Wood shavings as bedding

[clevername]

I’m reconsidering my past statements on cedar and pine bedding having read this article. It at the very least deserves a look.

http://buckysbunnies.tripod.com/Pine.html

[RabbitPam]

While a bit heavy-handed to read (I found myself skimming this article more and more) it was very interesting.
It would certainly be a relief to have certain proof that pine and cedar shavings turned out to be safe after all. Although, the list of other factors that can cause problems made me want to live in a cave. (barometric pressure, cleanliness, etc.)

I think the bottom line is that at some point you need to make a choice of using just one thing unless your bunny shows an objection to it, or you have a problem with it. So, setting up factors for NOT choosing any one particular product is helpful in that decision. For example, I always liked using cedar for my guinea pigs, but thought it wouldn’t hurt to try something new for my bunnies that was recommended for them, rather than questioned.

Currently I am getting dissatisfied with the lack of absorbency of my choice of litter, and may try something else again when it’s used up. I also have my own allergies to consider.

That the manufacturers are taking advantage and making claims pro or con I have no doubt. I go by what I learn from experienced people who have either had success with certain products, problems with others, or my own experience. I wouldn’t venture to assume that the long term effects of my bun’s litter was more harmful than, say, her nibbling on the freshly painted molding in the new apartment before I can stop her. I just can’t tell which causes what directly.

It’s better safe than sorry decision making. If it’s not true, (I’m reminded of the egg industry taking a real hit when a study came out about them causing high cholesterol, then reversing than info. a decade later.) then it’s great to have more options. But ultimately, it has to be one or two products in the pan. We narrow the options on their behalf as their guardians.

[KatnipCrzy]

I have to admit that I only skimmed thru the article- but the article seems to quote medical and research date from 1996 and earlier.  Any later references seem to be experience related and NOT documented health studies. 

A lot of rabbit health studies used to be based on lab specimens or breeding rabbits and how they were kept, raised and fed.  The popularity of house rabbits today even shocks people that come over to my house “You let them out and they run around your house?”  I can only begin to imagine what it was like 13 years ago.

I will read the article more thoroughly and post back. But those are my first and foremost concerns.  I have the book by Harkness that is quoted- so I will look thru that and see what the book is really geared towards- livestock/lab raising vs pets.

[clevername]

Well I think the big thing for me is that the author raised some very good faults in the sources which indicate Cedar and Pine bedding as harmful.

Further a rabbit breeder with a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology (a person with the credentials to sign off on this topic) backs the statements made in this article.

Give that and that it’s be published numerous times, it sounds like a reputable source.

[xParadise]

Give that and that it’s be published numerous times, it sounds like a reputable source.

I think that’s just it, A source. If I had heard more arguements like this one, I would be more likely to believe it. Instead, the majority are against the use of wood shavings being used as bedding. This article is full of big, fancy words which makes the person seem knowledgeable- that doesn’t really make it RIGHT.

I would say that it’s safer to stay away from the uncertain. Maybe it is perfectly safe. But since no one can be 100% sure, I think it’s best to just not use it. I wouldn’t use anything that COULD potentially compromise my pet’s health. It’s just not worth it.

[Scarlet_Rose]

I have a lot of the same thoughts as Katnipcrzy & Paradise.  This is just a singular source and just because this “one” person is an “expert” does not mean that it is absolutely true.  This study seems to be very old and for me and holds no weight.  My personal belief is that pine and cedar shavings are not O.K. and yes, they were thought to be around the time period that this publication came out, to be safe. I’ve read up on this subject and read through the article you provided and I have still come to the same conclsion.  I also want to caution you that for any one thing out there, you can use a search engine on the internet and find something that states directly the opposite and truly, any kind of case study is that way. 

