'my Mothers Cooked Ham.....

[krusewalker]

One day my mother decided to teach my sister the 'art of cooking'.

After a long spiel telling my sister that cooking is a time honoured tradition, and that many recipes are passed down from mother to daughter throughout the generations, she decides to start with the basic 'art of frying ham' (as she labelled it), proud that she will be passing on "the knowledge" that her mother passed onto her.

"Firstly", says my mother, "you need to cut the edges off the ham before you put it into the frying pan".

My father, slightly puzzled by this, interjected to my mother "why do need to cut the edges of our ham???".

"You just do!", snapped my mother bluntly.

My father, never the one to take things at face value, persisted by asking why that was so.

Obviously irked by my father's constant habit of asking 'awkward questions about about irrelevant points' (as she viewed them), continued by saying "thats the way my mother taught me. She was an excellent cook".

"Well, why did your mother cut the edges of the ham?", enquired my father.

"I dunno", said my mother thoughtfully, "lets ring her".

At which point, my mother picked up the kitchen phone, rang my grandmother, and said "hi mum, i know this is an odd question, but why did you always tell me to the the edges off the ham?"

"Because thats how your Grandmother taught me", replied my Grandmother, and after a considered pause, added "and she was an excellent cook".

"Why did she cut the edges off the ham?", said my mother.

"Know you mention it, I dont know", answered my Grandmother.

"You best visit her and ask".

Next morning, after a 4 hour drive, we arive at my Great Grandmothers house.

After settling down and being served tea and biscuits, my mother broaches the subject.

"Grandmother", says my mother hesitating at the thought of questioning some given wisdom, "can I ask you a question?"

 

"Of course you can , my dear", says my Great Grandmother sweetly.

"Why did you teach my mum to cut the edges of the ham?"

"Oh, is that all", chuckles my Great Grandmother,

"thats because my frying pan wasnt big enough".

[border collie]

[krusewalker]

Hello Border Collie

 

Now, i bet you are all womdering just what has that to do with dogs!!!!!!!!!!.

Believe me, it does!

But i'm interested in fugees ideas before I add anymore.

See you about mid morn tomorrow with the next bit.

 

[border collie]

Ooh hello

 

 

I want to read some more before I try and guess

[our little godsend]

 

 

The only thing I can think of, to do with dogs, is that they had the leftover bits that didn't fit in the pan

[border collie]

Ermm, is it that we all do things without thinking because "that's the way we have always done it?"

[our little godsend]

I'm sure BC, that the answer is really profound (is that the word i'm looking for ). But i'm just a simpleton, so giving the leftovers is my answer

[border collie]

I think, the little I know of Martin, the answer will be too profound for any of us

[our little godsend]

 

 

 

 

[safneo]

Ermm, is it that we all do things without thinking because "that's the way we have always done it?"

 

 

 

I think that too. And if we question the way things are done, we can find a better way.

Edited October 22, 2006 by safneo

[krusewalker]

Good Afternoon, most of you are right.

Border Collie, you know me well

 

A John Fisher dog training book tells of an elderly lady that had bequethed a Rotti by her dear departed friend, whom left suitable finance on the basis she buy him a steak everyday.

He was a ball of uncontrollable power, and John did take pause for his personal safety, but was relieved she managed not to let go, more by accident than design.

After overcoming her concerns to honour her friends wishes, John persuaded her to drop the steak, as this contributed to his aggressive state. (my phrasing and italics).

Protein, John reported, makes dogs more hyperactive and aggressive.

Interesting, i thought, cant wait until I get to the chapter explaining that bit further.

Alas, No chapter was found!

"Lame, John", i thought, "you cant just say that and not explain why"

Anyway, this challenged me for a few years, I got hold of more books, noted the oft referred protein point, but still no one bothered expaining it!

 

Then I got into the Tour De France. Read up on the race, espesh Chris Boardmans stories.

So many referances to pasta and carbohydrates.

Boardman hated it, 2 weeks prior and all during the race, pasta and rice, rice and pasta, and porridge!

And jam filled bread rolls chucked at them at stations, and carb drinks.

I studies energy sources. Carbs No1, Protein No2, Fats No3.

That's pretty defintive, i thought, sports science says: want more energy, eat more carbs.

Therefore, logically, if you want less energy, eat less carbs. Surely??!!

So whats with all this stuff about calming dogs down by feeding them less protein - surely that should be more protein to less carbs???

I asked the FOAL Farm vet if the energy ratio rules for carbs and protein are reversed for dogs.

He said no, it works basically the same way for all animals.

When I mentioned the Tour De France contradiction, he said he could see my point, but every vet just knows that too much protein makes dogs hyper and aggressive, but he didnt know why.

I could try the BVA website - but no joy there either!

 

This is just a load of old (protein) baloney, i thought. Next time some Vet, Trainer, or Behaviourist trots out this tired old arguement to me without explaining themselves properly, im just gonna refer them to basic sports nutrition handbooks, and have done with it.

 

Few years later at a dog seminar, i came across "Canine Neuropsychology" by James O'Heare.

It was a homemade copy, not published yet.

Eureka. A whole section expalining effects of protein. Nothing to do with energy ratios between protein, carbs, and fats at all. To do with a very specific chain of chemical pathways triggered by the amino acids in the protein digested.

 

Everyone at FOAL so was impressed with this find; the book and the info, as it was 'just one of those things everyone just knew, but couldnt explain'.

 

Now, excuse me. But how many people on here that have repeated this 'time honoured proven wisdom' without actually understanding the advice?.

Sounds just like "my mothers cooked ham", to me.

 

I have been inspired to refresh this point since i read:

 

raceylacey: debunking the dominance myth

 

Very Good, I Agree With It All. But nothing i havent read a hundred times before elsewhere.

Dogs arent wolves. Check. Things have moved on. Check. The original wolf study was flawed, captive wolves, erroneos conclusions, etc, etc. Check. Check. Yawn. Yawn.

But what's this?? Ian Dunbar says "this was down to 3 flawed studies in the 1930's and 1940's".

At last, I say to Anne, someone is finally gonna actually explain all about this famous wolf study, instead of just repeating it!!

Reading, reading, reading. Nope. What a tease!

Never mind, i said to anne, it will be in the referances at end of article. Nope!.

There are no referances.

Well, at least we got the decades now!. 'My mothers cooked ham......but where's the beef'!

 

Q To all Readers : Can someone actually tell me when study was, where it was, who ran it, who wrote it, and what the reseults were?

Before someone cleverer than me turns around and says "yeh yeh yeh, my mothers cooked ham".

"Anyone can make such a statement. You cant even prove this so called captive wolf pack existed".

"After all, even your latets document refers to 'concepts that become catchy, trickle down to popular dog culture, and take hold with the power of mythology'. "Sound familiar?", says my cleverer friend.

And I cant really fault him, can I?

 

As I have all the resources - Mech, Donaldson, Dunbar, etc. And still cant give him basic facts and figures about the actual study we are knocking.

 

And to the wider issue: modern positive training is fast taking on the traits on the old 'our way is better, ter, everyone knows it' dogmatism on the 'old school'.

For example, at FOAL Farm, i kept a list of local dog trainers.

The owner that went to training could never even recall the personal name of their trainer, let alone anything else they said, except for one guy only. They other trainers were all very good, with brilliant positve techniques. This guy was good in his own way, but was an x-police dog trainer with *some* 'old school techniques' we wouldnt take to.

Yet, i observed ALL the different classes. He was funny, entertaining, and informal.

People all said what a great bloke he was, even when he took the mickey.

The others just came on like my stern old School Mistress running gym class.

Lots of tut and sighs, etc, even if a person tugged at their dogs collar too harshly.

No subtley, no allowances for natural human failings, or dare i say, even applying some of that modern stuff we all like to go on about.

You know, about stress affecting behaviour and comprehension.

Treating them as individual emotional beings

But id be an embarrased and stressed adult if i felt i was being told off at school.

 

We are seriously in danger of the 'modern school' becoming the 'old school' by blankly churning out newer versions of my mothers cooked ham, and applying negative reinforcment upon our students whilst they struggle to apply our positive training lessons onto their dogs.

 

 

MODS, COULD YOU PLEASE DELETE FIRST VERSION OF POST. it had bad typos and i dont have an edit button. THANK YOU

 

[border collie]

Have pm'd you

[JoC]

Really interesting.

 

As for the study, I dunno, but the whole thing doesnt make loads of sense to me. A lot of the 'anti dominance' brigade are guilty of the same thing the 'pro domiance' folks were doing, which is just taking it for granted that that's the way things are. I honestly don't know what I think about the whole thing, some of the arguments don't make sense.

 

The whole dominance thing stemming from 'wolves form packs, dogs are descended from wolves, therefore they form packs and we are part of it' IS a leap without evidence. BUT so is saying 'we are not dogs therefore we are never going to be in their pack'. Yes I'm against alpha rolls and violence and eating before your dog (I'm on a diet and clicker train, that's never gonna end well ) but I think disasgreeing with methods is one thing, but it doesn't automatically rule out the theory. I don't know about the theory either, but don't think making leaps of judgement either way is helpful.

 

I haven't thought about food much, but I don't think it's as simple as carbs = goo, protien = bad. I never mention food to clients, I'm not a vet or a nutritionist, it's not my job. If they ask, I say what I use, what I've heard good things about and always finish it up with 'ask your vet for more detailed info'.

 

I remember being on a John Rogerson course and was really impressed with the way he questions everything, and doesn't take for granted what people say. I was SO impressed with the way he taught stays, with the rewards coming while the dog is staying (rewards being praise and smiles) and then the release being low key, so the dog isn't spending the whole stay looking forward to the release. He also talks about the way stays are traditionally trained and how that must feel to the dog. I really admire that.

 

The problem is though, where does it stop? Why cut the edges off the ham? Why fry the ham? Why ham? You could go mad analysing everything, sometimes it DOES have to be 'just because' or otherwise you'd never get anything done!

 

On your point about training classes, it does surprise me how many people are reward based with dogs but not with people. I know that people can make mistakes, get frustrated and take it out on their dogs, I know that people aren' born knowing how to train them and I know they can feel embarrassed and ashamed if they think their dog is 'the worst one' and I go out of my way to make sure people feel relaxed and comfortable in my classes. It's nothing to do with the training methods I use, my job isn't to train dogs it's to train owners and if they are feeling stressed and judged they're not going to learn anything, or even want to.

 

I get frustrated with people who wont listen, but that's more in the real world than in classes. After all they've come to classes and are paying for my advice so they usually listen to it! I've managed to 'convert' traditional trainers without ever arguing with them or doubting their skills, just showing them another way and they like it