Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Are dogs carnivores or omnivores?

Maya
May 13th, 2007, 04:00 PM
I thought dogs were carnivores however I keep seeing conflicting information. I'm just curious if anyone has any thoughts about this?

Prin
May 13th, 2007, 06:09 PM
From what I know, they're carnivores, but not obligate carnivores. They can eat other stuff, but they aren't built to digest it as well as they do meat. Cats are obligate carnivores. They absolutely need meat.

rainbow
May 13th, 2007, 07:37 PM
That's the way I understand it as well. :)

Maya
May 13th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Thanks.:) Seems a bit confusing but I guess it makes sense.

Spirit
May 13th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Prin is right. Certain breeds (like dalmations) don't all do well on meat at all, and often require a vegetarian diet. Depending on where you read, there is a lot of conflicting information as to what they are (carnivore vs omnivore), but cats (of course) are true carnivores. We have a couple dogs at my work (two, if memory serves me right) who have tested positive for allergies to all animal proteins... strange as that sounds...

Maya
May 13th, 2007, 10:44 PM
Ooo very interesting! I was curious too because I've seen people on the fourm get a lot of flack for trying vegetarian diets with thier dogs.

goldengal
May 14th, 2007, 05:39 AM
Suppose there are many different opinions on this. Our vet, who is a holistic vet and also teaches at Guelph, claims dogs are no longer carnivores whereas cats are true carnivores.

Scott_B
May 14th, 2007, 07:29 AM
Like Prin stated, Cats are obligate Carnivores. unlike dogs cats cannot produce Taurine. So they MUST eat meat. Dogs however, do not have this requirement, however they are Carnivores. But yeah, there is a lot of conflicting information on this topic.

technodoll
May 14th, 2007, 08:27 AM
dogs are deemed to be "adapted omnivores", ie carnivores that can and do survive on diets that include other things than meat. that doesn't mean that the non-meat things are good for them, though. it just won't kill them. :dog:

mydogs
May 14th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Just like to add that dogs could go without eating if they had to. But cats can't ,if they stop eating it's very important to get them to a vet. because there liver turns fatty and they can die.

mydogs
May 14th, 2007, 10:25 AM
A diet to high in protien is not good for a dog .They are omnivores by nature ,in the wild they would eat all of the animal thus getting grain,veg. etc. and not just meat.To much meat or I should say and all meat diet is not good for the Kidneys, they have to work to hard.All dogs are individuals and you must keep that in mind, a couch potato is going to thrive on a much different diet then a very active dog.That being said ,be careful out there, a vet wen't on line answering questions about the recall and said and I quote"I wouldn't feed my dog Purina even if doesn't get recalled,it's a bag of corn"

technodoll
May 14th, 2007, 11:06 AM
actually in the wild, unless wild canines ingest a very small and whole prey (ie mouse, rat, etc), it will shake out the stomach contents. see http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html for reference. and although canines will ingest grasses and berries at random, they are excreted or vomited mostly intact, ie not digested.

a raw diet is not high in protein. a cooked grainless kibble is dehydrated and thus artificially high in protein. in a natural state, no animal would eat a dehydrated diet. meats are ingested with the water content, thus diluting the overall protein.

i do wonder what the long-term effects of such a high-protein diet is. it will be interesting to see what "science" comes up with :dog:

Scott_B
May 14th, 2007, 12:24 PM
Agreed! :highfive:

actually in the wild, unless wild canines ingest a very small and whole prey (ie mouse, rat, etc), it will shake out the stomach contents. see http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html for reference. and although canines will ingest grasses and berries at random, they are excreted or vomited mostly intact, ie not digested.

a raw diet is not high in protein. a cooked grainless kibble is dehydrated and thus artificially high in protein. in a natural state, no animal would eat a dehydrated diet. meats are ingested with the water content, thus diluting the overall protein.

i do wonder what the long-term effects of such a high-protein diet is. it will be interesting to see what "science" comes up with :dog:

Prin
May 14th, 2007, 01:17 PM
I agree with Spirit- some breeds and some individual dogs have a higher requirement for veggies than others. Boo, for example, needs way more veg than Jemma. Jemma can do without veg completely. :shrug:

Goldens4Ever
May 14th, 2007, 06:33 PM
I just studied this as part of my canine nutrition program.