Below is more info on pine and cedar shavings that you just might want to take into consideration before making a final decision on this issue.  Really, I urge you to please be careful with your decision and weigh everything equally.  Your rabbit, who has no voice or choice in the matter is whose health is being decided upon and may or may not suffer from your decision.

http://www.rabbit.org/care/shavings.html

http://www.rabbit.org/journal/1/liver-disease.html

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Rabbits-703/wild-rabbits-3.htm

 

[clevername]

Posted By xParadise on 01/24/2009 5:05 PM

I think that’s just it, A source. If I had heard more arguements like this one, I would be more likely to believe it. Instead, the majority are against the use of wood shavings being used as bedding. This article is full of big, fancy words which makes the person seem knowledgeable- that doesn’t really make it RIGHT”

 

Sorry I take insult to your comment. Big words are not impressive for their own sake, them MEAN something.

-sigh- Sorry I was looking for a inteligent debate about this. All people seem to want to do is bring up sources to the contrary (sources my article argues against) without defending them or thinking critically about what the article is saying. The author makes good points about why your sources are flawed. Why isn’t anyone defending them with logic? I could be swayed again by a good argument!

“All of these books are recent publications and the studies many cite showing a “danger” were published closer to 30 years ago.”

Don’t you realize the sources you’re citing are basing their research on these books. Don’t you realize that some of the more recent studies have faults, she points them out!

 

look maybe I’m on the wrong board for this…

[clevername]

Posted By Scarlet_Rose on 01/24/2009 10:19 PM

his study seems to be very old and for me and holds no weight. 

http://www.rabbit.org/care/shavings.html

http://www.rabbit.org/journal/1/liver-disease.html

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Rabbits-703/wild-rabbits-3.htm

 

 

 

How old are the sources you cite? At least one of them are cited by the arcticle and argued against–that means that it is at least older.

 

Your other sources don’t stand up either.

 

[KatnipCrzy]

Wow, if you read other portions of this “personal” website- it really gives you a good idea of the authors perspective.  According to the author- THIS SITE is not credible because it has the word “house” in the title/description.  In fact the author does not like any “house” or “rescue” rabbit sites.

I am not seeing any references to recent studies- and I would consider recent to be 2000 and later.  And to me studies on lab and breeding animals are just not relevant to my pet rabbit decisions- as we are talking a whole different life span and way of living. 

And most importantly- WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO USE WOOD SHAVINGS?  With the other low cost options out there like wood stove pellets and pelleted horse bedding- who would even want to use wood shavings in a litterbox?  They do not absorb well, tend to scatter and stick in bunnies fur that have long coats.  I guess if a bunny is in a cage or hutch 24/7 wood shavings would be softer on the feet.  But since that is not the case with BB bunnies and most of our bunnies when they are in the cage are on fleece, rugs, blankets, sea grass mats, etc- I don’t see any advantage even if it was proven safe.

[clevername]

Posted By KatnipCrzy on 01/25/2009 11:58 AM

Wow, if you read other portions of this “personal” website- it really gives you a good idea of the authors perspective.  According to the author- THIS SITE is not credible because it has the word “house” in the title/description.  In fact the author does not like any “house” or “rescue” rabbit sites.”

 

 

yea. There is a divide between people of the house rabbit comunity and the people who use rabbits for everything else. Try not to take offense, its just how things are. You guys are the same with breeders on this site.

 

 

“I am not seeing any references to recent studies- and I would consider recent to be 2000 and later. “

 

show me a VALID recent study in which pine and cedar shaving were proven to be harmful and I’ll consider this argument. Please do not post studies which rest their findings or make assumptions based on previous studies that were published before 1998.

 

“And to me studies on lab and breeding animals are just not relevant to my pet rabbit decisions- as we are talking a whole different life span and way of living”

Both parties care about the health of the rabbit. I see no difference where this topic is concerned. At the end of the day we all keep rabbits, if they drop dead of liver disease it isn’t a good thing.

 

[KatnipCrzy]

EDIT: This thread can remain active and open to comments and questions as long as it stays civil.  Any insults or derogatory comments will not be tolerated.

I just do not see the correlation between lab animal/breeding animal care and the rabbit care that has evolved from the keeping of house bunnies.

