Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Red Meat vs. White Meat

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 12:31 PM
What is better for dogs?

I have been under the (uneducated) impression that white meat is healthier for all animals, especially turkey meat. What say you food people and the links you dig up?!?! :party:

gypsy_girl
March 28th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Depends on what you classify makes a protein "better"
The biological value is about the same (amino acid profile number) 79 for turkey, 69 for beef, however if you want to know more that this, www.nutritiondata.com

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 12:49 PM
in the wild, wolves rarely eat "white meat", their prey is mostly larger ungulates (ie "red meat") rather than wild fowl. they're built to eat it, the "white meat" hype is more geared towards human health than animal health. we don't have the same physiological structure and nutritional needs as our furry friends ;)

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Depends on what you classify makes a protein "better"
The biological value is about the same (amino acid profile number) 79 for turkey, 69 for beef, however if you want to know more that this, www.nutritiondata.com

Yes, this is an awesome site! But... surely dogs have different needs than humans? Red meat is notoriously bad for humans.

I'm asking because I'm drawn to white meats in dog foods and I want to know if this is rational.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 12:51 PM
in the wild, wolves rarely eat "white meat", their prey is mostly larger ungulates (ie "red meat") rather than wild fowl. they're built to eat it, the "white meat" hype is more geared towards human health than animal health. we don't have the same physiological structure and nutritional needs as our furry friends ;)

I was expecting this answer, do have any links to science that supports it?

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 12:58 PM
here you go :)

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/ana.HTML

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfPrey.html

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/anatomy.html

http://www.knowbetterdogfood.com/dogcare/health/nutrition.php

the sources are endless, just a matter of searching for them :goodvibes:

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Again, Techno has it covered. The main reason you see chicken & Turkey in pet food is obvious. Its cheap. Its a by product of the human food industry.

SuperWanda
March 28th, 2007, 01:05 PM
But when would a wolf have an opportunity to eat a lot of chicken or turkey in the wild? Does that necessarily mean that red is better than white?

I don't know the answer - just something that came to mind.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 01:09 PM
here you go :)

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/ana.HTML

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfPrey.html

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/anatomy.html

http://www.knowbetterdogfood.com/dogcare/health/nutrition.php

the sources are endless, just a matter of searching for them :goodvibes:

:laughing: where's the beaver kibble our guys demand!

Still not very convincing... for example: humans have a herbivorous anatomy, yet chicken/turkey is very good for us, so is fish. Maybe whatever the animal was designed to eat has more to do with what is easiest for them to obtain, not necessarily what is best for them.

I'm interested mainly in what is best for their hearts.

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:12 PM
well, considering that wolves need an average of three to ten pounds of meat each day, that would require a heck of alot of fowl hunting to meet those caloric needs, and it would deplete their energy reserves. easier to hunt down big prey and eat that for a while :o

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 01:15 PM
well, considering that wolves need an average of three to ten pounds of meat each day, that would require a heck of alot of fowl hunting to meet those caloric needs, and it would deplete their energy reserves. easier to hunt down big prey and eat that for a while :o

my point exactly, easier = healthier?

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:15 PM
Still not very convincing... for example: humans have a herbivorous anatomy, yet chicken/turkey is very good for us, so is fish. Maybe whatever the animal was designed to eat has more to do with what is easiest for them to obtain, not necessarily what is best for them.

I'm interested mainly in what is best for their hearts.


consider that carnivores have differently-sized inner organs (larger livers are an example) and secrete different digestive aids to break down their food of origin than humans do. Simply put, we cannot deal with the load of animal fat and proteins as efficiently as carnivores can. it's just basic anatomy and physiology. Grains are good for humans, but not for carnivores. Different species, different nutritional needs. we don't question why lions live on a diet of gazelle and don't chow down on grasses :shrug:

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 01:19 PM
:laughing: where's the beaver kibble our guys demand!

Still not very convincing... for example: humans have a herbivorous anatomy, yet chicken/turkey is very good for us, so is fish. Maybe whatever the animal was designed to eat has more to do with what is easiest for them to obtain, not necessarily what is best for them.

I'm interested mainly in what is best for their hearts.