My medical book states that cats are strictly CARNIVORES & dogs have evolved into OMNIVORES. Their reasoning has to do with the presence of extra molars & premolars within dogs' mouths, which suggests that they are meant to chew & crush plant-based foods as well as meat & bone.

But, that's just what my medical book says-I'm sure there's information that states otherwise.

technodoll
May 14th, 2007, 06:40 PM
yeah... better information like this :D

http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

also http://www.geocities.com/havens_home/feedraw.htm - scroll down a bit and see the photos.

dogs may be "adapted omnivores" but they are certainly still carnivores, first and above anything else. :)

Prin
May 14th, 2007, 09:23 PM
I thought the front teeth were for plants. :confused: :o

wmarcello
May 14th, 2007, 09:26 PM
http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

also http://www.geocities.com/havens_home/feedraw.htm - scroll down a bit and see the photos.

Great links, very informative! Got any more? Got anything about cats in particular? (although I know those apply to cats as well)

wmarcello
May 14th, 2007, 09:28 PM
a raw diet is not high in protein. a cooked grainless kibble is dehydrated and thus artificially high in protein. in a natural state, no animal would eat a dehydrated diet. meats are ingested with the water content, thus diluting the overall protein.

Do you have any references about what percentage of protein a dog or cat's diet should ideally contain?

technodoll
May 14th, 2007, 09:32 PM
I thought the front teeth were for plants.

nope... they're for pulling and shredding the meat, fat and tendons off the bone... kinda like we use our front teeth for eating corn in the cob, i guess? LOL :D

hmmm for cats i'd have to look... you want skull photos, or more readings, or?... :)

technodoll
May 14th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Do you have any references about what percentage of protein a dog or cat's diet should ideally contain?

it all depends on who you ask, really... IMO the "ideal" comes from nature itself, ie what most of the wild carnivores in the world eat... most meat proteins are in the range of 15 to 20%, when consumed in a natural, raw state.

however this doesn't apply to kibble, which gets much of its protein from grains, hence the standard need for "about 24 to 26% protein" - some are less, some are more, but you see the trend.

hard to compare apples to oranges, really. the two diets are just too different :o

Prin
May 14th, 2007, 09:38 PM
nope... they're for pulling and shredding the meat, fat and tendons off the bone... kinda like we use our front teeth for eating corn in the cob, i guess? LOL :D Well, yeah, that's what I meant. The square dull ones are for veg, while the pointy small ones (like dogs have) are for shredding meat... Dogs teeth are way closer to cats' than ours anyway.

wmarcello
May 14th, 2007, 09:43 PM
hmmm for cats i'd have to look... you want skull photos, or more readings, or?... :)

Yes, yes, and... yes? :) I find biology and anatomy very interesting. It's not something I know much about, but I'm all about learning whatever I can.

Maya
May 15th, 2007, 01:49 AM
Yes this is really interesting and I don't know enough about diet. I tend to agree with whatever was most natural in the wild is probably best, assuming artifical selection hasn't "tampered" to much with the wolf tummy.:P

KitsapLady
June 5th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Dogs are Omnivores the same as people and bears.


omnivore = noun
1. a person who eats all kinds of foods
2. an animal that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances

(Cats are carnivores)

You will find many who will say dogs are one or the other, I guess they have their reasons, I sure don't know what they are or why they think as they do.

