The popularity of the salty
>mineral blocks set out for the critters weill be evident, grass worn to
>nought, trails from every direction, and usually a couple of old girls
>passing the day in the equivalent action to nursing a beer or port'n lemon.
The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
"needed" or not. There are a lot of livestock owners who think the
salt blocks are needed and that you are a negligent owner if you don't
provide salt. But OTOH there are a lot of animals out there who don't
have access to salt blocks who do, in fact, get along just fine with
no adverse side effects. The article I'm looking for claimed that
this is normal (that the animals can get along fine without added
salt) and had research claiming that in many areas salt licks are
actually quite scarce and that wild animals don't "frequent" them or
"travel long distances" to go to them etc.
Again, once I find the article I can site it and we can have a
discussion on if added salt is necessary or not.
jc
Hatunen
wrote:
>The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
>"needed" or not. There are a lot of livestock owners who think the
>salt blocks are needed and that you are a negligent owner if you don't
>provide salt. But OTOH there are a lot of animals out there who don't
>have access to salt blocks who do, in fact, get along just fine with
>no adverse side effects. The article I'm looking for claimed that
>this is normal (that the animals can get along fine without added
>salt) and had research claiming that in many areas salt licks are
>actually quite scarce and that wild animals don't "frequent" them or
>"travel long distances" to go to them etc.
If you're an American it should be an easy matter to call a
nearby state agricultural extension office and ask about the need
for putting out salt blocks for cows.
They may even have a publication about it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Don Freeman
"Hatunen" <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mb1rc15k3eisuukg0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:09:01 -0700, JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
>>"needed" or not.
> If you're an American it should be an easy matter to call a
> nearby state agricultural extension office and ask about the need
> for putting out salt blocks for cows.
>
This publication from the University of California discuses the use of salt
licks (with added nutrients) as a way to prevent magnesium deficiency.
http://cecalaveras.ucdavis.edu/tetany.htm
BTW: the use of the term "Salt" lick is not limited to sodium chloride, but
is inclusive of other minerals necessary for proper nutrition. We are not
just talking table salt here, but is used as an attractant and delivery
mechanism.
JC Dill
>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:09:01 -0700, JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
>>"needed" or not. There are a lot of livestock owners who think the
>>salt blocks are needed and that you are a negligent owner if you don't
>>provide salt. But OTOH there are a lot of animals out there who don't
>>have access to salt blocks who do, in fact, get along just fine with
>>no adverse side effects. The article I'm looking for claimed that
>>this is normal (that the animals can get along fine without added
>>salt) and had research claiming that in many areas salt licks are
>>actually quite scarce and that wild animals don't "frequent" them or
>>"travel long distances" to go to them etc.
>
>If you're an American it should be an easy matter to call a
>nearby state agricultural extension office and ask about the need
>for putting out salt blocks for cows.
>
>They may even have a publication about it.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
I'm looking for the article. The article discusses if *wild animals*
need "salt licks" for a healthy diet and if this need (or lack of
need) relates to how common "natural salt licks" are in many places in
the wild. I'm not trying to find if government agriculture extension
offices have literature that discusses the "common wisdom" of putting
out salt blocks for cows. The article came to the conclusion that the
"common wisdom" was wrong, I'm trying to FIND the article so that I
can cite and/or refute the data it presented.
jc
JC Dill
wrote:
>This publication from the University of California discuses the use of salt
>licks (with added nutrients) as a way to prevent magnesium deficiency.
>
>http://cecalaveras.ucdavis.edu/tetany.htm
>
>BTW: the use of the term "Salt" lick is not limited to sodium chloride, but
>is inclusive of other minerals necessary for proper nutrition. We are not
>just talking table salt here, but is used as an attractant and delivery
>mechanism.
The discussion that brought up this whole topic was on a horse
discussion list - regarding if it's wrong to put out just a mineral
block and not also provide a plain salt block so that the animal could
get "just salt" without the added minerals, and if "just salt" was
needed or not.
jc
Don Freeman
"JC Dill" <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:971rc1tn3bia64ftr...@4ax.com...
>
> The discussion that brought up this whole topic was on a horse
> discussion list - regarding if it's wrong to put out just a mineral
> block and not also provide a plain salt block so that the animal could
> get "just salt" without the added minerals, and if "just salt" was
> needed or not.
>
to replenish that which is lost through sweating and peeing, therefore
lowing the ratio of sodium to water in their body. This is not good so the
salt lick would help maintain that ratio.
Not that I was ever an athlete but I remember salt tablets being handed out
during hot days in High School PE class for just that purpose.
-Don
Hatunen
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:43:19 -0700, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:09:01 -0700, JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
>>>"needed" or not. There are a lot of livestock owners who think the
>>>salt blocks are needed and that you are a negligent owner if you don't
>>>provide salt. But OTOH there are a lot of animals out there who don't
>>>have access to salt blocks who do, in fact, get along just fine with
>>>no adverse side effects. The article I'm looking for claimed that
>>>this is normal (that the animals can get along fine without added
>>>salt) and had research claiming that in many areas salt licks are
>>>actually quite scarce and that wild animals don't "frequent" them or
>>>"travel long distances" to go to them etc.