Lab animals do not have long lives-  they live in severely controlled environments to not allow any outside factors to affect test results. House bunnies are probably much more likely to die of age related disease than lab animals, meat animals, or breeding animals.   And unless a necropsy is done on a “livestock” bunny for herd health reasons- house bunny owners are also probably more likely to know WHY their rabbit died.

And while there are many rabbit breeders sites out there- with all the bunnies show accomplishments listed- they never really say what happens to the bunny.  What happens when the doe is too old to breed or does not take care of a litter?  What happens to a buck when his male offspring have better conformation and breed characteristics than he does?  Are there barns full of retired breeding bunnies that frolic in fresh hay and live out their golden years?   Probably not.  I am sure that there are some breeders that form an emotional attachment and do keep some of the bunnies.  But some of them end up in rescue or are re-homed as a pet, or worse.  So the very institutions that the author is so against ends up with “used” bunnies. 

There is a divide between people of the house rabbit community and the people who use rabbits for everything else.

So, yes- there is a divide and there always will be a divide between people have “uses” for rabbits and those that invite them into their homes to live.

I have found online references to recent studies that show the negative affects of phenols on humans and animals-  but not specific to wood shavings.  All of the recent rabbit veterinary textbooks I have say not to use wood shavings- but there is no study info listed.  So I can not find any recent studies about wood shavings at all- proving use is OK, or proving the negative affects.  Seems like no one is interested in revisiting that theory.  But since there are other products that are just as economical- why bother?

[clevername]

 ”But since there are other products that are just as economical- why bother?”

 

I’ll agree here, but its a topic kinda aside from what we are talking about. I’d like to stick to wether or not wood shavings are safe. I’m still inclined to favor my article because it takes into account all of the sources that have been posted and breaks them apart logically.

 

“So, yes- there is a divide and there always will be a divide between people have “uses” for rabbits and those that invite them into their homes to live.”

You use them for companionship. You can’t tell me you don’t get something out of the relationship. Also that isn’t to say that breeders and others don’t care for their animals either–they just happen to use them for other things too.

“Lab animals do not have long lives-  they live in severely controlled environments to not allow any outside factors to affect test results. House bunnies are probably much more likely to die of age related disease than lab animals, meat animals, or breeding animals.   And unless a necropsy is done on a “livestock” bunny for herd health reasons- house bunny owners are also probably more likely to know WHY their rabbit died.”

 

You make that assumption but I’ve heard many stories to the contrary. A lot of breeders actually keep their retired brood stock as pets. On another list a breeder said she had a buck die happy and content at the age 14. And necropies on linestock/brood buns are very common. If a animal dies in your herd from unexpected cause you WANT to know why before of the rest of your buns fall ill from the same thing.

Bottom line is no one wants their rabbits to die from unforseen causes.

[Kokaneeandkahlua]

I think the reason she’d like to discount lab animals vs. home rabbits (I see your point, we care about why they die) is LIFESPAN
1) House rabbits can be expected to live 8-12 years on average.

Here’s why this is key to this discussion:
The liver and kidney damage, that are purported to be caused by the ‘Phenols” and “Aromatics” given off by cedar and pine bedding cause damage OVER TIME
This is huge when looking at a study of lab rabbits-time span! IF the damage is caused over a lifetime of exposure, and say a ‘six week’ study says they are safe-clearly this is faulty logic.

That being said, I just saw this thread and I’m off to look at your link, unbiased and I’ll civilly and intelligently discuss with you if you’d like to. I have seven years in Sciences/Engineering at University of Alberta and I’ve been formally taught to read and critically evaluate scientific studies.

That being said, that I’m happy to debate this, perhaps we would want to take the debate to email? Just that BB isn’t really the place to have debates like this. Anyways I’ll read and let me know if you’d like to discuss via email?

[jerseygirl]

Posted By clevername on 01/25/2009 10:45 AM

look maybe I’m on the wrong board for this…

I believe topics like the one you have raised should be looked at and investigated.  We can all benefit from having more up to date and scientifically sound knowledge on care for our rabbits.  However, this board is probably the wrong place for the in depth debate.  The rules & guidelines do state to keep debates light.