My dog loves apples, carrots, sweet potatoes, peanut butter almost as much as meat, if not equally as much (not my cat). I have to keep my dog out of the garden, or she will eat the watermelons, knowing that's a no no. She has to wait for them to ripen like the rest of us....lol

sugarcatmom
June 5th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Great links, very informative! Got any more? Got anything about cats in particular? (although I know those apply to cats as well)

Here's a great link on feline nutrition, covers pretty much everything: MAX'S HOUSE (http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm)

And here's a very technical PDF written by veterinarian Dr. Zoran: THE CARNIVORE CONNECTION TO NUTRITION IN CATS (http://www.catinfo.org/zorans_article.pdf)

For something a little more readable, try this one, also by a vet: FEEDING YOUR CAT: KNOW THE BASICS OF FELINE NUTRITION (http://www.catinfo.org/)

SableCollie
June 5th, 2007, 09:44 PM
I have to keep my dog out of the garden, or she will eat the watermelons

Once Lobo got into the groceries, ripped the wrapper off of a watermelon, and had eaten a big chunk of it before we caught him. :D
Coyotes will raid gardens in the summer and eat melons especially. They seem to love fruit.

Even though dogs are classed in the order Carnivora, they are omnivorous, because they are able to utilize and obtain energy from both plant-based foods and animal based foods, and most will willingly eat at least some plant-based foods. (Panda bears are also classed Carnivora and they are basically strict herbivores!)

Sable is a testament to dogs being omnivorous, as she has survived (and thrived) on a strict vegetarian diet for 4 years.

Scott_B
June 6th, 2007, 09:58 AM
WRONG. ;) they're not. First off, just becaue your dog eats a veggie or fruit doesnt make them a Omnivor.

Cats are obligate Carnivores. unlike dogs cats cannot produce Taurine. So they MUST eat meat. Dogs however, do not have this requirement, however they ARE Carnivores.

And i guess you missed all the other posts here about why they are.

READ THIS
http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

Dogs are Omnivores the same as people and bears.


omnivore = noun
1. a person who eats all kinds of foods
2. an animal that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances

(Cats are carnivores)

You will find many who will say dogs are one or the other, I guess they have their reasons, I sure don't know what they are or why they think as they do.

My dog loves apples, carrots, sweet potatoes, peanut butter almost as much as meat, if not equally as much (not my cat). I have to keep my dog out of the garden, or she will eat the watermelons, knowing that's a no no. She has to wait for them to ripen like the rest of us....lol

Kristin7
June 6th, 2007, 12:02 PM
That's right... even though cats are carnivores, mine still eat some kinds of fruits and veggies (any type of melon they LOVE, plus, button mushrooms and all types of winter squash, for example). They also love yogurt. One of them also really likes corn chips (this is an occasional treat, normally only the baked ones are given). The other one loves carrots but her teeth can't do much with them so all she can do is sniff it, she just goes nuts over them and will fetch carrot slices. They used to get avocado now and then until I read they are toxic to animals like dogs and cats...

SableCollie
June 6th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Simply put, if dogs did not have omnivorous tendencies (which I define as the capability and willingness to utilize plant based foods as energy and nutrient sources) then my dog would be dead.

The problem is the definitions are so vague. If you saw a panda, and didn't know anything about them, you would probably think they are meat eaters. But they eat bamboo.

Carnivora does not include all meat-eating mammals (and not all members of the order Carnivora eat meat). The earliest members of this order evolved during the late Paleocene.
(from here (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/classification/Carnivora.shtml))

Scott_B
June 6th, 2007, 02:02 PM
But they're still considered carnivores. Just not obligate. Dogs get no nutritional value from raw fruits and veggies as they lack the ability to break down the cellulose walls of plants. The only way is to grind them up or cook them, which also alters and destroys nutrients.

Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Thus, feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin to "self-digest" when the cells are crushed through chewing and tearing and their enzymes are released).

Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs


Dogs are VERY adaptive and can survive on less then adequate foods. Being fed old roy, Iams or aplo proves this. But they are carnivores. Our dogs are more closely related to the Grey wolf then any other "wild" dog. They share the same digestive system. The same teeth structure. And veggies play no part in the diet of these carnivores. Sure they may eat the odd berry or blade of grass, however they do not digest it. They have no side to side movement of their jaws like omnivores. They don't have the stomachs or digestive systems of omnivores.