But thats just it. Mother nature has designed the wolf to hunt these animals. Teeth to rip meat, crush bones. It seems to be working for them all these thousands of years. I would expect that if white meat was in fact "better" for trhem, it would play a much larger roll in their diet. Funny how nature seems to get things right.

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:27 PM
:highfive: scott, exactly :goodvibes:

SuperWanda
March 28th, 2007, 01:29 PM
If I ate soley what nature intended for me I don't think I would be completely healthy.

One Beagle Girl
March 28th, 2007, 01:31 PM
:laughing: where's the beaver kibble our guys demand!

Still not very convincing... for example: humans have a herbivorous anatomy, yet chicken/turkey is very good for us, so is fish. Maybe whatever the animal was designed to eat has more to do with what is easiest for them to obtain, not necessarily what is best for them.

I'm interested mainly in what is best for their hearts.


From what I understand, dogs need more fats in their diet than humans. As well, humans (at least North Americans) incorporate alot of fat into their diets, hence the need for many of us to choose leaner meats to eat ie: chicken and turkey. I think high cholesteral levels is are the reason many people choose poultry over red meat.

I think that unless your dog has high cholesteral or a disfunctial pancreas, you can feed any kind of meat. :p

errr...not that a pancreas is related to heart health :o

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 01:33 PM
consider that carnivores have differently-sized inner organs (larger livers are an example) and secrete different digestive aids to break down their food of origin than humans do. Simply put, we cannot deal with the load of animal fat and proteins as efficiently as carnivores can. it's just basic anatomy and physiology. Grains are good for humans, but not for carnivores. Different species, different nutritional needs. we don't question why lions live on a diet of gazelle and don't chow down on grasses :shrug:

Let me reiterate my point: The links you provided state that humans have a herbivorous anatomy, yet we eat chicken and fish! An all grain diet is obviously not optimal for us. We have adapted to eat foods that make us stronger/live longer/etc. Maybe with the help of humans, canines can adapt for the better?

I'm interested to know if the physiological factors that contribute to negative effects of red meat in our diet, are at all present in canines. How does their cardiovascular system work, etc. The links/sources you are providing only scratch the surface, giving a very brief, unscientific overview of the issue. :) If you feed a dog steak every day, will it suffer a heart attack? The sources you posted are not from Ph.Ds, but rather MDs, they are going on assumption, not research.

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:33 PM
If I ate soley what nature intended for me I don't think I would be completely healthy.


me too... damn those cake trees! LOL :D

all kidding aside, we humans are more complicated to maintain than most basic mammals on this planet. :o

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:36 PM
worrier, humans are omnivores not herbivores.

i too would love to have the time to search for those sources but unfortunately, i am at work right now with limited surfing time :D so if you find anything, please share, i too would love to have those links handy for future use ;)

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 01:44 PM
worrier, humans are omnivores not herbivores.

i too would love to have the time to search for those sources but unfortunately, i am at work right now with limited surfing time :D so if you find anything, please share, i too would love to have those links handy for future use ;)

from your own source:

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/ana.HTML
What About Me?
The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called "muscles of expression" are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic "square jaw" of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.

Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods.

Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans.

Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)

The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.

In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 01:47 PM
worrier, are you nitpicking? :rolleyes:

sometimes using common sense helps alot :D and so does Googling "human omnivores"

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 01:48 PM
We have adapted to eat foods that make us stronger/live longer/etc

Yes & no. Science has shown us what can be good for us. At the same time, we've processed everything to death. Cancer rates continue to rise. I believe the only reason we live longer is because of medical break throughs, not nutrional.

Why is it people try to get back to raw unprocessed organic foods.

Sounds to me like your trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Frogs eat bugs. Nature intended them to do it. Cows eat grass. Again, their stomach is designed to digest grasses. White meat may be better for us, but try feeding chickens to a cow. They're not designed for them.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Yes & no. Science has shown us what can be good for us. At the same time, we've processed everything to death. Cancer rates continue to rise. I believe the only reason we live longer is because of medical break throughs, not nutrional.

Why is it people try to get back to raw unprocessed organic foods.

Sounds to me like your trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Frogs eat bugs. Nature intended them to do it. Cows eat grass. Again, their stomach is designed to digest grasses. White meat may be better for us, but try feeding chickens to a cow. They're not designed for them.