>>
>>If you're an American it should be an easy matter to call a
>>nearby state agricultural extension office and ask about the need
>>for putting out salt blocks for cows.
>>
>>They may even have a publication about it.
>
>THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
I guess all that stuff about livestock owneres fooled me.
>I'm looking for the article. The article discusses if *wild animals*
>need "salt licks" for a healthy diet and if this need (or lack of
>need) relates to how common "natural salt licks" are in many places in
>the wild. I'm not trying to find if government agriculture extension
>offices have literature that discusses the "common wisdom" of putting
>out salt blocks for cows.
Why would it be "common wisdom"? These university operated
extension services usually have the straight goods. You're
characterization of the services tells us a lot about your
motives here: you want to find documentation that "proves" your
point.
>The article came to the conclusion that the
>"common wisdom" was wrong, I'm trying to FIND the article so that I
>can cite and/or refute the data it presented.
I guess you better go ahead and find that article; a lot of
bandwidth has already been used here on discussion about
something we don't know what is.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:09:01 -0700, JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The article I'm looking for addresses if these salt blocks are
>>"needed" or not. There are a lot of livestock owners who think the
>>salt blocks are needed and that you are a negligent owner if you don't
>>provide salt. But OTOH there are a lot of animals out there who don't
>>have access to salt blocks who do, in fact, get along just fine with
>>no adverse side effects. The article I'm looking for claimed that
>>this is normal (that the animals can get along fine without added
>>salt) and had research claiming that in many areas salt licks are
>>actually quite scarce and that wild animals don't "frequent" them or
>>"travel long distances" to go to them etc.
>
>
> If you're an American it should be an easy matter to call a
> nearby state agricultural extension office and ask about the need
> for putting out salt blocks for cows.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jtd/iccidd/iodman/iodman4.htm
"Salt for animal consumption
Animals need salt as much as humans do. Insufficient salt stunts the
growth of young animals and produces lassitude, lowered production of
milk and loss of weight in adults. Since fodder and plant life have
little salt, domestic animals must receive salt with their feed. In
modern farms, salt also provides a vehicle for vitamin and mineral
supplements that are essential to the good health of livestock. "
http://www.saltinstitute.org/47g.html
The sodium and chloride nutrition of lactating dairy cows is critical to
optimum production because of the obligatory loss of these nutrients in
milk. In addition, dairy cattle are commonly fed high forage diets that
are low in sodium and high in potassium. Consequently, a sodium chloride
deficiency can develop rapidly in a high producing cow.
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/research/2001/range01h.htm
Grazing cattle require supplemental salt (sodium and chlorine) because
forages do not contain adequate amounts. The concentration of sodium
required by beef cows during lactation is 0.10% diet dry matter (NRC
1996). The concentration of chlorine required by beef cows is not well
defined, but the amounts supplied by dietary salt appear to be adequate
(Church and Pond 1975, NRC 1996). Severe salt deficiency causes reduced
feed intake, rapid loss of body weight, and reduced milk production. In
some arid and semi-arid regions of the country, a portion of the
required amount of salt is provided by the alkaline water. Supplemental
salt can be provided free-choice in loose or block forms. Cattle grazing
pastures consume more salt during spring and early summer when the
forage is more succulent than later in the season when the forage is
drier. "
Charles
Thomas Prufer
>I guess you better go ahead and find that article; a lot of
>bandwidth has already been used here on discussion about
>something we don't know what is.
She's asking for help in finding that very article, as it hasn't turned up.
Thomas Prufer
PC Paul
>
>>And the rest of you, read for meaning. ARTICLE is the item in question,
>>not SALTLICK.
>
> Hopefully this will spur some other ideas on how to find this article.
>
> jc
>
This article seems to generally support the conclusions, but I'm pretty sure
it isn't the one you are looking for...
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/drtfeeding/dai238.htm
JC Dill
>This article seems to generally support the conclusions, but I'm pretty sure
>it isn't the one you are looking for...
>
>http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/drtfeeding/dai238.htm
Correct, it's not the one I'm looking for. But it's the right type of
article, and I thank you for finding it and pointing it out!
jc
Hatunen
I'm not clear on why we should help her anymore. most of us have
tried Googling, and no one else seems to have read the article.
Feel free to keep trying, though.
Lon
> JC Dill wrote:
>
>
>>Except for a few areas around Salt Lake City and a few (very few)
>>other Salt Lake or Salt Lick communities, I've only found a few
>>"natural salt licks" cited on the 'net.
>
>
> Let me commend www.google.com to you. It's an excellent search engine.
> I entered the phrases "natural salt licks" and "united states" and came
> up with an awful lot of them.