Sure they can eat veggies, even survive on them, but that does not make them omnivores.

KitsapLady
June 6th, 2007, 02:42 PM
WOW this is all very interesting! I'm looking at all the links members have included in their posts. Thanks for this info.

Maybe dogs are evolving into omnivores, from years of domestication...hmmmm

True or not, I'm sure I will be feeding my Daphne more raw meat. See how that goes. This has been an excellent thread. (I'm new).:highfive:

Scott_B
June 6th, 2007, 03:33 PM
While i agree, our dogs are domesticated, their digestive systems havent changed.

Cram
June 6th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Here's an interesting bit of information- only herbivores have the ability to break down cellulose. Humans (omnivores) cannot break down cellulose- the best we can do is to grind it up with our molars and allow our digestive/ gastrointestinal tract to handle it and get the necessary vitamins and minerals out of it. Amylase is really only useful for starch digestion- which basically means carbohydrate digestion (grains). Anyone here ever not properly chew up their veggies (like corn or carrots) before swallowing? They'll come out whole or in large pieces in your stool too :).

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~ALRF/giintro.htm

I personally think that dogs are carnivores but do benefit from the addition of fruits and vegetables- especially if ground up before ingestion (essentially pre-chewed). A lot of people suggest that wolves shake out the stomaches of large prey, which is probably true BUT I think that wolves eat a lot of smaller, easier to find and catch prey that they would eat whole (mice, rabbits, birds, etc). Deer and other large game are not so plentiful that they can be eaten at every meal and they require a lot more energy expended to hunt and kill. :shrug:

We feed Helix 1/2 kibble and 1/2 raw + veggies. They don't hurt him, he enjoys them and he probably gets some nutritional value from them. I'm not sure why they get such a bad rep from most raw feeders though- excess work for what is perceived as not much value? I don't know, I just give Helix the over ripe stuff in the fridge that needs to be used up anyway...

SableCollie
June 6th, 2007, 07:21 PM
Maybe dogs are evolving into omnivores, from years of domestication...hmmmm

I don't know how much dogs as a species are evolving anymore, since humans control which dogs get to breed, it's no longer "survival of the fittest" for dogs. It will be interesting to see if after say 1,000 years of eating kibble, dogs will have adapted to it at all...although I think kibble will probably be forgotten by then!

Humans (omnivores) cannot break down cellulose
People have tried to use this to tell me that humans are carnivores and can't be vegetarian. :rolleyes:

Scott_B
June 6th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I personally think that dogs are carnivores but do benefit from the addition of fruits and vegetables- especially if ground up before ingestion (essentially pre-chewed). A lot of people suggest that wolves shake out the stomaches of large prey, which is probably true BUT I think that wolves eat a lot of smaller, easier to find and catch prey that they would eat whole (mice, rabbits, birds, etc). Deer and other large game are not so plentiful that they can be eaten at every meal and they require a lot more energy expended to hunt and kill. :shrug:


Here is agreat article about dogs evolving from the Grey wolf.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html

And here the diet of the Grey wolf.

Gray wolves are carnivores. They hunt prey on their own, in packs, steal the prey of other predators, or scavenge carrion. Prey is located by chance or scent. Animals included in the diet of gray wolves varies geographically and depends on prey availability. Wolves primarily hunt in packs for large prey such as moose, elk, bison, musk oxen, and reindeer. Once these large ungulates are taken down, the wolves attack their rump, flank, and shoulder areas. Wolves control prey populations by hunting the weak, old, and immature. A wolf can consume up to 9 kg of meat at one meal. Wolves usually utilize the entire carcass, including some hair and bones. Smaller prey such as beavers, rabbits, and other small mammals are usually hunted by lone wolves, and they are a substantial part of their diet. Wolves may also eat livestock and garbage when it is available

So the main diet is larger animals. I have no doubt about the odd smaller animal being consumed , however they hunt to feed the pack. And even if they did eat the stomach contents of smaller prey, whats in it..grass, leaves, etc. No watermelon, carrots or brocoli.