Some people never strayed form "unprocessed" organic foods, and some people live very long lives with minimal medical intervention. Surely, these are examples of adaptation? There are people that live well into their 100s, following their own diets and regimes. These people are very active well into their 80s, have quirky dietary habits, and are smart! But most importantly, they don't eat red meat! Ever!

I'm not claiming this applies to dogs, I'm merely stating that just because they traditional feed on elk and bison, doesn't mean that is what is healthiest for them. I need more proof is all.

And Scott, I am not nitpicking, humans are not omnivores by nature, otherwise we would have much sharper front teeth capable of efficiently devouring raw meat. Imagine if our masters fed us only salad because they assumed that because our jaws are shaped a certain way and our ancestors ate mostly vegetation to survive, that was what was best for us.

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Well, I doubt your gonna find it. When animals are held in captivity, for whatever reason, people look to the wild and their natural diet to provide the best nutrition.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Well, I doubt your gonna find it. When animals are held in captivity, for whatever reason, people look to the wild and their natural diet to provide the best nutrition.

That's just not good enough. Natural diets are constantly changing with the environment. I need to see concrete facts before I buy into the idea of red meat being healthy for canines. "They eat it in the wild" is just not good enough for me, the life expectancy of wolves is not high enough for me to look up to their choices.

technodoll
March 28th, 2007, 03:10 PM
I need to see concrete facts before I buy into the idea of red meat being healthy for canines

if you have such doubts and reservations about it... don't feed it. :shrug:

more for our doggies :D

SuperWanda
March 28th, 2007, 05:05 PM
I don't think that one (red or white meat) is necessarily better. I think there are studies that have been done - not sure how to access them but I know that dogs require more fat than people for example. But, it is my opinion that a combination of meats is probably best. Because that way you are getting the different oils or fatty acids that may not be available from feeding one type exclusively.

I know that linoleic acid (Omega 6) is present in poultry and pork - as well as plants - but little is found in beef.

And linolenic acid (Omega 3) is common in fish and some plants but not in other meats.

I feed my dogs a white based meat kibble but I also add in other meats, fish and fish oils, steak, eggs, pork etc... just to ensure that they are getting a little more variety.

I don't just do this with meat but with veggies and fruits as well - some of their favorites are squash, broccoli, blueberries and watermellon.

I try to stay away from grains but I am not against a little flax or oat bran to add some fibre if needed!

Everything in moderation I think gives you a broad range of nutrients!

rainbow
March 28th, 2007, 06:03 PM
:laughing: where's the beaver kibble our guys demand!

I don't know about kibble but Canine Caviar makes canned with beaver meat. :laughing: Also, you can get kangaroo kibble now too. :D

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 06:21 PM
That's just not good enough. Natural diets are constantly changing with the environment. I need to see concrete facts before I buy into the idea of red meat being healthy for canines. "They eat it in the wild" is just not good enough for me, the life expectancy of wolves is not high enough for me to look up to their choices.

But why are wolves living to be as old as they are? Wolves can live a fairly long time considering what they're up agaisnt. They have no vet care. they live out in the elements. They have to face hunters, prey fighting back, fights with other wolves. I feel that the diet is what keeps them healthy. Keeps them going agaisnt these odds.

Again, I'm not sure you'll ever find these facts. the only ones who seem to do any nutrional studies at least on dogs, are the crappy pet food companies. :shrug:

jesse's mommy
March 28th, 2007, 06:45 PM
Even though I'm not a raw feeder, I pretty much agree with everything TD and Scott have said. :thumbs up

As for the human aspect of what is better for us to consume, has anyone ever heard of Dr. D'Adamo? He has a few books out that, to me, make a lot of sense. He's studied that different foods react with different blood types. Type "O" blood is the 'oldest' blood, which would be the meat eaters, but not dairy eaters. Type "AB" blood is the 'newest' blood which would be the vegetable eaters. Those who are in between the spectrum range from varying degrees of the others. I think it's very interesting did follow it for a while and actually reacted very well with it (I'm type O). However, I missed my ice cream and slowly fell off the path. :o I think the point I'm really trying to make is that everyone and every animal is different, it's just a matter of finding what works best for them. :shrug:

Anyway, here's the site about the different blood types if anyone is interested:
http://www.dadamo.com/books.htm

I'm sorry if this seemed like a threadjack, but I wanted to give a different point of view to some of the food consumptions mentioned above.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Even though I'm not a raw feeder, I pretty much agree with everything TD and Scott have said. :thumbs up

As for the human aspect of what is better for us to consume, has anyone ever heard of Dr. D'Adamo? He has a few books out that, to me, make a lot of sense. He's studied that different foods react with different blood types. Type "O" blood is the 'oldest' blood, which would be the meat eaters, but not dairy eaters. Type "AB" blood is the 'newest' blood which would be the vegetable eaters. Those who are in between the spectrum range from varying degrees of the others. I think it's very interesting did follow it for a while and actually reacted very well with it (I'm type O). However, I missed my ice cream and slowly fell off the path. :o I think the point I'm really trying to make is that everyone and every animal is different, it's just a matter of finding what works best for them. :shrug:

Anyway, here's the site about the different blood types if anyone is interested:
http://www.dadamo.com/books.htm

I'm sorry if this seemed like a threadjack, but I wanted to give a different point of view to some of the food consumptions mentioned above.

So maybe there are different types of dogs as well? Some that digest white meat better than red maybe?

And you can threadjack my threads anytime. :D

jesse's mommy
March 28th, 2007, 07:09 PM
So maybe there are different types of dogs as well? Some that digest white meat better than red maybe?


In my opinion, I don't see why not. It might explain why some dogs can chicken, but not beef or venison instead of duck. I think it really is finding what works the best in our household.

As in the case of wolves in the wild, their 'household' would be hunting red meat. Maybe they are equivalent of the Type "O" blood in humans. :shrug:

SuperWanda
March 28th, 2007, 07:54 PM
His theories have brought much scepticism and not much scientific evidence backs up the blood type diet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_diet

http://veg.ca/content/view/128/110/

jesse's mommy
March 28th, 2007, 08:04 PM
But different things work for different people. I personally did wonderful on it, but that doesn't mean it's fine for the next person. The whole point was finding what works for both yourself and your pet. ;)

Prin
March 28th, 2007, 08:10 PM
I agree with SuperWanda's first post.. Different meats have their strengths and weaknesses. Different dogs absorb different meats differently, so it's about finding the meat your dog does the best on. :)

While I don't disagree with Scott and Techno completely, I do think their position is a little extreme. Why do wolves live so long in the wild? Which wolves? Not all wolves live long, not all wolves get the nutrition they need, and not all wolves do well without a veterinarian. The fittest survive the best, and if you look at our dogs, they are generally NOT as fit as the wolves in the wild, and that has to do with domestication and bad breeding (can't seem to have one without the other).

And chicken and turkey aren't "by-products"... :shrug: If you're talking about factory farming, pretty well all our animals come from factory farms now, so no reason to single out turkey and chicken.

But when would a wolf have an opportunity to eat a lot of chicken or turkey in the wild? Does that necessarily mean that red is better than white?They might not catch too many chickens or turkeys, but what about pheasant and other birds? Our dogs would catch what they can (for Boo, it's rabbits, hands down!), regardless of the color of the meat. :shrug:

Scott_B
March 28th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Why do wolves live so long in the wild? Which wolves? Not all wolves live long, not all wolves get the nutrition they need, and not all wolves do well without a veterinarian. The fittest survive the best, and if you look at our dogs, they are generally NOT as fit as the wolves in the wild, and that has to do with domestication and bad breeding (can't seem to have one without the other).

Never said all wolves live long in the wild. Just that they can live long lives. And I agree, survival of the fittest. And I agree, our dogs aren't as fit as wolves, and I believe part of that is diet, along with breeding like you said. I believe wolves have the better diet. And that helps them survive without the vet care, etc.


And chicken and turkey aren't "by-products"... :shrug: If you're talking about factory farming, pretty well all our animals come from factory farms now, so no reason to single out turkey and chicken.

They might not catch too many chickens or turkeys, but what about pheasant and other birds? Our dogs would catch what they can (for Boo, it's rabbits, hands down!), regardless of the color of the meat. :shrug:

True, but would they eat them? hunting for food to survive and chasing after something thats running are two different things. All dogs have prey drives to a certain level.