I would be surprised that they would even be worth mentioning if it
weren't for the other veritable plethora of useless information on
Google. Any area with any soluble mineral left in the soil and
any type of water that can leach it out, then another area where that
same water can evaporate or sublime will form a salt lick. You can
also form them in most back yards with the garden hose and a low
spot. I cannot recall any rural area I have ever been in where there
were NOT salt licks, with local game trails available on wet days to
help you find them. The darned things are literally everywhere,
which is what surprises me about anyone claiming that they are in
any way shape or form rare.
Lon
The leap of faith necessary to take the above and derive the below
would make St. Anna Pavlova weep in envy. What the article suggests
is that the goats in that area are able to derive their salt needs
from plant sources and therefore do not use salt licks in this
region. That doesn't say there are no salt licks, it just says the
goats are not observed to use them. Granted the one area of the
USofA I have wandered the woods in that *could* be low on salt
licks is somewhat similar to western Alaska in one way. Along
the base of Mount Hebo [near Hebo Oregon of course] I never
spotted any game trails leading to salt licks. My presumption
at the time was that the local groundwater was fairly low in
mineral content mostly due to all soluble material having been
washed out by the rain over the past several millions of years
of daily rainfall. I can't truly say that was the case, but
all small groundwater pools were markedly and obviously composed
of extremely low mineral content water runoff. I could be
convinced that the rainy coast of Alaska might have similar
issues... However, nothing in the quothed section there says
anything whatever on the lack or commonality of salt licks
in the area cited.
>
> As I said in my original post in this thread, I read an article that
> described many areas that had no natural salt licks, and the author
> thus concluded that animals in those areas met their salt/mineral
> needs thru forage and did not "need salt". This peer reviewed paper
> describes one of the two things the article I read mentioned, namely
> that the animals get their salt needs from forage and do not need to
> have access to salt licks.
That is one huge long road trip in a Presumption Special to
reach a general statement that salt licks are rare in most areas.
> I sure wish I could find the article I read before (which was my
> request in my original post) so I could cite *exactly* what it
> claimed.
You could drive out west and take a short walk in the woods and
try to avoid stepping on a salt lick. Or along the hills over
in the Carolina/Tennessee/Georgia area where it is also impossible
to avoid the things. Or in central Texas where drying topsoil
will typically show a rime of salt (Plano and north)
Or stop for water along the great plains where there are
huge beds that crust over with extremely visible white mineral
all over the place...and the local water is sufficient to make
you wish for the good old days where you only had Montezuma's
Revenge.
Lon
Actually that article points toward nothing you have claimed.
All it says is that the goats get salt elsewhere and do not
appear to use salt licks. The claim is not that the article
itself is BS, the claim is that *your* description of the article
would make that article BS if it actually stated, in objective
reading [rather than defensive hand waving] that salt licks are
rare.
Lon
The only reason I know of that some goats down along the west
Arizona area will travel long distances for salt licks is that
one prerequisite for salt licks is water...which in that area
is rarer than cold beer in a british pub. Salt is everywhere,
mostly still safely imbedded in the rock, just waiting for the
annual rainfall of one centimeter to free it up.
>
> Again, once I find the article I can site it and we can have a
> discussion on if added salt is necessary or not.
I can think of no real human dietary requirement that actually
demands the basic food groups of: greasy semi-cooked flesh,
chocolate, coffee, deep fat fried gobbets of starch, home made
ice cream, etc. etc. etc. Yet I can cite one animal who has been
known to travel well over 180 miles for good samples of some of
these. If you bring a video camera and meet me in Green River
Utah [home of a billion salt licks BTW] you can even film the
trip to the chocolate section of ZCMI in Salt Lake City,
as I demonstrate that crave != need. BTW, even Antarctica has
salt licks. And Greenland. And oh, just got an email from
Alaska confirming that yes, there are salty deposits along
the panhandle, and further that they do make good attractions
for some animals. And further that Goats != a significant
portion of Alaska panhandle wildlife.
Lon
Good point, most natural salt deposits, like animal salt blocks, are
composed of multiple minerals. Most folks I know that speak of pure
or even highly concentrated NaCl deposits will distinguish them by
calling them halite deposits rather than the generic "salt".
Lon
New one on me, all the salt blocks sold back when I still had to
drag my
rear out of bed hours before sunlight were composed of unholy
mixtures of "salts" which was dominated by NaCl but would otherwise
be more of a mineral supplement. These were available in huge sizes
for cattle and sheep or smaller ones for critters like rabbits and
such. None were pure salt that I can recall though...
Lon
Thus putting this back on topic... the legend of the mystery article
proving a private misunderstanding of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
Lon
OK, now *I* am having trouble finding a cite... with the exception of
those groups living around halophytes, don't pretty much all
herbivores require additional salt and tend to get it from soil or
natural licks? That only omnivores and carnivores can get enough
from their natural diets without eating dirt, etc?
Lon
> And the rest of you, read for meaning. ARTICLE is the item in question,
> not SALTLICK.
>
Spoilsport.