And as i posted in the raw section, any nutients dogs need from veggies, can be found in meat, bones and organs.

SableCollie
June 6th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Here is agreat article about dogs evolving from the Grey wolf.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
The latest DNA research confirmed dogs are descended from wolves (around 10,000-14,000 years ago, perhaps even earlier) but not strictly from grey wolves. The study was done at UCLA, utilizing DNA from 67 dog breeds and 162 wolves on four continents.

The researchers found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world. This suggests that wolves may have been tamed and domesticated several times, at different times and places, and that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs. It also suggests that dogs and wolves could have interbred later, adding fresh wolf DNA to the domestic dog gene pool.

Scott_B
June 7th, 2007, 06:11 AM
Your source for that?

One that says otherwise

http://nwcreation.net/dogsandwolves.html

Kristin7
June 7th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I think it is this one? Or at least, this is likely the original article referenced in SableCollie's quote.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5598/1613
Ancient DNA evidence for Old World origin of New World dogs.Leonard JA, Wayne RK, Wheeler J, Valadez R, Guillén S, Vilà C.
Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, USA. Leonard.Jennifer@NMNH.SI.edu
Science 22 November 2002:
Vol. 298. no. 5598, pp. 1613 - 1616

To compare our sequences to those from previous studies, we focused on a 257-bp fragment of the control region that was homologous to sequences from 140 dogs obtained from 67 diverse dog breeds (5) and to sequences from 259 wolves obtained from 30 localities worldwide (16).

Our data strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves. This implies that the humans who colonized America 12,000 to 14,000 yr B.P. brought multiple lineages of domesticated dogs with them.

Another more recent article which may be of interest...
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/12/2541
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Dec;22(12):2541-51. Epub 2005 Aug 24. Links
Mitochondrial DNA from prehistoric canids highlights relationships between dogs and South-East European wolves.Verginelli F, Capelli C, Coia V, Musiani M, Falchetti M, Ottini L, Palmirotta R, Tagliacozzo A, De Grossi Mazzorin I, Mariani-Costantini R.

In conclusion, the data show that the prehistoric canids of the Italian peninsula were genetically diverse and not closely related to the extant Italian wolves. Genetic data obtained comparing the ancient sequences with extant dog and wolf sequences and early archaeozoological evidences concur in suggesting that Late Glacial/Early Holocene wolf populations of the West Eurasian steppes (that stretched over South-Eastern Europe and West Asia) contributed to the origins of the dog (Davis and Valla 1978; Nobis 1979; Benecke 1994; Dayan 1994; Tcherncov and Valla 1997; Sablin and Khlopachev 2002). Genetic data also suggest multiple independent Asian and European domestication events. In spite of the severe global decline of wolves, extant East European wolf populations may still carry genetic signatures of dog-founder populations and deserve dedicated study and conservation efforts.

The question of dog origins is geographically, genetically, and archaeologically complex and clearly requires additional multidisciplinary studies. In this respect, further a-DNA evidence from relevant areas of the world should allow to better understand the evolution of wolves and dogs.

Kristin7
June 7th, 2007, 11:53 AM
More on canine genetics...

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/16/8/990
Genome Res. 2006 Aug;16(8):990-4. Epub 2006 Jun 29. Links
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication.Björnerfeldt S, Webster MT, Vilà C.
Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden.