Wolves are opportunist hunters, but as pretty much all the wolf experts say, they prefer to hunt larger animals. Birds, mice, rodents play a very small roll in diet.

Prin
March 28th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Just that they can live long lives.So did George Burns, but that doesn't mean he ate an exemplary diet.:D

True, but would they eat them? hunting for food to survive and chasing after something thats running are two different things. All dogs have prey drives to a certain level. I know Boo would. He licks his lips whenever he sees a rabbit. He was a stray, and IMO, he's eaten rabbits before. :o

SuperWanda
March 28th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Apparently, in North America, wolves consume a lot of beavers! It sounds like they try and get anything they can.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/whunts.html

I also have trouble with the idea that they are healthy because of the natural life they lead and what they eat - I think there is a lot more risk involved in the natural world and that doesn't always relay itself in a perfect picture of health. Sure, maybe the fittest/strongest survive but are they really that healthy if you medically examined them?

I'm sure there is much controversy on the subject.

But... the original question was to determine if red or white meat is better for dogs - dogs are not wolves and even though wolves are their ancestors it sure doesn't make for the greatest comparison IMO.

worrier
March 28th, 2007, 09:17 PM
Wolves are opportunist hunters, but as pretty much all the wolf experts say, they prefer to hunt larger animals. Birds, mice, rodents play a very small roll in diet.

I believe this has to do with the size of the catch. Do you think if a wolf knew that he could dine on 500 rabbits/squirrels/turkeys after only making 1 kill, he/she would pass that up? They go after whichever meat is most abundant in respect to how much energy they must use up to catch it. Obviously bringing down one elk is easier than catching 500 turkeys. But if those 500 turkeys were tied together by a rope and catching one of them would let them dine on all 500, you can bet they would be eating some white meat.

I find it ludicrous to assume that just because some large game exists in the same habitat as a wolf and is easily acquired, that this game must automatically be healthy. White meat vs. red meat should be a science based argument, not one that has to do with convenience.

We monkeys have only recently begun eating lots of meat. 10,000 years ago we were eating only leaves. The reason our teeth didn't get carnivorous is because we learned to cook our meat with our opposable thumbs :p. So how are dogs different? They are not evolving skeletally because we are providing them with food that replicates their diet. Wolves are not evolving because they are still wolves in the wild. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this lol, but maybe what I'm trying to get at is that the past is just that, the past. Just because we only ate leaves, doesn't mean we always will, or that it is the best for us (maybe it is? lol). Okay, I'm tired of typing this is becoming an essay...I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Scott_B
March 29th, 2007, 04:56 AM
But... the original question was to determine if red or white meat is better for dogs - dogs are not wolves and even though wolves are their ancestors it sure doesn't make for the greatest comparison IMO.

Gotta disagree there. The Grey Wolf and dogs share 99.8% of the same DNA. Only a .2% difference. I believe that makes them VERY comparable.

"Although the subject continues to be controversial, most authorities now agree that all dogs, from chihuahuas to dobermans are descended from wolves which were tamed in the Near East ten or twelve thousand years ago". Wolves, C. Savage, Sierra Club Book, ISBN 0-87156-689-3

"But man also made use of the wolf. The dogs owned by the American Indians must have descended from wolf stock". The Living Wilderness, Rutherford G. Montgomery, Torquil Books, 1964, Library of Congress No. 64-20648

"Canis sp. was parent to Canis lupus, the wolf; and the wolf was probably parent to the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, the first large creature who would live with men. "Today the wolf's closest relatives are the domestic dog, the dingo, the coyote and the jackal." Of Wolves and Men, Barry Holstun Lopez, Scribners, ISBN 0-684-15624-5

"The wolf is in fact a wild dog, a member of the scientific family Canidae, which includes domestic dogs as well as other dog-like wild animals such as foxes and jackals. "Scientists believe that wolves are the direct ancestors of today's domestic dogs. They think that early humans domesticated wild wolves to make them useful companions and work animals. Since that time, selective breeding has produced the many varieties of domestic dogs, some of which are very un-wolflike in appearance and habit". Wolf Pack, Sylvia Johnson, Alice Aamodt, First Avenue Editions, ISBN 0-8225-9526-5

"Canis familiaris was probably domesticated from the wolf 10-12,000 years ago. It found it's way into North America as far south as Idaho. Given thousands of years to selectively breed mutants that cropped up in their dog colonies, humans have manipulated an almost incredible diversity in this species. And there exist today more than 800 true breeding types worldwide". Looking at the Wolf, no author listed, Teton Science School, ISBN 0-911797-24-6


"A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)...."In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry." Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.