Lon
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:54:47 -0700, barba...@newsguy.com (Barbara
> Needham) wrote:
>>Here's some thoughts:
>>1. Did you read it on-line, or in a dead-tree magazine?
>
>
> Online, several years ago. It was a site or page with extensive
> information about many areas that had no or few natural salt licks and
> how the wild animals in that area managed just fine without access to
> natural or man-provided salt licks, and the conclusion that the
> animals didn't really "need" salt licks but that they were attracted
> to them for the taste rather than for nutritional requirements.
>
>
>>Come to think of it, does searching National Geographic come up with
>>anything?
>
>
> Nope, not a thing. All I found were some articles that talk about
> observing animals at a salt lick. Thanks for the suggestion, I hadn't
> tried searching there.
Bupkus on Scientific American as well. However, I do keep tripping
over a claim that Japan has no natural salt *deposits* as in
suitable for human consumption. I suspect this is a red herring
as I've observed the typical white crusty deposits along natural
water ponds in some of the hills in Japan and the prints of those
dainty little deerlets around them.
>
> No, I read it online. It wasn't the type of article that would have
> been in a "real scientific journal", it wasn't a peer-reviewed paper
> but it may have been an article *about* a peer-reviewed paper. Who
> knows, it might have been total bunk but until I can find the article
> again we won't know. I remember at the time being impressed with the
> data the article cited and how in many areas there were simply NO
> natural salt licks to be found.
>
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gervaisb/Biogeography/Student%20Papers/2004/Campini/My%20webpage.htm
will hopefully survive.
That article is a bit light, but it does have cites that may yield
better results: Plus the term "biogeography" that may help, with the
most promising cite in this snippet [the references section from this is
below]:
"Horses are herbivores eating grass and other plants. Domestic horses
are fed hay and grains. In the wild they graze in grasslands and on any
other vegetation available. They will even eat tree bark and branches if
hungry enough. They drink water where they can find it and in the wild
usually about twice a day. They also need salt in their diets so
domesticated horses are given a salt block to lick. Where wild horses
seek water with natural salt and minerals. (Lamb & Johnson, 2002) "
The Lamb & Johnson turned up dry with this single mention of salt
deposits [I didn't read the others, loooonnnng week in a startup] :
"Food: Wild horses eat grass or roughage and drink water from seeps,
springs, streams, or lakes. Adults eat about 20 pounds of plant food
each day. Wild horses are able to process dry and course grasses and
other vegetation. When grass is scant, they well eat anything that
grows; leaves, goose bushes, young twigs, even tree bark. They drink
twice a day and also seek out needed mineral salt deposits."
------------
References [from the csus.edu article snippetted above]
1. Clabby, John, 1976. The Natural History of the Horse. New York,
Taplinger Publishing Company.
2. Foundation for the Protection and Preservation of the Przewalski
Horse. “Przewalski Horse”. www.imh.org/imh/bw/prz.html. November 4, 2004.
3. Lamb, Annette & Larry Johnson. "Mustang". Updated: April 2002.
www.eduscapes.com/nature/mustang/index1.htm. October 3, 2004.
4. Linklater, Wayne. "Invasive Mammals". Updated: February 7, 2001.
www.invasive-animals.org.nz/horse/index.html. October 3, 2004.
5. Mathew, W.D. & S.H. Chubb, 1932. Evolution of the Horse. New York,
American Museum of Natural History.
6. Prezwalski Horse. www.imh.org/imh/bw/prz.html. November 4, 2004.
7. The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. "Animal Diversity Web.
Equus caballus".
http://animaldiversity.ummich.edu/site/accounts/information/Equus_caballus.html
8. The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. "Animal Diversity Web.
Equus caballus przewalski".
http://animaldiversity.ummich.edu/site/accounts/information/Equus_caballus_prze
wal...
Lon
> "JC Dill" <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f4oc11bk1tfnev2r...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:54:47 -0700, barba...@newsguy.com (Barbara
>>Needham) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ***WHERE TO FIND THE BLINKIN' ARTICLE***
>>>I think maybe people are saying that there is no such article -- but I'm
>>>willing to go with your remembrance that there is one.
>>
>>Thanks Barbara, it's nice to learn that someone understands my quest
>>here!
>>. . .
>>Hopefully this will spur some other ideas on how to find this article.
>
>
> I've found what may the article you're remembering, blinkin' or otherwise,
> at
> http://www.living-foods.com/articles/kicksalt.html
>
> (I Googled on "wild animals need salt", sans quotes, on the theory that the
> phrase "salt lick" was a red herring.)
>
> It's full of revelations such as the following:
>
> ----
>
> THE TRUTH ABOUT SALT
> Would you use sodium, a caustic alkali, to season your food? Or chlorine, a
> poisonous gas? "Ridiculous questions," you say. "Nobody would be foolhardy
> enough to do that."
> Of course not. But the shocking truth is that most people do so... because
> they
> don't know that these powerful chemicals constitute the inorganic crystaline
> compound-salt.