Although the domestication process was likely initiated by just a few individuals (Vilà et al. 1997, 2005; Savolainen et al. 2002), the total world population of dogs is today estimated to be around 400 million (Coppinger and Coppinger 2001). As the initial dog population was small and was subsequently subdivided, deleterious mutations may have accumulated by genetic drift. In addition, as soon as the first dogs started to live with humans, it is likely that they were strongly selected for behavioral traits like tameness (Saetre et al. 2004). As the dogs’ breeding program was controlled by humans, the intensity of stabilizing selection for other morphologic, behavioral, or physiological traits likely decreased. Individuals with lower metabolic efficiency were more likely to survive and reproduce than they were before. This relaxation of constraint may have allowed the accumulation of additional nonsynonymous mutations on the mitochondrial genome. It is therefore possible that this process led to an increase in functional genetic diversity throughout the entire dog genome, including both genes and elements affecting gene expression. For example, it has been suggested that variation at tandem repeats (Fondon III and Garner 2004) or the presence of short interspersed elements (SINEs; Wang and Kirkness 2005) closely associated with genes could have contributed to the phenotypic diversity in dogs, although there is no direct evidence of these elements being more frequent in dogs than in gray wolves. A relaxation of selective constraint could have contributed not only to the huge phenotypic diversity that exists in today’s dogs but also to the appearance of the large variety of diseases that affect many dog breeds (Ostrander and Kruglyak 2000).

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/15/12/1706
Genome Res. 15:1706-1716, 2005
©2005 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/05 $5.00

The canine genome
Elaine A. Ostrander1,3 and Robert K. Wayne2
1 Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA , 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA


http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v90/n3/full/6800224a.html
March 2003, Volume 90, Number 3, Pages 201-202
News and Commentary
Population Genetics: The dog that came in from the cold

G M Acland1 and E A Ostrander

SableCollie
June 7th, 2007, 01:27 PM
My source was a press release from UCLA.

Some scientists are now looking into the possibility that the earliest dogs were evolved from asian wolves (which can be much smaller than european wolves). Some say dogs evolved from only a handful of wolves, some say from many different wolves, over a period of thousands of years...nothing is clear or conclusive. They come up with different "answers" every few years or so. The only sure thing is that dogs did not descend from jackals or coyotes...although the eastern coyotes we have here are a possible cross between the grey wolf and the western coyote...everything is muddled.


I remember when a handful of scientists decided to reclassify domestic dogs as a subspecies of grey wolf-Canis lupus familiaris instead of Canis familiaris. There were a lot of people who were not so happy about that, they believed that not enough research had been done. It was something that the wolf-hybrid breeders had been pushing for, because if dogs and grey wolves are the same species, then why shouldn't they be bred together! They had also had problems getting their animals rabies vaccinated, since the vaccine available for dogs had not been approved for hybrids. But then if dogs are wolves, and the vaccine is approved for dogs....yeah. There were a lot of arguments going on at that time, I think most of it has died down by now. Of course Grey Wolf has many subspecies, it's possible that Dog is a subspecies of a subspecies....

Here's the latest theory of dogs being descended from 3 female asian wolves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm

I thought this was very interesting too:
Although New and Old World dogs are descended from the same Old World wolf ancestor, the DNA sequences from ancient American dogs are slightly different from their modern counterparts.

"Consequently, these data suggest Native American dogs have not genetically contributed to modern dog breeds," Wayne said. "DNA sequences from hundreds of dogs from dozens of modern breeds from throughout the world do not show traces of American ancestry. Native dogs may still have living descendants in some unsampled New World population, but their absence for a large sample of modern dogs reinforces the dramatic impact that the arrival of Europeans had on native cultures."
http://www.workingdogweb.com/DogOrigins2.htm

Kristin7
June 7th, 2007, 03:40 PM
The 'answers' are all pieces to the puzzle, which is not yet complete and probably won't be for awhile. With new techniques and data, the picture will become more clear eventually. Don't take any single article/study to be the final correct answer... the lay press does this and confuses the issues, often misquoting and misinterpreting what the original articles say.

Yes, I read that somewhere about the genetic differences between ancient and modern New World dogs... quite interesting!

elle112253
June 7th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Hi,
After doing much research, I've learned that although we've domesticated the animals exteriors, we have not altered their digestive systems. They are still carnivores who thrive better on what they would normally catch in the wild, raw meat etc. I have two German Shepherds, one with skin issues and one in chronic kidney failure who are both doing better with their issues since being changed over to raw. I also have purchased green tripe from Canada and will update as soon as I see what's happening to them with it.........Keep on smiling...Guardians of Sadie, Shady, Sambeau and Licos.