Also, the subject of intentional breeding is prohibted (as stated above) but breeders that have companion pets are welcomed as members I’m sure.  Your statement “you guys are the same about breeders on this site” is a bit of a generalisation, however, perhaps we should all be careful about putting each other in “us and them” camps in our post on the forums.  If that makes sense….

Eek! Sorry to sound like a goody-two-shoes by quoting the rules….I get a bit wary about debates becoming inflammatory and try disfuse things unneccesarily sometimes.

[Kokaneeandkahlua]

I know as science and vets advance what we know about rabbits, we all need to be open to new information and so reviewing this article is a good idea-becase who knows maybe pine/cedar is ok to use…Unfortunately the claims this site makes are not backed up at all with their references

This seems to be a case of having a bunch of references makes you legitimate; I’ve purused ALL references and found NOTHING that backs up what this site/person is claiming. I have access to almost all scientific articles as a UofA alumni and can access all of these journals in full text…However some don’t seem to actually exist…

Ok on to the references:
Articles 1, 2 & 3 pertain to Rats, who have systems close to humans not rabbits. I’m not looking at those.

Article 4 is lab animals but I’ll look at that one…Was published in 1978 and pertains to lab animals, findings were in mice, and just found females were more sensitive to chemicals then males, nothing about pine/cedar in rabbits.

Article 5 is an incomplete citation, not listing the journal name or year/vol/isssue; It’s from 1990; This study used lactating dairy cows and no small animals -this simply does not pertain…They also found no difference in bacteria from newspaper to corn cob or wood bedding. Soooo nothing was proved regardless.

Article 6 is an incomplete citation as well. It states the name of a publication and no issue/volume or title of the article they looked at. That’s like saying citing ‘The new york times’ with no date. Impossible to look up what they are referencing.

Article 7 is a book, not a scientific publication; Scientists do not reference books, as anyone can publish one. It’s also not a good book, review by scientific commitee here http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1235990&pageindex=1

Article 8 is again a book and an incomplete citation, No title just some sort of acronym for the title, and I can’t track anything down but this web page with that

Article 9 is a book again, not a scientific publication.

Article 10 is a book again, not a scientific publication (reason again-books can be published by anyone)

Article 11 addresses carcinogenic effects not liver/kidney damage but->>Aromatics associated with pine/cedar are a possible problem so I’ll review the article. It was a study of BUGS not small animals (!!) and found that they did in fact cause cancer.

Article 12 This is a study of inbred mice, not rabbits. This found that Hepatoma incidence in inbred mice were not influenced by pine or cedar. Great but we’re talking liver/kidney damage in rabbits not cancer in inbred mice…

Article 13 Again study of cancer in lab mice with specific genes. This article is from 1975; and only found on this webpage.

Article 14: is the same article as article five…

Article 15: This is a study of liver/kidney FUNCTION in a variety of lab animals and had nothing to do with pine/cedar. Here are the findings…”All species appeared to N-demethylateaminopyrine equally except for high pulmonary and nearly absentrenal activities in rabbit and high hepatic activity in hamster.Rat had the lowest level of cytochrome P-450 and low activityof NADPH-cytochrome c reductase. UDP-glucuronyltransferase activitytoward the acceptors p-nitrophenol and o-aminophenol was higherin hamster and rabbit than other species. Guinea pig appearedto have the most active soluble fraction enzymes. Mouse lungand kidney had glutathione S-aryltransferase activities 10-foldgreater than any other species and comparable to liver activityfrom rabbit and hamster.”