>
> ----
>
> The bit about animals and the scarcity of natural salt licks is at the end.
>
> If I'm reading it correctly, the author of that part is saying that a) salt
> licks are rare; and b) they contain little or no sodium chloride; therefore
> c) we shouldn't put salt on our food.
>
> Karen "kippered" McMurray
That somehow doesn't sound like an article horse breeders would pay a
lot of attention to. However it is true that most salt deposits are
using the term in the chemistry sense as opposed to the Morton sense.
Lon
Yeah, but if you are averse to web sites similar to Dr. "I was
kidnapped by Martians and I can predict earthquakes" Turi or
Claire "I can see the smoke from the Kuwaiti Oil Fires" you may want
to avoid search phrases such as "geography without natural salt licks"
Lon
> On 7 Jul 2005 02:00:48 GMT, "TeaLady (Mari C.)"
> <spres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:tuaoc1511khgf937o...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>That's getting closer. Sheton's stuff is a bit less well
>>>documented than the article I remember reading, so I don't
>>>think it was Shelton himself that the article was written
>>>by or about. It might be that the article I remember was
>>>one of Shelton's uncredited sources.
>>
>>Here's one I found - different from the paper cited earlier - no
>>way of knowing if it is what you read:
>>
>>http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs40.htm
>
>
> Thanks for the link, but that's not it either. The paper I'm looking
> for is relatively modern (~1970-1990). It claimed that there are many
> areas with no salt licks and that the animals in those areas do not
> "travel long distances to reach salt" as the paper above claims but
> that they are perfectly healthy with the natural salt that is present
> in their normal diet.
>
Most of the cites I can find making claims like this contain such
amazing medical breakthroughs as this one:
" The sodium and chloride in table salt are physically bonded in such
a way that our digestive system and our liver cannot break them down.
Thus our bodies cannot access the sodium or the chlorine. The body’s
only option is to attempt to eliminate the unusable substance. The
portion that is excreted exits the body as sodium chloride, which is
evidence that the body does not break down and use this compound. "
Lon
It does sort of hint that if either livestock or wild animals were
so brilliant in their diet choices, veterinarians everywhere would
very likely go bankrupt. To me this sort of gives them a kinship
with the alleged top predator on the planet.
Thomas Prufer
> If you bring a video camera and meet me in Green River
> Utah [home of a billion salt licks BTW] you can even film the
> trip to the chocolate section of ZCMI in Salt Lake City,
> as I demonstrate that crave != need.
Just read the following in a "Foxfire" book, on keeping hogs in the woods for
mast, I paraphrase: "We'd go back into the woods once a week with corn or salt
just to keep the hogs tame. I'd call and they'd come a-runnin."
Else they would have had to be hunted down in fall, when it was time for their
annual bath, I suppose.
Thomas Prufer
Hatunen
wrote:
> Most of the cites I can find making claims like this contain such
> amazing medical breakthroughs as this one:
>
> " The sodium and chloride in table salt are physically bonded in such
>a way that our digestive system and our liver cannot break them down.
>Thus our bodies cannot access the sodium or the chlorine. The body’s
>only option is to attempt to eliminate the unusable substance. The
>portion that is excreted exits the body as sodium chloride, which is
>evidence that the body does not break down and use this compound. "
Whoever wrote that doesn't understand a thing about ionization.
Salt in solution, in the body or outside, becomes the ions Cl-
and Na+, each available for appropriate chemical reactions.
Anyone who thinks NaCl is so strongly bonded as to be inseperable
should try putting some silver nitrate in a salt solution.
JoAnne Schmitz
This context helps a great deal. Your real interest seems to be to find
out if putting out salt licks is good or even necessary, and also to find
out if salt plus minerals is a bad idea.
I think if you had mentioned this before, there might have been less
acrimony. Sure, there will always be the risk of misinterpretation or
projection in AFU. We just see so many half-baked ideas that it's natural
to think, here comes another one. You're not a frequent enough poster to
ring everyone's "I know this person" bell. I recognized the name but
didn't remember anything about your posting history.
I think your point elsewhere in this thread about the "everyone knows"
aspects of government pamphlets is well-made. I would expect most
government pamphlets are better researched than the average web page, but
that doesn't mean harmless (or even harmful) nonsense can't be promulgated
in one.
On the other hand, salt licks are apparently pretty thick on the ground
through the US. At least, no one here has said, "I live in Springfield,
and there are no salt licks here, I've looked for them, never found them,
and a geologist told me it's true and it's because the great salt monster
licked them all up in 2500 BC."
On the third hand, even if all animals love salt licks and all animals live
around salt licks, that doesn't mean they're necessary.
>Again, once I find the article I can site it and we can have a
>discussion on if added salt is necessary or not.
Well, of course we can have a discussion on it even if we never find the
article, as the article is unlikely to be one-of-a-kind. Even if it is, if
there is research to support the article's claim, those research articles
should be available somewhere to the intrepid researcher.
JoAnne "is there a PubVet in the house?" Schmitz
--
The new Urban Legends website is <http://www.tafkac.org>
That's TAFKAC.ORG
Do not accept lame imitations at previously okay URLs
JC Dill
wrote:
>>
> New one on me, all the salt blocks sold back when I still had to
>drag my
> rear out of bed hours before sunlight were composed of unholy
> mixtures of "salts" which was dominated by NaCl but would otherwise
> be more of a mineral supplement. These were available in huge sizes
> for cattle and sheep or smaller ones for critters like rabbits and
> such. None were pure salt that I can recall though...
There are 3 major types of salt offered for horses. White salt blocks
are pure salt. Red salt blocks have iodine in the salt.
Reddish-brown salt blocks have iodine plus other trace minerals - this
is the most common type of salt block but the others are usually
available in most feed stores in the US. For cattle there are also
yellow salt blocks (with added sulphur) and blue salt blocks, I forget
what added mineral causes the block to turn blue (cobalt?).
The "common wisdom" for years was that horses need salt and/or horses
need trace mineral blocks.
The reason I'm interested in tracking down the source article is that
many things that were "common wisdom" about horse care are being found
to be old wive's tales as they are tested. For instance, there have
been many products used over the ages on the hoof wall to help
strengthen it. But... when these products are tested in a
double-blind study, low and behold they do NOT help strengthen the
hoof wall and can in fact help weaken it! So, how did theses products
become popular? Well, it's because it is rare for a horse's care to
change in one way only - a horse with bad hoofs often has the care
change when it is sold. The new owner moves it to a new facility, the
horse is fed different hay, grain, gets different pasture, different
hoof care, different riding on different surfaces, and they slather
something on the hoofs to "strengthen" them. Any one of these (or all
of these) could contribute to improved hoof quality, with the
exception of the thing actually put ON the hoof - which when done *by
itself* with no other changes has been found in most cases to damage
the hoof rather than help it become stronger.
<quote>
The second study in which Wagner took part examined whether commercial
hoof dressings could affect hoof wall strength in live horses. This
study used three selected products applied to the feet of five horses
for 13 weeks--a different product for three hooves with the remaining
hoof used as a control. These horses lived in normal conditions, being
exposed to rainy and dry weather conditions. For 13 weeks,
lanolin-based and petroleum-based products were applied twice daily,
while the acetone-based dressing was applied once a week (per label
recommendation).
"At the end of that period, we took strips of hoof wall samples to the
engineering department to measure the strength of the hoof wall," he
says. "A lot of products claim they can change the protein structure
and strength of the hoof wall; none of them made any difference. They
didn't show any kind of change in the elastic modulus (flexibility of
the hoof wall)."
</quote>
I know that Dr. Kempson did a study on hoof horn and traditional hoof
dressing products and recipes, but I can't find that study online -
only her study on hoof supplements (testing the product Farrier's
Formula) and hoof antiseptic:
<http://www.lifedatalabs.com/knowledge_res.htm>
So, what was once "common knowledge" about hoof care has been
disproven by scientific study. The article I read about animals
needing salt and the supposed dearth of natural salt licks was not a
"scientific" study like Dr Kempson's studies, but it was thought
provoking. If/when I can find it I'll cite it and then we can discuss
the findings and conclusions.
jc
Lon
> There are 3 major types of salt offered for horses. White salt blocks
> are pure salt. Red salt blocks have iodine in the salt.
> Reddish-brown salt blocks have iodine plus other trace minerals - this
> is the most common type of salt block but the others are usually
> available in most feed stores in the US. For cattle there are also
> yellow salt blocks (with added sulphur) and blue salt blocks, I forget
> what added mineral causes the block to turn blue (cobalt?).
Note that the time period I am recalling is late 40's to early 60's
at which point I migrated to a career not involving so much readily
available fertilizer. None of the feed stores around northwest
Montana I can recall carrying the pure white variety. The most
common one was the ruddy red. We were aware of the sulphur variety
but they were not as popular.
>
> The "common wisdom" for years was that horses need salt and/or horses
> need trace mineral blocks.
Yesss.... that "common wisdom" pops up so regularly in everything
I see on the subject that my BSometer is beginning to need batteries.
I won't question the need for minerals in diets, but when 100% of
all articles just state that truism so uncritically, something just
sorta begins to wonder if this is just unchecked circular citing.
>
> <http://www.cyberhorse.com.au/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=equestrian&om=26784&omm=0>
>
> <quote>
[snip]
> "At the end of that period, we took strips of hoof wall samples to the
> engineering department to measure the strength of the hoof wall," he
> says. "A lot of products claim they can change the protein structure
> and strength of the hoof wall; none of them made any difference. They
> didn't show any kind of change in the elastic modulus (flexibility of
> the hoof wall)."
It could be possible that a product that claims to benefit in one
way could actually provide a genuine benefit with an entirely
different mechanism. I'd be sceptical of anything less than a
glue factory claiming to change protein structure of hooves, but
I could believe that a simple weatherproof glue compound could
help with splitting or [cosmetic] fraying. Not that I am making
any such claim. We did use some old fashioned compounds on
hooves presuming to help keep moisture out and avoid splitting, but
I would be unsurprised if those compounds today would give a hazmat
scientist hissy fits.
JC Dill
wrote:
>> The "common wisdom" for years was that horses need salt and/or horses
>> need trace mineral blocks.
>
> Yesss.... that "common wisdom" pops up so regularly in everything
> I see on the subject that my BSometer is beginning to need batteries.
> I won't question the need for minerals in diets,
I'm not questioning the need for minerals or salt in human or animal
diets, but rather if we/they really need "additional" salt minerals
provided by specific salt or salt lick supplements, or if the use of
those licks (natural or human provided) by wild and ranch animals is
due primarily due to the taste rather than nutritional need.
> but when 100% of
> all articles just state that truism so uncritically, something just
> sorta begins to wonder if this is just unchecked circular citing.
Bingo. Now you understand where I'm going with trying to find
articles and papers that have actually *researched* bits and pieces of
the "common wisdom" on this topic.
> It could be possible that a product that claims to benefit in one
> way could actually provide a genuine benefit with an entirely
> different mechanism. I'd be sceptical of anything less than a
> glue factory claiming to change protein structure of hooves,
Dr. Kempson's research involved detailed examination of hoof trimmings
of horses fed Farrier's Formula. She saw some significant changes in
cell structure when horses were fed the supplement. In the course of
that research she also saw hoofs were riddled with bacteria, and found
that those hoofs were being treated with popular topical hoof products
that dozens or hundreds of years of "common wisdom" had said were good
for improving hoof quality on horses with poor hoofs. This was
eye-opening - AFAIK no one before her had done this type of study (at
the cellular level) of hoof wall composition before/after hoof product
use. And no one had done any true scientific studies (i.e. double
blind studies) on these products due to the complexity and cost of
setting up a study like this on animals as expensive to keep as
horses. Plus, the companies that sold these products didn't see any
need - they could advertise their products based on the "common
wisdom" and a few key endorsements from popular trainers. So a study
would be expensive to do and possibly "prove" that their product
didn't help at all - thus no funding and no study.
> but I could believe that a simple weatherproof glue compound
> could help with splitting or [cosmetic] fraying.
The hoof wall structure is very complex. Leaving aside the possible
toxic problems from using glue on the hoof - you can't just slap glue
on it because when the hoof flexes during weight bearing if the glue
doesn't flex along with the hoof then either the glue separates from
the hoof, or the glue holds to the hoof so well that the hoof
separates from itself. This is the major obstacle to developing a
successful glue-on horseshoe, something that horseshoe companies have
been working on for over 20 years. It's easy to get the glue to stick
to a plastic horseshoe. It's easy to get the glue to stick to a hoof.
But when the glue and shoe don't flex along with the hoof then the
hoof just flakes off and you are left with a shoe that has bits of
hoof glued on it and a hoof that's all torn up. Or else the bond
between the hoof and glue fails. (I've had personal experience with
this dating back to 1989 when I was Mustad Certified approved to
purchase and apply Mustad Glu-On shoes.)
> Not that I am making
> any such claim. We did use some old fashioned compounds on
> hooves presuming to help keep moisture out and avoid splitting, but
> I would be unsurprised if those compounds today would give a hazmat
> scientist hissy fits.
I'd be surprised if they did what you thought they did. As I noted,
most horses with "problem hoofs" have many things changed all at once,
and then when the hoof gets better the credit is given to the product
slapped on the hoof wall and not to the other things that actually DO
make a difference, such as improved nutrition and farrier work.
jc
TOliver
blocks and ranchers bringing heifers and fat calves to market....
Attempting to time the market and the maximum weight of the cattle being
prepared to go to the feed lots, ranchers with an eye for the prize have
been know to turn the cattle into a small pasture, haul in a bit of green
fresh hay, supplement blocks and large amounts of water available 24 hours
a day.....
Critters eat heavily, stay after the salt blocks, and drink accordingly,
increasing their weight substantially at minimum cost and with optimum
result, a high price at the sale barn.
No wiley old coot would risk a long Summer drive to a distant sale barn,
knowing how much weight would be lost in a trailer in a long day on the
road.
TMO
TeaLady (Mari C.)
>
> I'm not questioning the need for minerals or salt in human
> or animal diets, but rather if we/they really need
> "additional" salt minerals provided by specific salt or
> salt lick supplements, or if the use of those licks
> (natural or human provided) by wild and ranch animals is
> due primarily due to the taste rather than nutritional
> need.
>
Here are a bunch o sites which contain cites that you may, or
may not, find helpful. I know next to -0- about horses,
except that they are big, eat a lot, and their manure tends to
have more "weed" seeds than cow manure.
<http://www.saltinstitute.org/47c.html (there are references
to studies in this article)>
<http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/publicat/PDF/2004
_ag_new_delhi_nielsen.pdf>
<http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/DOCS/livestock/horses/Feedhorse.asp?
printerversion=1>
<http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0006.html>
<http://www.neosoft.com/~iaep/pages/sportsmed/diet.html>
<http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/
$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/hrs6288>
<http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/12/2698S>
--
TeaLady (mari)
Sunshine is not conducive to the efficient work environment.
Therefore all access to the outdoors shall be limited to those
persons who perform non-productive tasks, and managers.
JC Dill
<spres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here are a bunch o sites which contain cites
Thank you, this has a wealth of great info!
jc
Jennifer Hallinan
> Correct, it's not the one I'm looking for. But it's the right type of
> article, and I thank you for finding it and pointing it out!
>
> jc
>
Here's another one that's not the one you're looking for, but does seem
to be a good review of changing understanding of horse nutrition:
Patricia A. Harris. Developments in Equine Nutrition: Comparing the
Beginning and End of This Century. The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No.
12 December 1998, pp. 2698S-2703S.
She says about salt (in part):
"At the start of this century, as discussed later, very little was known
about the importance of even the macrominerals; the role of trace
elements had not been established and the work on vitamins was about to
start. In 1908 (Anon 1908), it was stated that "the addition of salt to
horse's food is not a necessity, they may be kept in the best condition
without it, all the salt they actually require for the body's
nourishment being contained in their food." No mention of salt could be
found in the 1927 Animal Nutrition book (Linton 1927). Today, perhaps
because of the increased demands placed on our horses (especially our
competition horses), supplementary salt is considered to be an important
part of the performance horse's diet.
Today it is known that horse sweat is hypertonic to plasma with respect
to sodium and chloride and that, depending on many factors, including
the horse's fitness, the environmental conditions plus the speed and
duration of exercise, the amount of sweat produced will vary and
therefore sodium requirements will vary (Table 1). However, because the
sodium and chloride content of many "traditional" (home-mixed) as well
as commercially prepared diets often will not meet these requirements,
additional supplementation is usually recommended for those animals in
work. "
Jen
JC Dill
<j.hal...@imb.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>JC Dill wrote:
>
>> Correct, it's not the one I'm looking for. But it's the right type of
>> article, and I thank you for finding it and pointing it out!
>>
>> jc
>>
>
>Here's another one that's not the one you're looking for, but does seem
>to be a good review of changing understanding of horse nutrition:
>
>Patricia A. Harris. Developments in Equine Nutrition: Comparing the
>Beginning and End of This Century. The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No.
>12 December 1998, pp. 2698S-2703S.
Wonderful! Thanks again to everyone who has found these articles.
This really helps!
jc - "I knew AFU would be able to help!"
JoAnne Schmitz
>The second study in which Wagner took part examined whether commercial
>hoof dressings could affect hoof wall strength in live horses. This
>study used three selected products applied to the feet of five horses
>for 13 weeks--a different product for three hooves with the remaining
>hoof used as a control. These horses lived in normal conditions, being
>exposed to rainy and dry weather conditions. For 13 weeks,
>lanolin-based and petroleum-based products were applied twice daily,
>while the acetone-based dressing was applied once a week (per label
>recommendation).
Acetone-based?
As a human with ten little "hoofs" on my fingers, and a history of using
nail polish and the associated acetone nail polish remover, I can't imagine
anyone thinking that would help.
JoAnne "tippity tapping on the keys" Schmitz
JC Dill
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:19:52 -0700, JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The second study in which Wagner took part examined whether commercial
>>hoof dressings could affect hoof wall strength in live horses. This
>>study used three selected products applied to the feet of five horses
>>for 13 weeks--a different product for three hooves with the remaining
>>hoof used as a control. These horses lived in normal conditions, being
>>exposed to rainy and dry weather conditions. For 13 weeks,
>>lanolin-based and petroleum-based products were applied twice daily,
>>while the acetone-based dressing was applied once a week (per label
>>recommendation).
>
>Acetone-based?
>
>As a human with ten little "hoofs" on my fingers, and a history of using
>nail polish and the associated acetone nail polish remover, I can't imagine
>anyone thinking that would help.
There's a hoof product called Tuff-Stuff that is much like Sally
Hansen's Hard as Nails. It actually does help protect the hoof wall
to allow it to moisturize naturally from within and not lose moisture
to the dry environment. It's the only hoof dressing I recommend or
use. I use it to seal the hoof wall after shoeing, and I recommend it
for the occasional horse that has brittle or dry hoofs and needs some
extra help in retaining the natural moisture the hoof produces within,
especially in our hot and dry summers here in central California.
Most of the horse's hoof is like the part of your fingernail that is
attached to the finger bed. It gets nutrients from the
understructures until it's within ~1/2 inch of the ground. When you
seal the exterior wall so that it doesn't lose moisture it will be
nourished and replenished by the sensitive structures underneath. See
Dr. Kempson's studies for more details.
jc