Of course I have no way of knowing what meat is best for them. And is beaver white or red meat? lol

What I do know, is in the wild, its large, red meat animals, no doubt to feed the whole pack vs a single meal. That said, its been the main souce of nutrion for thousands and thousands of years. It just makes sense to me then that if this diet of red meat were so bad, they would adapt to eat something else. Become plant eaters, etc. But they havent. So it must be doing something for them. Im guessing red meat has a higher fat content which would help them with energy during times when they have no food.

Unless somone has some test which shows what meat is best for them, I doubt we'll get a scientific answer. :shrug:

SuperWanda
March 29th, 2007, 09:35 AM
But just as worrier said - chimps and humans are also very similar with respect to their DNA. I don't understand why that alone would be the reason for having the same diet?

Dogs have also been so manipulated by man and certainly have different eating habits from one dog to another. My one husky/hound mix has more stomach troubles than my other husky. Domestication has certainly changed her appearance! Being a very large chested, small waisted dog this change can be seen in her digestive needs - my vet said once that her stomach is a different shape and is situated differently because of her barrel chest. Domestication has caused dramatic changes in the physiology of creatures. Dogs also don't have the evolutionary pressure that wolves do and I think that also changes alot. I still think they need more meat and I'm not saying that red meat is bad but I just can't bring myself to saying that red meat is better.

Like Prin said - some may prefer or do better on red - others may get more from white. I think they can also afford to be picky now with the loss of pressure to survive.

phoenix
March 29th, 2007, 11:07 AM
well, for what it's worth, here are my :2cents:

The reason that 'white meat' (ie. poultry and fish) are encouraged in human diets is that it has less of an impact on blood cholesterol. Lean red meat has been found in studies to have a similar impact on blood cholesterol as white meat(Arch Intern Med 159(12): 1331-8.)... the trouble is that marble-y steak or fatty cut that will increase the chance of arterial plaques forming, etc. Eggs have the same effect. So, not all red meat is created equal... bison (grass fed, not grain fed), for example, has less cholesterol and fat than white meats AND has been found to lower LDL (bad chol) in humans when included in the diet. (J. Animal Sci 80(5):1202-11.)

As a pregnant woman, right now I don't have to worry about this :laughing: -- the hormones in my body are effectively handling any cholesterol. For now.

Dogs and cats have a different makeup in LDL/HDL than we do, and also do not have to worry about cholesterol dumping in the arteries:

Cholesterol is then mostly carried along by LDL and HDL. In man, the most important lipoproteins are LDL. These are the ones that can cause fat deposits inside the arteria (atheroma), and be at the origin of so common diseases in man: coronary diseases, myocardial infarction… On the contrary, in dogs and cats, there are twice as much HDL than LDL, and 80 % of the total cholesterol is binded to HDL. Here, the “ good cholesterol ” is the most important. This physiological difference could explain why atheromatosis is so rare in these species. (http://www.petngarden.com/dogs/dogs50.php)

I don't have time to search out a more credible source for the above, but if you're really interested, I'm sure you could find some kind of animal anat literature that goes into more detail. If you understand the idea behind cholesterol and how your body and your dog's body uses it, you'll be okay. The thing is that we do NEED cholesterol, just as someone said earlier, we eat WAY too many fats in our diets, and so it's suggested that we limit it.

That said, high serum lipid levels in dogs is linked to hypothyroidism and some other illnesses. But NOT to coronary disease.