Article 16:Can only be found on this webpage and is an incomplete citation. With no article name, journal of publication, issue or volume this article appears to only exist in this citation on this webpage…

Article 17: Actually pertained to rabbits, AND liver enzymes. However this article has nothing to do with pine/cedar or the chemicals produced by pine/cedar bedding. Here are the findings. “At 0.10 mg/kg/day of AFB1, significant decreases were observed in total liver microsomal cytochrome P450, several P450-dependent monooxygenase activities, all individual P450 isoenzymes levels analysed by Western-blotting and glutathione S-transferase activities. By contrast, at 0.05 mg/kg/day of AFB1, even though total cytochrome P450 was decreased by 30%, only P450 1A1 and 3A6 isoenzymes, and aniline hydroxylation, pentoxyresorufin O-depentylation, aminopyrine, erythromycin, ethylmorphine and dimethylnitrosamine N-demethylations were affected. In the same animal group, the only glutathione S-transferase accepting CDNB (1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene) as substrate was decreased by 22%. UDP-glucuronyltransferase accepting p-nitrophenol as substrate was increased in both groups of animals (33-62%). The mechanisms that could contribute to the observed changes in drug metabolizing enzymes are discussed.”

Article 18: Again delt with rats, not rabbits, who have a system similar to humans and not rabbits. This does not pertain at all. Also this has to do with rats who HAVE cancer and are given challenge infections. ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with bedding, pine/cedar or phenols or aromatics.

Article 19: Is quite possibly the only reference that’s close, again deals with RATS and not rabbits. Unfortunatly this journal does not exist-likely an incomplete reference?? The title of the article only exists on this webpage…

Article 20 is not scientific but an article in a mag, not going to look at it

[BinkyBunny]

jerseygirl – thank you so much for making sure everything stays light. I really appreciate that. You are a caring mediator. You are right as well that rabbit owners  who are breeders are welcome to discuss their own rabbit companions.  Discussions about breeding are prohibited.   We are focused ONLY on the individual rabbit for several reason stated here https://binkybunny.com/BUNNYINFO/FAQ/tabid/81/Default.aspx. (click on Q1)

There is no reason that this discussion about litter should get heated. So now that it’s back down to a “discussion”  then let’s keep it that way. So it’s okay to discuss this as the information is very educational, but insults, snide remarks, and snooty comments will be deleted (and have been) and warnings issued. This doesn’t need to get personal for goodness sakes – we’re discussing the value of an article, not the value of each other.

This is something we can learn from, so stay respectful so this thread can stay. 
 

EDITED: I forgot to say.   WOW…thank you KK for such a thorough look at everything!!!
 

[clevername]

Kokaneeandkahlua– I appreciate the formal way you structured  your rebuttal but it’s been brought to my attention that debates on this board are to remain very light so I’ll soon be letting this drop.

 However before I do I’ll point out that citing books as sources in an article as indeed relevant to structuring a case. Yes maybe scientific publications are better, but even your rabbit savy vets consult books when diagnosing rabbit.  So please don’t disreguard them so quickly. Article 9 for example is reputed to be something a kin to the Bible of Rabbit Care (plus, its for breeders and pet owners alike).

 

 

 

[Cassi&Charlie]

K&K, thanks for breaking it down for us so well, I really appreciate the time you must have put into doing it!

Clevername – I don’t pretend to be an expert on sources or anything but as a 3rd year science student I’ve been told time and time again not to rely on books because they can be published by anyone, usually arne’t peer-reviewed and become outdated very quickly. Any source I am willing to rely on for my beautiful bunnies health & well being will have to be from a quality, peer reviewed journal.

When my Charlie was really sick last year, the thing that saved him was my vet’s willingness to look into peer reviewed literature to find a possible cure for him. If she’d done it ‘by the book’ he probably wouldn’t have suvived. SO once again, peer reviewed journals for me all the way

[clevername]

Posted By Cassi&Charlie on 01/25/2009 11:01 PM
 SO once again, peer reviewed journals for me all the way

 

 

Hands down I agree. Unfortunately, like rabbit savy vets, they are harder to find.

[clevername]

Posted By jerseygirl on 01/25/2009 4:26 PM

Posted By clevername on 01/25/2009 10:45 AM

look maybe I’m on the wrong board for this…

I believe topics like the one you have raised should be looked at and investigated.  We can all benefit from having more up to date and scientifically sound knowledge on care for our rabbits.  However, this board is probably the wrong place for the in depth debate.  The rules & guidelines do state to keep debates light.

Also, the subject of intentional breeding is prohibted (as stated above) but breeders that have companion pets are welcomed as members I’m sure.  Your statement “you guys are the same about breeders on this site” is a bit of a generalisation, however, perhaps we should all be careful about putting each other in “us and them” camps in our post on the forums.  If that makes sense….

Eek! Sorry to sound like a goody-two-shoes by quoting the rules….I get a bit wary about debates becoming inflammatory and try disfuse things unneccesarily sometimes.

 

 

 

Thanks, you bring up some good points.

I’m actually on alot of boards both breeder, pet, and nuetral for rabbit related issues and I feel the friction of the divide an awful lot. I feel its really unnecessary since in the end we all care about rabbits (even if we disagree on how to go about it). I admit I’m a little defensive when someone makes unnecessary  comments or disreguards information just be cause it “came from the other side”. I mean does it really have to be that way?

 

[Kokaneeandkahlua]

I just want to pipe in and say the ‘divide’ is not what we’re debating I hope you don’t feel that way!! just the sources didn’t back up what the article was saying.

I’m sure some of us would love to use an inexpensive bedding like pine or cedar, but that article just doesn’t hold water

[jerseygirl]

Ha ha BB, you are very kind to call it “caring mediation”, in my world, I call it “being a bit of a knob”!

clevername, I understand what you mean, rabbit savvy vets and scientific journals/papers hard to find! Cassi obviously had a positive exp. with her vet having access to such things. Wonder if all our vets keep up to date or receive such materials? Be good to give them an annual subscrition in lieu of consult fees!

Anyway, all off topic,^^ I have nothing valuable to add to the debate so I’ll scoot off now….

[Lily]

Ive read all kinds of horrable things about wood chips, so i use this stuff called Care Fresh Colors. Its made out of newspaper pulp, and it comes in all kinds of non toxic fun colors!!!! I like having blue bedding for my buns The chunks in carefresh are soft and absorbant, and holds odor well. Its also big enough that my buns like to pick it up in there mouth and move it around but never eat it.

1127161270971.jpg

[Lily]

oh btw thats there old cage, they got a new big cage now because there big bunnys!

[clevername]

To be fair guys. I wasn’t expecting this article to completely change anyone’s mind about wood chip bedding. But it did make me question why we believe these things. Simple suspicions can blow up into rumors very quickly and the article did point out that there isn’t much SOLID evidence for these things being harmful. (of course there is little to the contrary too, but we’re looking into that)

I care very much about whether the information I pass along is true. The article I’ve posted at the very least has cast doubt on what I’ve been saying about wood chip bedding for years.

I invite people to think critically about these things. “Better safe than sorry” is a very good policy for practice (and I encourage this), but I’m very interested in what is actually true.

[jerseygirl]

Posted By clevername on 01/28/2009 8:27 AM
………but I’m very interested in what is actually true.

That’s a good way to be (in my opinion…).  To be really general here…..People, ( myself included ) will take something as fact if they’ve heard it from multiple sources (sources – meaning other people).  You hear it enough and others say it is so….then it must be true – type mentality.  It’s good to throw in some questions to start people looking a bit more closely at things. 
 

[RabbitPam]

clevername,
As the first respondent to your post, I want to say I am very pleased with the debate you have inspired. K&K – what care and research in your responses as well!

Unless BB deleted some heated comments (she said she did) that would not have made for good reading, what remains is a very thorough and intelligent debate of a topic of interest to many of us. I favor any effort to debunk a myth, or prove a myth, with more in depth research and study. In a quality of life and life/death situation regarding long term illness, I think it is not too heavy a subject line to pursue. I come to BB in part to read what more knowledgeable people have to offer so my care for my bunny can be the best I have available. Knowledge is a fluid thing, and what held true in ’78 can be debunked, proven again, and re-examined many times over. So having researchers in the field, or dedicated individuals that work/live with bunnies, is of benefit to us all. That you made several points and cited examples that are important to you is worth learning. That others reviewed it and found cause for debate is equally enlightening.

I would love to have the result being that another myth was debunked, which I believe was your goal as supported by your citations. That I am still not convinced enough to change my options for my bunny is my personal choice as the result of the discussion that ensued. But I thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion. BB may disagree, but a healthy debate can be had on a serious topic with the personal remarks kept light, as valid points are made.

I for one am now curious to know more about the variety of attitudes of breeders regarding their elder rabbits. I’m sure it varies from person to person, but I wouldn’t mind knowing what they do with their buns, where they house them, and how long the life-expectancy is. I also understand that if I really want to seek out this information, I will most likely need to visit breeder sites to do so, not expect to find it on BB.

Anyway, thanks for all the detailed info. I am considering a change in Sammy’s litter again (soaking wet way too fast) so this does have immediate relevance to my decision-making process.

[clevername]

I think a healthy debate is a great thing do to.

 

But I’m  taking this as a learning experience. I submitted this post thinking that people would read and at the very least think twice about the things they’ve heard. I learned pretty quickly that some people didn’t read and didn’t really think before posting (not that I’m trying to point any fingers. But this is the response I percieved. No offense intended.) I admit I was initially very frustrated when I wasn’t met with equally critical responses (with the exclusion of a few people). And I apologise for getting snide.

 

Looking back, I think I could have avoided this by organizing my initial post in a more thought provoking manner. From now on when I ask for a debate from the Binky Bunny community I will state my intentions very plainly:

“I have nothing to gain from being right in this matter. I Just wish to uncover the truth. Please read the arguement and respond in a critical manner. Please poke holes in whatever argument I’ve presented,  but do so with an open, critically thinking mind. “

[Beka27]

i stayed away from this thread. honestly, i did TRY to read the article, but it was too much for me to get thru. i’m not a biology expert and i didn’t understand much of what was being said. it might have valid points, but i guess i need things in more layman terms. it IS good enough for me that wood shavings are not recommended by a number of sources. if someday a number of sources (i respect) come back with a different conclusion, i might be inclined to revisit this. for the time being, i am perfectly happy with the way things are now.

[clevername]

I think once me and kokaneeandkahlua are done debating this on our own. One of us could easily post a layman’s run down of the facts.

Yes, “better safe than sorry” is a good policy for now. I would never argue that point unless there was concrete proof there was no risk to your pet. 🙂

[BinkyBunny]

Originally when I excluded serious debates, it was regarding animal rights, breeders vs rescue, etc etc as those get very heated because people are very passioniate about these things regardless of sides and the bottom line always will come down to opinion and personal belief and there will never be a final right analysis  – and debates just can continue on into a never ending serious cycle.

But when it comes to things that every bunny owner may need like litter, this is something that can be based mainly on facts (if there is anything updated about it) so as long as the debate stays more in a “discussion” tone with different points of views and respect for each other is maintained, then there is no reason why information about “litter” can’t be continued to be looked at here. Even if someone isn’t  debating in the manner you think they should, like  ”not thinking critically” in your opinion, (this is directed at everyone),  respect  for that person must be be given.  (even if you feel frustrated with each other’s arguments, or their  lack of addressing the specifi information given, keep this all in perspective as to how serious this REALLY is.    You may have to jump up and down, knock your head on the keyboard, whatever you need to do, but belittling others will not be tolerated)  Just ask them for the information you really want.    No one here is a serious debater, so tolerance will have to be given to the casual approaches.

So with that being said, I think we  would all be interested in the rebuttals that KK has brought up, and we can all continue to learn.

I also understand that what we may find is that there isn’t current information and so as far as current info that may be mute. But I am still interested in what the outcome is of the older material and what that means for us so far.  

So by all means, clevername, KK and whomever else feels able to break it all down here then please do.  You don’t have to do it off the board.  I am interested in this as well, and during my free time I will be looking at this closer to see what I can offer to this.  

So have fun and let’s learn together.

[Author]

Messages