Scott_B
June 8th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Hi,
After doing much research, I've learned that although we've domesticated the animals exteriors, we have not altered their digestive systems. They are still carnivores who thrive better on what they would normally catch in the wild, raw meat etc. I have two German Shepherds, one with skin issues and one in chronic kidney failure who are both doing better with their issues since being changed over to raw. I also have purchased green tripe from Canada and will update as soon as I see what's happening to them with it.........Keep on smiling...Guardians of Sadie, Shady, Sambeau and Licos.

Why did you get your tripe from Canada? Cant find it locally?

Goldens4Ever
June 8th, 2007, 11:42 PM
But they're still considered carnivores. Just not obligate. Dogs get no nutritional value from raw fruits and veggies as they lack the ability to break down the cellulose walls of plants. The only way is to grind them up or cook them, which also alters and destroys nutrients.



Dogs are VERY adaptive and can survive on less then adequate foods. Being fed old roy, Iams or aplo proves this. But they are carnivores. Our dogs are more closely related to the Grey wolf then any other "wild" dog. They share the same digestive system. The same teeth structure. And veggies play no part in the diet of these carnivores. Sure they may eat the odd berry or blade of grass, however they do not digest it. They have no side to side movement of their jaws like omnivores. They don't have the stomachs or digestive systems of omnivores.

Sure they can eat veggies, even survive on them, but that does not make them omnivores.

Yes, I agree. Dogs are carnivores, but we have cultivated them to be omnivores, which started developing during the Depression when people saw that it is cheaper to use grain as sources of nutrients rather than meat. $$$, or lack of, is what caused the change. :sad:

Because they lack the enzymatic ability to break down the cell walls of fruits/veggies, I provide them with mushed substances, such as natural applesauce or various other mushed carbs (in very small amounts, of course).

OntarioGreys
June 10th, 2007, 08:51 PM
it all depends on who you ask, really... IMO the "ideal" comes from nature itself, ie what most of the wild carnivores in the world eat... most meat proteins are in the range of 15 to 20%, when consumed in a natural, raw state.

however this doesn't apply to kibble, which gets much of its protein from grains, hence the standard need for "about 24 to 26% protein" - some are less, some are more, but you see the trend.

hard to compare apples to oranges, really. the two diets are just too different :o



Here we go again :rolleyes: yes it is comparing apples and oranges because you are referencing 2 different measured states wet and dry, you have to do a conversion and put to put then in the same state to compare the normal way is to use dry matter as the basis to compare different diets




when we talk natural feeding of prey the animals consumes most part of the animal some of fur which becomes fiber, bone and some stomach content for minerals and vitamins and carbs and meat also contain fat at ratio of 2 parts protein 1 part fat which with the bit of grasses a dog eats, the natural diet is 56% protein, 28% fat, and roughly 14% carb when conveted using a dry measured basis

THe average kibble diet is roughly 60% carbs(some of the carbs are protein sources) 24% protein and 15 % fat no where even close to a natural diet

Even foods like EVO still consist of more carbs than a natural diets contains as a result the protien and fat % will be less than the natural diet.

So food like EVO or Orijen are not artificially high in protein they are still lower in protein than a natural diet

look at this article that shows how to compare foods in dry and wet form
http://www.stevesrealfood.com/facts/nutrition.htm

this also show the graph of the difference between nutritional values in a natural raw diet and a kibble diet, but unfortunately you have to sign up for and will recieve emailings :frustrated: http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/5/pets_grains.htm

this article also shows how to compare wet and dry food so you are measure on the same basis again you have to sign up to read http://www.mercola.com/2005/mar/2/pet_food_labels.htm


Great one that does not require signing up for
another article mentioning protein percent of a raw diet based on dry matter measure
http://www.seespotlivelonger.com/articles/fresh-food.html

KitsapLady
June 21st, 2007, 01:25 AM
Well I tried both raw beef and chicken and my Daphne wouldn't touch it.
I have to cook it.