The 80's were all about bashing red meat, but we've come a long way since then in understanding what we should/should not be eating. Everything in moderation...

technodoll
March 29th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Phoenix, that was awesome - thank you! :goodvibes:

Cram
March 29th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Phoenix, great post! I totally agree and was going to attempt to post something similar :)

It is the fat/cholesterol in red meat that is bad, not the meat itself. And that is largely because of the way we raise cattle in feedlots- they have a very high percentage of body fat in comparison to a chicken which is naturally lean. I have a 1/4 of a cow in my freezer from my parent's farm which is the leanest, best beef I have ever had and doesn't even compare to the stuff you get at the grocery store. Buffalo (bison), elk, moose, deer, etc are all very lean meats by comparison because they are largely grass-fed or not corn fed, especially if you have wild meat.

Basically, for humans, all meat should be consumed in moderation (just like carbohydrates). Red meat has gotten a bad rap lately, and I think people need to remember that red meat does have some fantastic qualities (such as being high in iron) and should not be cut out of your diet completely. And IMO, dogs should be given a variety of meats, as their diet should consist primarily of meat, so diversity is important to obtain all the nutrition possible.

Prin
March 29th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Hmm... I know this is probably nitpicking but this part is bugging me:
Gotta disagree there. The Grey Wolf and dogs share 99.8% of the same DNA. Only a .2% difference. I believe that makes them VERY comparable.
From what I've learned of genetics and genomics, these old numbers just don't seem to be as important anymore. So much of the genome is useless and whether dogs have the same useless bits as wolves, or they actually share important genes is more important than any overlap. The dog genome has been sequenced, and I can't remember how many exactly, but I think there are over 2 billion nucleotides in the dog genome (you can add them up if you want: just search for "Canis familiaris" in "genome" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=genome)). Changing just one nucleotide can change a protein completely and can cause genetic disorders, too, so imagine changing around 500 million nucleotides. That's still a big difference.

While there may be arguments to compare wolves and dogs, IMO, DNA just isn't really one of them yet. We just don't know enough of the important information DNA holds. Maybe in 10-20-30 years it'll be a good argument, but just not now.:o


Great post, Phoenix. :)

worrier
March 29th, 2007, 01:17 PM
well, for what it's worth, here are my :2cents:

The reason that 'white meat' (ie. poultry and fish) are encouraged in human diets is that it has less of an impact on blood cholesterol. Lean red meat has been found in studies to have a similar impact on blood cholesterol as white meat(Arch Intern Med 159(12): 1331-8.)... the trouble is that marble-y steak or fatty cut that will increase the chance of arterial plaques forming, etc. Eggs have the same effect. So, not all red meat is created equal... bison (grass fed, not grain fed), for example, has less cholesterol and fat than white meats AND has been found to lower LDL (bad chol) in humans when included in the diet. (J. Animal Sci 80(5):1202-11.)

As a pregnant woman, right now I don't have to worry about this :laughing: -- the hormones in my body are effectively handling any cholesterol. For now.

Dogs and cats have a different makeup in LDL/HDL than we do, and also do not have to worry about cholesterol dumping in the arteries:

(http://www.petngarden.com/dogs/dogs50.php)

I don't have time to search out a more credible source for the above, but if you're really interested, I'm sure you could find some kind of animal anat literature that goes into more detail. If you understand the idea behind cholesterol and how your body and your dog's body uses it, you'll be okay. The thing is that we do NEED cholesterol, just as someone said earlier, we eat WAY too many fats in our diets, and so it's suggested that we limit it.

That said, high serum lipid levels in dogs is linked to hypothyroidism and some other illnesses. But NOT to coronary disease.

The 80's were all about bashing red meat, but we've come a long way since then in understanding what we should/should not be eating. Everything in moderation...

This is along the lines of what I was looking for. Will proceed with that research... and I didn't know that bison was healthier than foul! :o

Thank you!

Oh and on the evolutionary debate; I think the only evolutionary strain on the modern domesticated dog is cuteness. After all, how is said dog going to get quality scraps behind the butcher if it isn't cute?!?! and how will it get adopted at the shelter? ;)

Scott_B
March 29th, 2007, 01:42 PM
I ca honestly say Prin, I know nothing of any of that. The most I can go by is information I try & look up. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. Its just how science has said how close dogs and wolves are. Its all i have to go by. If reports were out saying the opposite, how far removed dogs are, well then thats something. :shrug: