I think this is the end of the debate when it comes to the appropriate, “natural” diet for dogs.
Google “natural dog diet,” and you’ll typically see sites with people extolling the virtues of feeding dogs raw meat with bones and making claims about how much healthier their dogs are on this “more natural” diet.
Virtually all veterinarians are skeptical of these diets, especially in regard to the claims that they are the “natural” diet for dogs.
Well, it turns out that some researchers have looked into the dog genome and compared it with wolves.
Wolves actually have a very hard time digesting starches, and it is generally considered a good practice to feed them on a diet of raw meat and bones. Many wolf keepers feed their charges road-killed deer and other ungulates.
But a recent genome-wide analyses of dogs and wolves revealed that dogs have more copies of a gene that allows dogs to produce amylase, which is used in the digestion of starches. Wolves have only two copies, but dogs have anywhere from four to thirty.
This paper appears in the journal Nature today. (I’ll provide a citation whenever one becomes available).
Of course, some people are jumping to conclusions about what this study says. On the Washington Post write-up of the story, Raymond Coppinger is at least alluding to the possibility that this study proves his somewhat dubious theory about dog domestication.
It really doesn’t
This study doesn’t do anything for us but show us that dogs and wolves have different genes for producing amylase.
It is not any more of a revelation than the discovery that Europeans can digest lactose but Native Americans cannot.
It also doesn’t meant that dogs evolved as scavengers on human civilizations. Dogs are products of hunter-gatherer societies. Dogs– and by this I mean animals that have all the features you’d see in a dog of today– have been found in camps of hunter-gatherers that existed thousands of years before agriculture. I’m thinking particularly of the dog found in the Bonn-Oberkassel site. This dog was once dated to 15,000 years ago, but it was since revised to 14,000. It was buried with humans, and what’s more, it was in Germany thousands of years before there was any agriculture.
Dogs existed before agriculture.
But then dogs continued on as agriculture progressed. To better survive in a world with large farms, dogs evolved the ability to digest starches more easily.
That’s actually a pretty amazing finding in itself.
I also think this study pretty much ends a lot of discussion about the “natural” diet for dogs. Dogs do not have be fed like wolves.
They can eat foods with grains in them.
Some dogs have an easier time than others, which is why some dogs thrive on modern diets and others seem to do better with fewer grains.
But the whole argument that dogs must be fed like captive wolves has simply been debunked.
Now, whether we can say that this study tells us how dogs were domesticated, well, that’s a different question.
I wonder if any wolf/dog hybrids ere included in the study? It’d be interesting to compare them to see whether they fall closer to the wolf or the dog in this regard.
This study brings to mind the arguments over feeding dogs table scraps or other human foods. Many people seem to believe that giving human food to a dog is tantamount to feeding it ground glass or poison. Have they forgotten that dogs existed for thousands of years before dog food was invented, and somehow managed to obtain nutrition? Usually, that nutrition came from leftovers from their human families’ meals, along with offal from animals killed on the farm, spoiled milk, etc. Most dogs thrived on such food. So why do dogs grow fat and unhealthy when fed human food now? Because the HUMAN diet has changed, from minimally processed, largely homegrown foods, to intensely processed foods high in fat, salt, and sugar, and laded with dyes and artificial additives.
Humans and dogs evolved together; our species are symbiotic. That is the best reason I have for believing, in my heart, that dogs and wolves, no matter how closely related they are or that the one evolved directly from the other, really should be considered separate species. I (rather unwillingly) accept the current designation of the dog as a subspecies of Canis lupus, but I think that as we learn more about what makes a dog a dog, the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way.
As a feeder of the raw meaty bone diet, I would LOVE to see the citation! I think the evidence is important. Naturally those who adhere to the no-carbs thing will ask who did the study and was it financially supported by any company/organization who has anything to gain from it, like Purina. And that’s a reasonable concern.
If you have already read this and thoroughly checked it over, I imagine that you approve the science behind it as good science.
I have tried joining a number of raw feeding groups. Only two have kept me as a member for even remotely questioning/challenging any of their ideas. One of those ideas is their chant that “dogs don’t produce amylase.” Many raw feeders say that because they are only considering that there is no amylase produced in the saliva of dogs the way humans produce it in saliva. They completely and consistently overlook amylase made by the pancreas.
To me, this suggests dogs evolved FROM wolves, and are no doubt still equipped to get optimal nutrition from meat and fat, but that some changes occurred down the line. Which brings me to another quote some raw extremists like to use which is that wolves and dogs are over 99% identical genetically. True, but if they realized just how many DNA strands were in that mere 1%, and how much change that can represent in the real life dog bodies before them ( as if the morphological changes they CAN see cannot convince them of how powerful the 1% is), they might reconsider.
The Merck vet manual said for the longest that carbs are not a “requirement.” But this is not the same as saying that they absolutely cannot make use of carbs at all. To me that is no better than people who “kittenz” speaks of, who cringe at the idea of feeding “human” food. Hey Kittenz, I hear you! Human food is just FOOD!
Although becoming fat can be as simple as overfeeding just about ANYTHING, combined with too little exercise. A lot of dog food and treats are overly loaded with highly processed carbs, which aren’t even all that good for humans, granted.
I wish I had the science journal article we passed around in college bio years ago, that showed city pigeons suffering from diabetes, supposedly from eating too much white bread from people.
That does bring up an interesting point, CollieChick: Many dogs – especially many purebred dogs – develop diabetes. So do domestic cats, though not as many as dogs. Perhaps humans, dogs, and cats are all reaping the consequences of our species’ sudden – evolutionarily speaking – dietary change to a diet high in starch & sugar?
Authors
Erik Axelsson, Abhirami Ratnakumar, Maja-Louise Arendt, Khurram Maqbool, Matthew T. Webster, Michele Perloski, Olof Liberg, Jon M. Arnemo, Åke Hedhammar & Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Affiliations
Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, 75237 Uppsala, Sweden
Erik Axelsson, Abhirami Ratnakumar, Maja-Louise Arendt, Khurram Maqbool, Matthew T. Webster & Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Michele Perloski & Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden
Olof Liberg
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology and Agricultural Sciences, Hedmark University College, Campus Evenstad, NO-2418 Elverum, Norway
Jon M. Arnemo
Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden
Jon M. Arnemo
Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 75651 Uppsala, Sweden
Åke Hedhammar
Contributions
K.L.-T. and Å.H. designed the study. K.L.-T. and E.A. oversaw the study. M.-L.A. coordinated and performed the majority of the sample collecting and O.L. and J.M.A. provided samples of critical importance. E.A. performed the SNP detection and selection analyses; A.R. identified candidate causative mutations and analysed haplotypes in CDRs; K.M. detected CNVs bioinformatically; M.T.W. performed phylogenetic analysis and analysed the Canine HD-array data; A.R. performed the maltase activity assay; M.-L.A. validated CNVs and quantified mRNA expression of candidate genes; M.P. performed validation SNP genotyping; E.A., A.R., M.-L.A. and K.L-T. interpreted the data; E.A. and K.L.-T. wrote the paper with input from the other authors.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to: Erik Axelsson or Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Sequence reads are available under the accession number SRA061854 (NCBI Sequence Read Archive).
Can we leave the speculations about obesity, allergies and diabetes out of the debate? For a long time, humans have tolerated a high-carb diet and high-fat diet until the last 50 years.
I know in Russia, some breeders think the best food for a Laika is animal fats and kasha (not limited to buckwheat, but any cooked cereal grains). And they don’t have the same problems as western dogs.
Imho, it’s the highly refined carbs and sugar and processed food that is the problem nowadays more than ‘carbs’ per se. I’m not a purist even though I am LCHF, and I do believe starches are ‘safe’ for many people. I don’t doubt the same holds true when it comes to feeding dogs. I will bet that some dogs, just like some people, can tolerate grains better than others, whereas others might not.
I remember a food-blogger, Joe Pastry, was weighing the pros and cons of nutrient deficiency versus hyper-nutrients..Diseases like rickets, pellagra, beriberi, goiter and scurvy were common diseases in the past as recent as the mid-20th century. Now, these diseases are virtually non-existent. Unlike today, diabetes and obesity were once rich people’s diseases.
What is new is that sugar is universally accessible and now we have monstrous creations such as the Twinkie which combined all three: fats, sugar and carb. I am sorry, but most people can only tolerate two of them being combined— not all three.
The irony is though with the “back to the land” movement, those who left the Westernized diet seeking a healthier diet ended up contracting poor’s people diseases again.
And also remember that the surge in heart disease, diabetes, and cancer in recent decades also all happen to be diseases of older people… lots more of us are living lots longer than we used to.
Kasha is considered a whole grain. Hardly the same as processed corn and things like wonder bread, etc. I think part of how the term “carb” became evil was the association with strictly simple carbs, like table sugar and white bread. But a carbohydrate is a unit of energy in the form of a type of molecular chain, like any other nutrient, and simple vs complex carbs make the difference because of the rate of breakdown in the body and how quickly they are converted to glucose. Glucose spikes, esp when there is no high demand by the body at the time for glucose, is the problem. Someone living in a cold area of Russia will likely have a higher demand for total fuel than someone in the heart of Texas who already has too much access to Barbeque!
Carbs can be simple carbs, or complex carbs like Kasha, Quinoa, oats, or fruits and vegetables. People often forget that greens and other veggies are also complex carbs!
So, in the last 50 years, is it only attitudes that changed, or have those attitudes evolved from the realization of other changes in industry. I know naysayers will remind us of what modern industry has done to extend lives,and there’s truth to that. But a lot of nutritionists are also suggesting that perhaps we have reached a threshhold, where for the first time in a long time, future generations will not live as long as previous ones, and diet is being suggesed as a cause. Is it simple overconsumption? Is it the overpervasiveness of simple carbs in the diet? Both? I would say perhaps both, and perhaps a lack of exercise by urbanites, playing too many video games, putting in extended hours at desk jobs to pay bills, and, BLOGGING too much? :)
With respect to dogs strictly speaking, animal fats make sense as dogs evolved from wolves, and yes they do produce amylase and thereby some whole grain likely does not hurt. I don’t breed Laikas in Russia. If this has worked for such breeders and their dogs are doing well, I cannot argue with them.
I’m looking forward to reading the article. Happy for the authors above and the checking. I wonder what the number of genes associated with carb digestion really means? It’s more than wolves, but how many such genes are in people, herbivores, by comparison? And are any of these genes exactly the same as found in more herbivorous animals? MOre questions come up in my head all the time.
I recall blogger Rman once saying that he finds carbs make him jiggle, hence the hunting and meat eating. If too many carbs can even do a human wrong, I would take that into consideration when feeding most dogs, Laikas from Russia notwithstanding. I usually think of humans as true omnivores with a primate ancestry, primates being primarily herbivorous; dogs and wolves as facultative carnivores, being carnivores that CAN make use of carbs, though it may not be optimal, and with dogs being more facultative than wolves.
I think the diet probably stems from the economic welfare of the breeders themselves. If one doesn’t have access to special diets, then the dogs who don’t tolerate a broad diet don’t get bred.
One difference for kasha is that it isn’t derived from a graminiferous plant. That could make a big difference. We once gained much of our carb intake from “grains” that weren’t, such as quinoa, amaranth, & buckwheat, as well as from pulses such as lentils. Most of the grains we eat to day are not only highly refined, they’ve also been bred for monoculture w/ little genetic diversity. In addition, most primary feed grains such as flint corn, are now limited to just a few GMO varieties–the effect of which on human and animal digestion is not clearly documented nor understood. But early evidence seems to indicate that Bt corn may suppress beneficial intestinal organisms. This is logical considering how genetically malleable the Bt toxin has proven to be.
Our very personal experience over the past several years, in re both cats & dogs, is that their immune systems suffer w/ inclusion of graminiferous carbs & proteins (such as wheat and corn glutens). We specifically avoid feeding such foods to our pets, preferring foods w/ carbs derived from sources other than grains. If you must feed them foods w/ grains, stick to those using oats, rice and barley, that appear to be less damaging.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Test your pets w/ various combinations and then stick w/ those that don’t appear to cause hives, skin lesions, hair loss, digestive upset, etc. (You may want to consider doing the same for yourselves.)
Kasha in CIS countries could refer to any cooked grains, including rice, rye and wheat.
All the Poles, Lithuanians, etc. in my old neighborhood in Chicago meant buckwheat when they said kasha. They used other words for the graminiferous grains.
Probably because North Americans don’t normally eat the wheat family as porridge.
They were mostly immigrant and 1st generation Americans–many of them didn’t speak any English (I had to speak Polish to order a paper at the corner Mom & Pop’s, and the surnames of my school chums read like a Slavic Who’s Who.) I suspect the usage varies from place to place. I know that in the Urals, the word “halva’ referred to a concoction made from sunflower seeds (including the hulls), while amongst my boyhood neighbors it was always the traditional sesame concoction. (Imagine my surprise the first time I ordered it at the open market in Votkinsk.)
I was thinking of access to food. For example, it wasn’t until the last 20 years, we have access to ingredients for the real cuisines of Chinese.
That is quite true. This really didn’t hit home to me until my first experience w/ “Chinese” food in London. I was amazed at how different it was from any of my US experiences. Likewise, the ‘Chinese’ food I ate as a kid in Chicago, bears no resemblance to what I can find in MD today (I kinda miss all those veggies though.) By the same token, until recently, ‘Indian’ food in the UK was far superior and varied compared to what I could find here.
But I would have thought buckwheat would have been the fallback grain in much of the CIS (minus Ukraine of course) vice wheat or other graminiferous seed crops. I don’t recall what the primary grain was in the Urals when I was there but wouldn’t be surprised if buckwheat played a major role. As a member of the Rhubarb/Dock family its more-or-less bomb-proof in cold climates.
If you’ve never been to NYC, you should come at least once, if only for the food. If you are every going to find any Indian or Chinese food as close to authentic as it comes, it’s here!
I grew up in Flushing Queens, considered the new “Chinatown” more so than the famed Manhattan Chinatown. You can get Chinese food in as real a form as it gets, right down to Duck Blood Cake and pig intestines!! Yum! :)
Blood sausage…. oh boy.
I’m there all the time UCC. Almost everyday in NOHO.
Citation from the Washington Post: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11837.html
I’m not surprised dogs have “evolved” to eat grains over the thousands of years they’ve been closely associated with humans. It would simply be a case of “survival of the fittest”, in this case the fittest being the animals that could best process the food available once humans began to practice agriculture. But I believe Man and wolf started this long relationship as hunting partners, sharing the spoils of their group kills (though probably not equally). Back when I had a fairly large kennel of wolf-dogs I had to find a way to feed them without going broke. So I not only got meat scraps from the local slaughterhouse, but also had a deal with several veal farmers to take all the carcasses of the veal calves they lost to pneumonia and other illnesses (nothing that was killing the calves was anything the dogs could catch). I also took all the (skinned) muskrat and beaver carcasses trapping friends could give me. Since the veal farmers had the majority of their calf losses during the winter due to ventilation problems in their barns, and the trappers only had carcasses during the fall and winter trapping seasons, this worked out well for me, and though there was always some variation going on, I seemed to feed 80% raw meat and 20% commercial dog food during the coldest part of the winter, when the dogs ate the most, and the exact reverse during the warmest days of summer when they ate little.
But I can’t say this was a “meat and bones” diet, because when a calf was brought to me (or more often, a half dozen or more at a time since the veal farmers would stack them in the cold until they had a truckload to deliver), I would simply cut the smaller ones in half with an ax (they had to be partially frozen to do this) and give each dog a half, and quarter the big ones with a knife until I had four legs, a large body and a head and neck; six pieces in all. When my dogs ate these they ate everything, hide, hair, bone, hooves and entrails. They’d clean up a smaller carcass entirely, turning up their noses at fresh dog food to chew on dried hide and bone until practically everything was gone, and passing either dry, white stools from fat and bone, or long cylinders of packed hair with teeth and hooves mixed in. The only thing they’d eventually leave of even a large, 300 lb. calf would be the top of the skull, the lower jaw and the tail tassel, which they’d use as a toy.
When I’d feed them muskrats they’d gobble them down like I had tossed them a treat, practically swallowing them whole, and beaver seemed to be their favorite of all. My dogs were so accustomed to a “natural diet”, that when I would give them fresh, un-skinned woodchucks (groundhogs, or whatever they are called in your area) I had shot, they would chew off a front foot to open the hide, and then eat the meat and bone while drawing the body out through the (ever widening) opening on the front leg until they had consumed the entire rodent, leaving the skin turned inside out with the other three feet, tail and tip of the nose (with the front teeth) still attached.
I never detected any difference between the way my pure dogs (at the time some shepherd-malamute crosses, a few coon hounds, and a Great Dane) or the couple of pure wolves I had handled this diet; so of course I never saw any difference in the way the ¼ to 7/8 wolf-dogs did, except that it took much less food to keep a wolf or wolf-dog in shape than it did a dog of similar size. They seemed much more efficient at utilizing what they ate.
My veterinarian(s) always said my “dogs” appeared to be their healthiest patients (though usually brought in only for their rabies shots), and never seemed to have any of the medical problems presented by their other client’s “normal” dogs.
I never did any scientific analysis of what enzymes any of my dogs were producing, or kept records of exactly what I was feeding (there were always things added in like road-killed deer that the game wardens would give me), I was just satisfied that my dogs stayed well fed and healthy.
I now have (far) fewer dogs, and only a couple are wolf-dogs, and feed a commercial dog food supplemented with a few table scraps, though they do get a treat a couple times a year when friends butcher cattle and I get the scraps. I see little difference in the health of my dogs today, but I do see a big difference in the size of their heads and the strength of their necks and shoulders, the ones from the old days developing much more massive skulls, and neck and shoulder muscles from constantly chewing and tearing meat off hide and bone to get their sustenance.
I don’t know as this proves anything one way or the other as far as just how wolves were first domesticated, but from once feeding in this way I am satisfied that even a fully domesticated dog could thrive on a diet that would have been available to the canid hunting partners of our stone age ancestors. And I’d like to take this opportunity to say once again that I disagree with Ray Coppinger’s assertion that wolves (or a wolf-like canid) domesticated themselves by scavenging at human garbage dumps, primarily because I believe man and wolf have been in a symbiotic relationship much longer that the 15,000 to 35,000 years most archeologist are willing to claim, and believe it is closer to the 100,000 years some DNA analysis may suggest. Hence, dogs have been with humans far longer than humans have had dumps to attract them. As far as I know, Native Americans living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle similar to the humans who first “domesticated” dogs had little in the way of dumps, except for shell middens, which a dog would have little interest in. I imagine that, like our stone age ancestors, anything remotely edible that for some reason wasn’t wanted would have simply been thrown out the tent door for the dogs to fight over.
Great testimonial DAC. I know of at least one raw provider who advertises muskrat on her site. My only concern about feeding wild animals has been parasites. Did you ever have problems with that?
DAC, my granddad had a little terrier, Tiny, that lived to be 22 years old. They only thing he ever fed her was Hill’s frozen horsemeat and table scraps. That seems to speak pretty loudly, I think.
massugu,
My first dog was a rat terrier, Spotty, who I “inherited” from an older brother. She was a full grown dog when stolen from a circus passing through town by one of the barflies who hung around the restaurant/bar where my mother worked as a waitress. She bought the dog for my older brother, who was about five at the time, and I inherited her about ten years later when I was three or four. This little terrier was in our family for twenty one years, and I doubt she ever had a mouthful of commercial dog food in her life, though she never had any horse meat, either.
I’ve always controlled parasites with monthly doses of Ivermectin. Plus I would worm them for tape worm twice a year. I did have some concern about possibly infecting my animals with something like tularemia, since I fed the muskrats, beaver and woodchucks and other meat raw. But since many of my dogs were often running through the forest and swamps with me, killing and eating small rodents on their own, it was questionable which was most likely to expose them to zoonotic bacterial infections. As it were, none of my dogs ever caught any disease from the wild meat they ate.
Another thing I forgot to mention is that I frequently got ‘downer’ dairy cattle from the local farmers. ‘Downers’ were large milk cows that for some reason went down and could not be gotten back on their feet. These animals were (almost) never butchered for human consumption, and since I worked for the local veterinarian, primarily as his “muscle” on farm calls, I was always in a position to know when a farmer had a ‘downer’, and could easily outbid the guys from the rendering plants, who eventually even started charging the farmersto haul these cattle away.
When I bought one of these ‘downer’ cattle, I would shoot it at the farm, and load it into the back of my truck to be butchered fresh back at my place. When the butchering was done there would always be a large ball of partially digested grass, hay and grain left from the cow’s stomachs. My free-running dogs quickly demonstrated that they found these greens good to eat. And since I only butchered ‘downers’ during the winter months when I didn’t have to worry about such a large amount of meat spoiling, these stomach contents always froze into a semi-solid mass that could be sliced with an ax. I would chopped them up and distribute the pieces to the kenneled dogs, who ate them with as much relish as they did the fresh meat. I can only assume that wild canids also eat the stomach contents of their prey as eagerly as my kenneled animals did this vegetable matter, and have noted that whenever I find a coyote-killed deer here in Vermont, there are never any stomach contents left lying amongst the scattered hair and bones. So in a natural environment wild canids no doubt get quite a few complex carbs in their diet in this way, even the ones we consider primarily meat eaters.
The stomach content observation really intrigues me, since a lot of whole prey feeding purists insist dogs should not be fed veggies, based on the book by Mech on wolf Ecology that he did not observe wolves to eat stomach contents. He contended that wolves would shake those out, or in winter, if going back to a frozen carcass, they would nibble the stomach walls and eat the stomach itself, but not eat what was inside.
But those North American wolves, as shown in this blog in past posts, are not the wolves genetically closest to domestic dogs. Arabian wolves are, and perhaps some Asian wolves in a secondary evolutionary event. I wonder if anyone has noticed how THOSE dogs handle stomach contents?
Even more so, does it even matter? Has the dog, now having adapted to life with humans, foregone any desire to shun all plant matter for meat? Can one even compare a wild timber wolf’s food choices at a kill with that a domestic dog, when you consider that a wolf may not encounter food for days, runs it’s patootie off to catch prey and deals with harsh winters? When you have to live like THAT, do you fill the limited stomach space you have with paltry greens or more calorie, protein and fat rich organs, including stomach WALL?
Can’t speak to Oldworld wolves & vegetarian sources of food (though I understand that European vintners have trouble w/ them raiding their ripe grapes.) But I do know from personal experience that foxes will eat almost any kind of fruit (apples, pears, melons, grapes, persimmons, paw-paws) and that many of my dogs were very fond of both raw fruit & veggies–our old Toby picked her own black raspberries & snowpeas right off the plants, & Sammie’s favorite treat was raw carrots. In addition, there’s a video on Youtube of Coyotes eating pears (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wl3DOtaPV8) & another of Shibas eating a cabbage (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTNjxdo4A4)
I had to give up my first attempts at gardening, as the dogs ate the tomatoes and green beans right off the vine, before I could pick them. Not green tomatoes, but the moment they reddened, they were fair game. Our black cocker loved bananas– he could even carefully peel them before indulging.
I would like to think that dogs and humans first joined forces as hunting partners, but in terms of this discussion I think the point is that at some points in our relationship, they lived as something close to scavengers in our societies. Given that, it does make sense that they would develop the ability to digest grains to be successful. One of the most remarkable things about dogs is their genetic plasticity.
Historically, humans have survived on diets that would horrify us. Prior to the potato blight in Ireland, thousands survived mainly on potatoes and buttermilk for example. There is a difference between what we can survive on and what is the optimal diet.
Are grains the best things for dogs to eat? I guess it depends on the dog. I am a big fan of balance and knowing your dog. My dogs get both in a homemade diet and are very healthy. In our house, we try to eat a diet low in processed foods and do the same with our dogs. There is also little distinction between human food and dog food. The main one is who is eating it, if a human is eating it, it is human food, if a dog is eating it, it is dog food.
I think a (or the) major issue in the obesity crisis in human and dogs is the lack of exercise. Historically both humans and dogs were always moving and had little time to eat so when they did eat they went for the highest calorie foods available. We (human and dogs) still want that food but we have so much more opportunity to eat it and less need to expend it.
Ahhhhh….Modern life, what to do? ;)
The problem with the dogs being derived from scavenger hypothesis is there are many other candidates that scavenge off of people but have never become domesticated. Black-backed jackals have scavenged off of humans as soon as we learned how to hunt, and they still do live in villages and scavenge food. However, they aren’t spotted, drop-eared or genetically tame. Same goes with bears and hyenas. Wolves in many parts of the world do nothing but scavenge off of humans societies, but they don’t become dogs because they scavenge.
There has to be something else there, and that something else is that dogs are derived from wolves that somehow got integrated into hunter-gatherer societies.
Agree! It was after they were domesticated that we know that they lived as scavengers much like pariah and feral dogs today.
Rman you might wanna share that with the LA times. THeir article based ON the Nature piece seems to be spreading like wildfire, and it’s saying that this whole study supports the whole scavenger hypothesis.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-how-dogs-evolved-20130124,0,1620029.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fscience+%28L.A.+Times+-+Science%29
For that matter, someone named Oscar Chavez is saying he doesn’t understand the whole switch to foods with less grains, thinking the protein load is too high for dogs’ kidneys. In a kibble that is already pretty dry, quite possibly. Fresh food has a higher water content. Even cooked foods have a higher water content, and raw foods pretty much have an 80% water content; something a lot of people dont stop to realize when they hear about eating raw meat, thinking “OMG so much PROTEIN!”
Then Chavez suggests a protein to carb ratio that nutritionists basically recommend for humans. That’s quite a jump. I’d like to know more about Chavez. How do I know he isn’t someone who simply got comfortable with the grain based dog foods he knows and can’t adapt to some of the new realizations occuring to dog owners?
It IS true when people say the dog food industry has only been around for a few decades after all.
Some dogs truly require more carbs, and less fat and protein. Some dogs DO have kidney problems, and it may be genetic. My former agility instructor has a kelpie with a form of PLE called Intestinal lymphangeictasia, where fat seeps through the intestines and leaks into the lymph system. The dog needs a virtually fat free diet and relies on carbs for energy.
But for most dogs, healthy dogs without these issues, a primarily protein diet stands to reason as the preferred choice. Dogs may be better at digesting carbs than wolves, but that doesn’t make them the sort of omnivores humans are. They are still facultative carnivores; just MORE facultative.
People tend to look a lot at recent evolutionary changes and ignore the points of ancestry. I use ancestry as the the determiner of the primary food source, and treat recent changes as the add-ons of the diet, meaning eat LESS of those things.
Humans did evolve to handle more meat than other primates, which include our common ancestors with chimpanzees. But we are still fundamentally primates. And now we have an overabundance of meat at our disposal in lavish western societies and yes, we exercise much less than we needed to in hunter-gatherer days. So, sure, we should eat SOME meat, but a plant based diet of fruits and veggies, seeds and nuts, is the basic healthy diet for most people. I say MOST. There are always exceptions. And note I am not even mentioning grains here. The tolerance of whole grains, truly WHOLE Grains, seems to be as varied as the tolerance for dairy. I would suggest that be an individual thing.
In the same line of thinking, dogs can handle more carbs than wolves, but they are still facultative carnivores; just MORE facultative than wolves. So sure, feed some fruits and veggies as dogs can tolerate, or even use ( as in the Russian Laikas), but unless there is some special condition forbidding it, I would use meats and organs as primary foods.
When in doubt, there are always nutritionists one could consult. Susan Lauten, Ellen Dierenfeld ( she primarily works for zoos), Monica Segal. These are all PhDs who use science. Segal in particular, advocates what is best for the individual dog. She also, as a basic starter point, gives diets of raw and/or cooked foods that are based on meat and organs, with a calcium source ( raw ground bone, ground eggshell or a safe Ca supplement), a little vegetation and a few other supplements. She cites the National Research Council data on dog nutrition requirements as superior to those of the AAFCO.
I don’t understand why evolutionary geneticists must assume that the dogs’ ability to process starches must be interpreted to mean the animals were once scavengers. Were there vast amounts of spaghetti lying around in dumps even after ‘Man’ began an agrarian life? Wouldn’t most excess food left lying around (or actually thrown into dumps) be much like the stuff found on farms today; spilled grains and rotted fruits and vegetables? This is hardly the stuff to convince a wolf to turn into a lamb. This scavenging scenario may be fine if the domesticated subject was a pigeon, which could live off Mans’ spilled grains, but to turn a carnivore into an efficient omnivore something far more intense must have been going on.
I would sooner believe that our ancestors transformed their meat eating wolves into starch consuming spaniels slowly, as they themselves transformed from hunter-gatherers into farmers. Probably no farmer ever hunted meat just to feed his dogs. As we grew grain crops and processed them into easily digested starches such as cooked porridge and breads, we no doubt prepared foods just for our dogs, too. A study of what our American pioneering farming forefathers fed their dogs might give a clue to what ancient farmers were feeding theirs. I’m sure early farmers baked some form of hard cake (the first dog biscuit) just to easily feed their canid friends/companions/workers; cakes that didn’t rot when kept dry, and thus provided an convenient way to feed the dogs without the need for fresh (or preserved) meat. If some dogs did better on this type of diet than others they would leave more offspring behind, eventually resulting in genetically modified domestic wolves that could more easily digest starches. No “scavenging” lifestyle need have been involved.
They lick their balls, so we don’t have to.
LOL
If most men could reach where dogs can with their mouths, there would be no war.
But I doubt we would have advanced very far either.
thank you, thank you, thank you! for sharing it. my opinion was and is that the dog as oldest human pet developed long enough beside human to get used to human food leftover. now it is proofed by sience so we can spread this information …
Urban Collie Chick got there just ahead of me – wolves eat the stomach contents of the animals they kill is the simple answer, I believe.
Well, Dr. Mech has cited that timber wolves do NOT eat stomach contents. They shake them out. Which is why above I asked questions like, since Arabian and Asian wolves are the closest dog ancestors as genetically proven ( there are older blog posts here pointing to that), has anyone seen how THEY treat stomach contents of prey? Perhaps they have different behaviors in that regard.
Most of the raw meaty bone extremeists who will chop your head off for feeding vegetables, seem to refer to the Mech studies of timber wolves. It’s a mistake on their part IMHO. I know of at least two people who have contacted Mech himself and asked about these things, and he usually will say “Please don’t compare your dogs to these wolves in that respect!”
I’ve heard he doesn’t even LIKE dogs! :)
I say again, a grey wolf, expending lots of energy to obtain prey, enduring harsh winters, probably would not benefit much by filling it’s own precious stomach space with grasses, when there is a more fat and protein rich stomach wall to devour, along with other organs.
Wolves living in a desert area, while having to deal with cold nights, also have to deal with hot days and the challenge of obtaining water. Moisture-rich stomach contents might serve such wolves better. Just a theory.
We must also keep in mind that much of that greenery would be pre-digested–thus saving the predator’s digestion from having to deal w/ rsw vegetation and providing pro-biotics.
This Doctor examined the behavior of a few wolves… likely from the same demographic. I’m willing to bet there are just as many wolves who would not shake out the contents of the stomach. Of for that matter even if they did… the bacteria that would benefit them would still be in the lining of the gut material they do consume. It would be extremely grade school to assume that the wolf took the time to clean the stomach and wash it of any of the bile, acids and bacteria before consuming it.
Additionally … you can’t assume that all the prey was big game animals where they would disembowel the prey. More often it might be smaller creatures and even insects that would be eaten whole with the stomach contents intact along with the precious cargo of enzymes, acids, and bicarbonates that are required for boosting their own immune systems and digesting complex starches to convert them into sugars. And its already been said here by others that they’ve witnessed this activity of hunting small voles and other rodents under the snow and continually eating until they’re stomachs are bulging.
That’s a lot of small prey that survives on consuming MOSTLY GRAINS. And if it is going in the gut of the big bad wolf…. he’s somehow converting it into usable energy. I’ll bet he has his prey items to thank for that.
Just saying. A bit of common logic would need to be applied. But your wolf scientist seems a bit biased towards believing there is only black and white on this topic and no shades in between. Just a theory ;-)
More than happy to check the book and look for the numbers of wolves considered in Mech’s observations. He IS only one man, but he’s been studying timber wolves for over 30 years. He no doubt will happily state he can only vouch for his own observations and research as one individual.
But given your points on small mammals – good points all – I find it all the more fascinating that canids became facultative carnivores and felids, obligates. Many a wildcat and housecat will consume whole small mammals as well. I don’t know as much about feline digestion but I’ve always been taught cats need more protein and fats. I don’t know that this means they can NOT digest carbs, but if even wolves have fewer copies of amylase producing genes than dogs, I have to believe cats of all kinds have fewer still.
Well the B.A.R.F. **Biologically Appropriate Raw Food** diet does not adhere strictly to raw Meaty bones only… It tosses in a fair amount of pro-biotic additions… like Cottage Cheese, Yogurt, Raw Pumpkin, Kale, and cooked rice and oats along with raw eggs with the shells and lots of other good stuff. The objective being that in order to truly simulate the diet of a carnivore you have to accept that they did obtain the grain and vegetation in their diets from the bowels of their prey. They don’t eat their prey head first like a constrictor or a Lizard. They disembowel their prey. Thus all the grains they consume along with the digestive helper enzymes are consumed in their natural diets in the wild.
Feeding strictly meat on bone would not be simulating a Carnivore’s diet. Simulating the bowels consumed along with the meat on bone… would.
It still doesn’t explain why wolves only have two copies and dogs have anywhere between four to 30.
Dogs are an evolved Wolf…. Like we are evolved primates.
I suspect dogs seek out their own ‘probiotics’ by ingesting feces of various species. It would be interesting to know if wolves have similar inclinations. I have a hard time seeing dairy as ‘biologically appropriate’ ….even if my dogs think it yummy.
I imagine wolves eat the udders of lactating ungulates when they get the chance–that would suggest the possibility of some tolerance.
Dairy certainly wasn’t a staple item for dogs wild ancestors.. Domestic dogs who are not fed milk are usually lactose intolerant (as with humans). As for yoghurt and cottage cheese,little chance they were ever encountered in the wild. The point is not that dairy is harmful . . . getting the runs from being lactose intolerant isn’t all that awful. The point is that even if a ‘natural diet’ is preferable, the BARF diet, as generally practiced, probably isn’t close to the diet of dogs’ ancestors. There’s a lot of pseudo science out there relating to dog (and human) diets. Good to see the findings on amalyse.
That’s an interesting thought Jen–though not all dogs are “filth eaters”.
Jen Robinson…do you know what happens to the mother’s milk a young faun or calf ingests. What it turns into when it hits their stomach or when its in their intestines? I believe you’ll find it is very much the cottage and yogurt you seem to think is not ingested. Young babies were often the prey of the carnivores. Along with the mothers of these babies. If you can accept that… then the ingredients I feed my dogs in a B.A.R.F. diet is certainly more biologically appropriate for a Wolf or Dog. If the Carnivore can’t produce the enzymes to aid in the processing of these items then they have to have it supplemented in their diet. So in the entire process of devouring their prey… they certainly took care of supplementing their diet.
When my dogs opened the stomachs of the veal calves I fed them, the contents looked much like watery cottage cheese. Whether this was curdled cow’s milk, or a milk replacer fed to the calves I have no idea, but I think some farmers fed their veal different ways, depending on whether they also had a dairy, and thus access to large amounts of fresh whole milk. But either way, the dogs loved it, and acted like it was a special treat.
I remember reading somewhere that before the destruction of their culture, the plains Indians also considered the curdled milk in the stomachs of bison calves a treat.
Thus… cottage cheesy yogurt in its natural form…
Chitlins anyone?
So…do you think a significant fraction of the proto-dog’s diet was made up of stomach contents from nursing juvenile prey or the mammary contents of their mothers? I don’t think the math stacks up. Say two percent of body mass for half the prey, two months of the year. That’s not enough to drive evolution.
Dogs will taste just about anything that catches their sense of smell. If it smells appetizing they will eat it. And there just seems to be some connection between a dog’s sense of smell and things that smell downright awful.. for us humans. So it seams a dog will eat crap. It will roll in it, and mouth it and ingest crap of other animals. YUK, I know. But they do this. And they can be some enzymes ingested this way… along with some intestinal parasite… but that’s another topic.
Also the mating season is typically a dietary windfall for all predators. because mothers and babies are abundant and very much easy prey. this is also not saying that even outside of this season that the prey items still don’t have fiber and grain matter in their stomach contents. The predator will eat this or some it if they in fact typically have to go through the bowels in their devouring of their prey. Can it natural flavoring of their consumed meat. They may not eat all of it… but they get some of this content mixed in the general meal.
If a predator can’t produce the necessary enzymes for breaking down complex starches then they have to have it supplemented. Again going back to you are what you eat…. they are basically eating creatures that do manufacture amylase in order to process the complex starches they ingest. These break down into the fatty stores of these prey animals and also saturate within their red muscle mass and marrow.
The carnivores are continually ingesting these enzyme supplements in the very creatures they are consuming. Which would lead one to make the connection that wolves through their very natural diet are more efficient at processing these than dogs are since domestic dogs don’t have access to the same naturally enzyme rich supplemented diet that Wolves do. Humans have made the feeding of the dog a spin-off of their own eating habits. And since most human cultures breakdown the bulk of these enzymes through a denaturing process…like cooking then it renders much of the good stuff unusable for processing grains and fibers since the enzymes have been cooked into oblivion. So the dog … depending on the demographic and the breed and the habits of the humans within the demographics these dogs lived… had to evolve to better handle these items in order to process any nutrients from them….especially since they were no longer bringing down game animals to eat them raw.
The longer dogs took to become a companion to Mankind the more they had to adjust to handling the ways man processed their food and denaturalized their food through preparation and cooking.
Its becomes a matter of connecting the dots and using some common sense matter of fact thinking. Simplifying the how and why to come to an easy understanding of the outcome.
Speaking of which, I found this on a FB page. One of the theories is that dogs have not “caught up” to the modern diet of mostly plant foods. Very simple but thought it was timely. http://www.dogpoopdiet.com/why-dogs-eat-poop/
When I feed whole prey, the dogs disembowel the animal and set them aside and then go on to eat the rest of the animal, never going back to eat the bowels.
I’ve fed whole rabbit and watched this process over and over. I also fed once a small baby lamb carcass and the exact same thing happened.
I would like to know where the funding came from for all participants of this study.
Is the funding more important than the scientific findings? From what I understand, there is very little funding from corporations in Scandinavian universities.
I would like raw feeding advocates to generate some real science behind their claims.
I personally have no problem with it. I don’t think raw kills your dog, but we need to make sure claims have been properly evaluated.
I’m a skeptic.
“Is the funding more important than the scientific findings?”, funding directly impacts the findings. There’s a corn sugar study that finds scientifically that it’s safe and healthy for humans. Of course who funded the study is vitally important!!
The study was a cooperative effort between many scientists (6 groups representing 3 countries), but regardless it’s silly to disregard the question – it’s good to be skeptical and to think critically.
It would be great to have studies to prove raw feeding results in healthier pets but who would fund it? I’m a proponent of raw feeding and if I win the lottery and fund the study, wouldn’t you be skeptical of the findings?!
Based on feeding about 20 pets (the vast majority fosters), raw I’ve seen the amazing results for some of the sickest dogs (gun shots, demodectic mange, distemper, not thriving, etc….).
I’m not very responsive to people denouncing scientific studies with conspiracy theories.
I’m skeptical of a lot of Raymond Coppinger’s work, but I don’t assume there is a great conspiracy to make us believe that dogs are neotenic scavenger, mentally deficient and debased wolves.
Conspiracy theories? I’m a proponent of looking at all data available to interpret information. Part of that data is where the information is coming from. All data has an obvious bias. In order to draw conclusions using critical thinking, evaluating the various biases is imperative.
The information is coming from a scientific study that compared the genomes of dogs and wolves.
The truth is this study found some evidence about an important difference between wild and domesticated Canis lupus, which is as interesting as the difference between Native Americans and Europeans and lactose tolerance.
At no point did I say that raw feeding was evil. If that’s your choice, it’s your choice. I don’t care.
But I am skeptical of some of the claims, including the appeal to nature fallacy that I often see among exponents of those diets.
Wolves eat raw carcasses, eh?
That must be what dogs HAVE to have.
It’s just not true.
@Retrieverman, I never claimed that anyone HAS to feed their dog raw. If you go back and re-read what I wrote, I simply shared my experiences, never denigrated anyone else’s choice, never stated that the science was flawed/false, never claimed that you said raw feeding was evil and wondered where the funding came from.
Wondering about where the funding came from really doesn’t help us understand much.
It really distracts us from the question: Is it true? What are the flaws with the study? (There are quite a few actually).
However, we’re talking about something that is next to impossible to fake and get through a peer-reviewed journal. We’re talking about genetic material, which either is or isn’t. You can’t deny DNA.
You can try, I guess.
@Retriverman, well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the point of the importance of the funding of studies (this one or any other). In my opinion, it’s crucial (for this one or any other), and it could be a flaw with the study (for this one or any other).
I will agree with you that there is too much corporate control of academia, and it’s actually hurting our educational system and the kinds of societies we might want to create.
It’s not as much of a problem in Scandinavia as it is here, though.
Data does not have a bias. Sampling often does. Getting an unbiased sample is commonly the crux of good science …. And damn hard to do.
@Jen, it’s nice to think that it doesn’t but since data is a result of people (devising the theory, questions, parameters, etc…), of course it does.
I don’t actually see how you can argue that the data has a bias here. If the gene that allows canids to produce amylase is known, and the # of copies of this gene that wolves have is ALSO known, and it’s found that dogs have MORE more copies of this gene–in what way can that be biased?
@Nora, if you go back and reread my comments I never stated that this particular data has a bias, is wrong, flawed, etc… I simply wondered who funded the study.
@yoda … In terms of statistics / empirical science, the preconceptions behind devising of theory, specifying parameters, etc. is often a source of bias. Data is simply what is there. If your sample doesn’t accurately reflect what is there, your sample is, by definition, biased. It may be biased by your preconceptions, or, if you have too small of sample, by the luck of the draw.
The sad truth, when it comes to dog diet, is that it is both difficult, and expensive to get unbiased samples. You’d need to feed a very large and very diverse population of dogs for their entire lifetimes to draw robust conclusions about diet…and you’d have to isolate a huge number of parameters to come to a comprehensive picture.
The DNA work is interesting cause it seems to bring one aspect of the diet question into the arena of genetics where there is some pretty solid theory to work from. It would be interesting to know if the dogs that are genetically better endowed to process starch were more…or less…inclined to diabetes…or fell in the middle of the pack. It would also be interesting to know if there were differences between breeds, and if these differences corresponded to different histories of domestication or different physical traits. In my opinion, that’s where the science gets interesting.
@Jen, if I have a theory I will ask certain questions (or look at certain samples) and not others. Perhaps I didn’t think of the questions I’m leaving out, perhaps the answers to certain questions would result in answers (data) that I didn’t want, etc… That then results in biased data. Think of push polling as an example. And yes, I realize that they are two different methods but the idea of how, as people, we influence data.
As humans we also have the ability to take from these studies what we feel is relevant in our life and also come to our own conclusions.
Just saying.
@ChathamHillDogs, if by your “just saying”, you are implying that I am drawing my own conclusions on this study, before you make that accusation I would suggest that you go back and actually read what I wrote. I simply wondered who funded the study. I made zero conclusions, assumptions or accusations about this study.
No… What I’m saying is the best answers aren’t always the ones presented, but a culmination of the positives from many different schools of thought. You look at the material being presented, you weight the options you have as an individual and you make the best decision that fits for you. Which could mean a little bit from this discipline, and some from another discipline and then ultimately you have what you do as a result.
Its like how for some people Parenting is the answer with their kids while for some its PEEr-renting…. The best results use a bit from both disciplines.
Not being critical… just trying to be obvious.
Scientific studies require a much higher n than 20 individuals.
Who funded the study shouldn’t affect the results. If one is paranoid about who funded the study, then they really don’t know to read the papers and look for limitations.
LOL: “I’ve watched a handful of dogs eat a few times, therefore I know more than these scientists. I demand to know their hidden agenda, since OBVIOUSLY the only reason their findings conflict with my belief is that they’re LYING!”
@Cyborgsuzy, I’d like you go back and find where I even implied that what you are claiming I wrote.
And, when eating smallish rodents, my dogs swallow them whole.
I’m wary of generalizations based on anecdotal evidence . . . both with respect to diet, and with respect to the effect of funding source on study outcomes. In both cases I’d guess there’s a wide range of behaviours and outcomes cannot be explained or predicted on the basis of a few examples, especially if those examples are chosen to ‘prove’ a point.
@Jen, if reread my comment you will not find anything resembling a claim that my experience is proof of anything.
We seem to be hearing experiences that contradict each other here. Is it possible that there are cultural biases among the different groups of wolves/dogs observed? In other words, is it possible that some groups/individuals do ingest their prey’s intestines, while others don’t?
@Massugu, I would totally agree. I think individual taste is definitely a factor as well. Before I started feeding raw, the dog that was here (foster), would eat, and seemed to really enjoy, produce. Once she started with raw she wouldn’t touch any of it.
My own dog likes sweet berry type produce. They aren’t part of her “diet” per se, but I’ll toss her some every once in a while when I have some. If I give her apple, banana, pear she won’t touch them!
If food is a regular thing and abundant the dog does have the luxury of being very selective in what it eats. If your dogs had to go for days between meals I’m sure they would be more ravenous about finishing off all of the prey animal they are fed.
@ChathamHillDogs, I think in some cases you are right however what I’ve seen it is not the case. I had a long term foster dog who would only eat every 5 or so days, then she would eat a HUGE meal (7-10 pounds or so) and then not eat again until she was hungry (even if she was offered food, she would walk away!). She would NOT eat the entrails.
My current dog, who believes she’s ravenous at all times(!), refuses entrails as well except if they are in a frozen baby carcass. She’s eaten stillborn piglets and she’s, on occasion, eaten those entrails but only when the carcass is frozen. If it’s thawed, no dice.
That makes sense. I only fed my dogs fresh meat on occasion… Mostly it was given to them raw and frozen.
Chatham, in my experience, whether or not dairy and veggies are part of BARF depends a lot on who you are talking to. There are many interpreations going around of what “Biologically appropriate..” means.
I mis-spelled “interpretations.” CRAP!
The only variation of the diet I know is the one where the main course is meat on the bone raw. The supplementals are the secondary feedings with some cooked grains, vegetable matter, Yogurt and Cottage Cheese occasional treats of raw eggs and raw pumpkin. In the end its a fun diet. Except when you’re eating a hotdog and look over at your dog enjoying a nice portion of meat on the bone. ;-)
Protein is the main course however
The differences on the amount of protein in the types of meat…. Per pound Beef and Venison have the least amount of protein, Chicken has the highest amount per pound and Fish is in between. The main difference is the amount of Omega fatty acid content. Poultry will yield high Omega 6 content and Fish will yield high Omega 3. Amino acid content across all of these meat sources is the same. The Omega fatty acids are what help with brain growth and development, hair growth, bone health and regulating metabolism and the reproductive system.
It would just make sense that some carnivores in a pack of them would prefer to delve more into the entrails and bowel contents than others. Even as humans some will lean more towards protein or carbs. It all all boils down to the individual animal. And I’ve certainly witnessed my own dogs enjoying putting some strangeness into their mouths and swallowing it????
It would just seem logical that even the most highest of predators will consume a fair amount of the stuff their prey already ate and predigested for them. After all we are what we eat.
Oh man, you should hear some of the folks I have run into who say BARF! BARF! BARF! and they do not include any veggies or other carbs and no dairy because it is not “biologically appropriate.” THen there is the war between the whole prey folks who say the BARFers are a different group, vs the BARFers who use Whole Prey, BARF and “frankenprey” interchangeably.
What a world! What a world!
I was checking out the USDA nutrient Dbase. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ They didn’t seem to have raw poultry info that I could find. Maybe it’s there and I’m inept today since it’s Friday? But I did find raw beef strip steak 214g with 49.37 g protein, and Atlantic raw mackerel 85g total with 15g protein, and Raw Coho Salmon 85g total with 18g protein. Proportionally these three come out to roughly 25% protein content. So highest, lowest, I think it probably depends on several factors, like relative fat content, etc. All in all the USDA info is a decent resource.
Indeed. I’ve pretty much decided they’re all crazy. It must be nice, though to have that much time on your hands…
LOL! Well, we’re HERE. We must have SOME time. Look at how many comments this post has generated! Some topics provoke more passion than others! :)
You need to use dry weights to do these comparisons.
I think you’d find fish were well above 25% protein if you took out the water.
Figuring out what is ‘natural’ is further complicated by using feed lot or factory raised meat, which is much fattier than range fed or wild game meat. When I lived in Australia I fed a lot of chicken carcass …it was cheap (< 20 cents a pound) the dogs loved it, they stayed healthy. But they often got fat cause 'frames' are a fatty food. Now that I'm back in the US, I find quality kibble is easier and cheaper.
Pancreatitis is pretty common in domestic dogs…In my days running a boarding kennel i only had two diabetic boarders, but dozens who had to have low fat diets. i suspect evolution hasn't prepared some segments of the dog genome for high fat diets.
Yeah, if you were doing a percentage of COOKED or DRIED foods. But if you are doing a percentage of raw foods, you are doing a percentage of raw foods. And when you feed raw, you are leaving the water in, which is not only good for the kidneys and pancreas, etc, but it lowers the protein content by weight. That’s what some folks don’t seem to understand. A pound of raw chicken has far less protein than a pound of dried chicken. Feed a 50 lb dog a pound of raw chicken, and you don’t have the overload of protein, plus the animal feels full.
Once you use cooked foods, you have to offset that with other foods to prevent massive protein overload. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. That’s just how it is.
I have a friend who actually managed to have a CAT with pancreatitis, and they have higher protein and fat requirements than dogs. But they were feeding it excesses of cream! I think an overload of fats and foods in general is at the heart of a lot of digestive issues for people and pets.
I only feed higher fat foods on occasion, perferably on days of high exercise and low temperatures outside. Quite a bit of what i feed is from lower fat animals, like lean cuts of goat ( although you have to get the right cut and age goat), rabbit and emu. Not easy to find.
Mackerel. I believe that is high protein per gram… depends on the source.
But hey, you got CRAP right (LOL)
LMFAO!!!!
There are a lot of crap eating dogs in the world…. but its nothing like the BS some humans try to feed the world.
;-)
No matter how the dog acquired extra genes to handle the digestion of grains, I still maintain that Ray Coppinger’s hypothesis that wolves or some other dog ancestor domesticated themselves scavenging off human dumps is wrong, based on the fact that at the time of the wolf’s domestication, stone age, pre-agriculture Man could not have had enough excess food to throw away in dumps to attract wild scavengers on a regular basis. I can see a group of stone age big game hunters taking down a moose and having enough bones and guts and tossed scraps of meat (even bloody snow) to make it worthwhile for wolves to join Man on his hunts, but I cannot see these same men hunting without the aid of wolves/dogs, and once successful, hauling meat back to camp just to throw a portion of it away. Maybe if Mr. Coppinger had suggested that the first wolves tamed were drawn to human camps to steal drying meat off the smoking racks… but to eat at nonexistence dumps? I just can’t see it.
As far as the pariah dogs that feed off the huge dumps of human waste around the world today, I can see no parallel there since I doubt any primitive society would have allowed a large number of excess wolves/dogs to build up and just wander around their villages living high off the hog from their scraps. They would have eliminated any they did not actually need; the first form of selective breeding, and when it came to controlling these excess dogs, I would assume our ancestors’ equivalent to the pound was the cooking pot, and the (basically) European distaste for dog meat is a rather recent (as far as our long ancestral history goes) development.
I’m sure we’ve all read of how quick Native Americans were to kill a dog for the pot; a white dog being deemed a fit feast for a guest, and I recall as a child reading the notes of some western explorer and being shocked when the narrator tells of meeting a tribal chief in his tent and finding the man seated cross-legged on the tanned hide of what appeared to be a collie.
We modern (American) humans tend to think of the dog in the context we know him best; our buddy to walk to the park with, or to sit with on the couch as we rub his ears and watch TV, but that is not what the dog was to (most) humans during the majority of our thousands of years together. Though some of the first humans to form a relationship with wolves no doubt came to love the animals they lived with, I’m sure the majority of men living a life where there was a thin line between life and death had little time for sentiment and looked upon the wolf/dog as a tool and/or possible food source during hard times.
Once those hard years were past, and Man was well on his way to overpopulating the world, and the wolf had become the dog, stray populations no doubt began living off the growing dumps settled towns and an agriculture surplus provided. These dogs could have then begun a lifestyle that favored those with mutations giving them extra genes for digesting grains, as would have the owned dogs that had to be fed by humans that no longer had a steady supply of meat, but access to stored grains. I’m sure some form of “dog biscuit” has been around for a very long time. The wolf was probably already the dog before these mutations took hold in the population in general.
My wolves and wolf-dogs were pretty much omnivores, even though they preferred meat. Arctic, a 7/8 wolf I had loved walking with me in the fall and leaping high to pluck fresh apples off the trees, while Blanco, a German shepherd, Alaskan malamute, Siberian husky mix would hunt voles under the snow with the listen, leap and jab style of a fox or coyote until he had eaten so many it looked like he’d swallowed a basketball. So no matter what a species is supposed to eat, we must always take into account individual taste.
I know of more than one Canadian who has seen perfectly healthy wild wolves pluck apples from their trees and berries from bushes. If I bring this up in some groups, the response is often “Just because you eat it doesn’t mean it’s good for you.” My response is usually “Just because you eat it and like it doesn’t mean it’s NOT good for you.”
That usually results in silence. :)
I agree, a hunting symbiosis would have led to the sharing of kills.
As for ingestion of non-meat foods, another thing to consider is that human adoption of cubs would have led to those cubs being given foods other than the meat or organs from said kills. Some of that might have been pre-chewed as was done for human babies–thus introducing amylase into those foods at the time of ingestion. Time and natural selection would eventually lead to tolerance of foods not normally on the wolf/dog menu.
Apples and berries are easily digested by wolves and dogs. I’ve never heard of dogs or wolves grazing in cornfields or stealing Farmer John’s veggies out of his garden.
People may say fruits are not good for dogs because of the high sugar content. Like anything, I don’t think it’s bad for them in moderation. Whether it adds a nutrient they need is a different argument.
I’ve seen dogs graze in fields of wheat. They rather like it.
It is very common for dogs in rural area to raid the the silo full of wheat kernels.
I remember that the dogs on the family farm in S. WI (Shepherd/Collie crosses) were all built like beef cattle from stealing calf feed and calf manna.
I’ve lived around wheat and corn silos my whole life and have never seen a dog scrounging in them OR out in the fields. It’s not common around here.
We had wild dog packs here for many years and they killed calves. They didn’t eat wheat.
Your anecdotes don’t beat mine. I’ve seen it, so live with it.
Is this bigfoot?
Yes, my Papillons will do that and in the past I have seen them eating barley in the field above the house. Not so long ago we had a really interesting and expensive time at the vet when Solitaire decided to eat a whole lupin plant. They do like to graze.
Elizabeth
I again refer you to the Youtube video of two Shiba Inus lustily reducing a garden cabbage to shreds–its hilarious! (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTNjxdo4A4)
it is an interesting issue, since I was in a recent discussion wherein any assertion of human selection and domestic evolution was roundly disputed. The range (wolves with two copies and dogs between four to 30) woud be very interesting regarding if there are any consistent breed/ landrace differences. My guess is that there might be — as well as some differences in WHAT grains dogs might be able to process (Asiatic breeds / landraces are more likely to have had diets with rice whereas European breeds might be more likely to have oats, barley and wheat. Only American breeds would have had any selection regarding maize until post Columbus). As for the 1% — How significant that might be is reflected in the current view that humans differ from chimps by about 4% and an estimated 4 MILLION years vice 40 – 100,000. This would indicate a far more rapid change in dogs (and which I think reflects the operation of human selection activity).
I once read that when Chows were first brought to England they had major difficulties digesting the foods they were given since, in China, they were fed vegetarian diets (apparently mostly rice.) Breeders maintain that high-protein diets are still a no-no for them. (see http://www.ehow.com/way_5806140_diet-chow-chow.html)
I wonder how much time passed before that conclusion was made. Tons of dogs have a little digestive upset when foods are changed, and time can sort it out.
I don’t think this breeder got the memo! :)
http://www.oocities.org/sengechow/chowdiet.html
They do seem to be of opposite opinions don’t they?
If the Hawaiian Poi Dog wasn’t extinct it would be interesting to see how much they’d changed genetically to handle their diet of Poi.
I am somewhat controversial in that I don’t think that dog is truly extinct. I think its various weird adaptations– its deformed jaw and its lower mental faculties– were the result of its terrible diet. Once Westerners came, the dogs of Hawaii got fed meat, and they became like normal Polynesian dogs. I’ve seen a lot of Polynesian type dogs in Hawaii, including some that are dwarfs. My family and I once went for a hike over the lava flows on the Big Island, guided by a dingo-type dog.
https://retrieverman.net/2009/10/07/the-strangest-dog-diet-ever/
Nature’s podcast from 24 January 2013 contains an interesting discussion of the DNA study. Seems that they also found a high concentration of changes in genetics controlling brain function. See
http://feeds.nature.com/nature/podcast/current
In my experience with raw feeders over the years, raw food feeding tends to be more of a religion (i.e. faith-based) than actually provably better for the vast majority of dogs scientifically. Most of the people I know who feed raw have tended to also give a lot of supplements. That said, I have no problem with raw feeding. I wouldn’t do it myself (too much work) but I certainly don’t mind if you feed raw, as long as you don’t keep trying to convert me (I feed a decent kibble as a base, and my dogs get a lot of other stuff including treats, table scraps, yogurt and cottage cheese, raw bones, etc. I’ve done this for years).
It’s my opinion (and only my opinion) that a dog that cannot thrive on pretty much whatever reasonably balanced diet you feed him has a problem. I know people who switched to raw feeding to help with immune problems and allergies, and then subsequently bred the dog (IMO, WRONG!)
Back to the actual study–I’m glad to see the evidence that dogs have evolved to handle food other than meat in their diet. I never thought that dogs were like cats and obligate carnivores. I would never feed a dog a vegan diet, but considering the variety of foods my dogs will beg for (or steal–we never have much in the way of tomatoes in our garden) it’s good to know the evidence bears out the observation.
It sure CAN be religious. Those who have no issue with that might want to know what some religions have to say about carnivory:
Proverbs 23:20-21
“Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags. ”
Today high carnivory, tomorrow the dogs raid the liquor cabinet. Better dump those dogs and get thee to a bunnery!
One of my Shelties begs for beer. Literally whines until you give her some.
I like your Sheltie! :)
[…] via: dogs have evolved to eat grains, […]
i don’t think it matters how much amylase they have either in their saliva or their pancreas. They still can’t eat a carrot or corn without it being cooked or pureed.
Raw feeding is not done by fanatics or zealots nor does it evoke any form of religious fervor. Most raw feeders I know came to it out of desperation in trying and failing to help sick dogs. It’s why I do it. By the way, I feed no supplements, no fruits, nuts, berries, carbs. The secret is to buy grass fed meat and to feed all parts of an animal, because everything is important. Dogs can’t live on 49 cents a pound chicken quarters.
Here’s a study of Latvian wolves analyzing stomach content. You can see by the tables that a) wolves eat very little plant matter, and b) young wolves eat more than old wolves. Still not much, and it includes berries which is easily digestible.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Food+habits+of+the+wolf+Canis+lupus+in+Latvia+based+on+stomach…-a0202074273
I wasn’t able to access the report, but in the studies of the Latvian wolves, was it taken into consideration that the younger wolves (arguably the subordinate members of the pack) might well have been forced to clean up what was left of a kill after the dominate members ate what they wanted? Even if a wolf’s first choice wasn’t the internal organs (though I had one dog that always opened a calf carcass and ate the liver first), pups forced to eat what was left would no doubt consume them and whatever contents they held just to survive.
You can’t let others pressure you into their ideologies. I don’t know about the zealots or the fanatics in the raw food world…. I just like the diet I learned about and researched. My Veterinarian agreed it was a sound healthy diet. It was fun to get the kids involved with the preparation and feedings and it was nice to see the results.
The mentality of being part of a club or gang really has to be thrown out the window. Normal people are open to what works and with a valid reason. You sort of weigh the facts. See where it can apply and give it a try. If it works for you then you add it in.
I still believe that if a wild carnivore can’t manufacture the proper enzymes to break down and process the complex starches from grains then they had to be supplemented. And Logically thinking… they were what they ate…
And the herbivores who did process the grains and fruits and vegetation and dairy….. were full of these enzymes. They were also full of lots of other beneficial bacterial cultures swimming around in the guts, the blood and the tissues of the creatures they consumed.
I primarily feed my dogs on dry high protein kibble. And occasionally supplement with plenty of pro-biotics. Momma dogs go on the raw diet according to the way I learned it… with a few tweaks I added in.
For a foundation of dogs in my breeding program that exceeds 20 … its just not as cost effective to feed entirely raw.
But I do look at really cool alternatives….
Like here….
http://www.naturesvariety.com
The only draw back to this packaged raw diet is the High Pressure Process to sanitize the meat actually kills all the beneficial bacteria as well. So You just need to supplement with something else to put the good stuff back in the diet. The Sanitizing process here must have been done sine its a commercially available product sold to consumers and needed to be free of contagions that affect us. But, the bad bacteria they treat to eliminate don’t affect our dogs.
Its still refreshing to see a frozen raw food product that addresses the Omega and Proteins needs. It still not perfect.
This would boost the gut bio-cultures of the younger members. Effectively allowing them to also handle starches from grains, Fruits, Vegetables and even tolerate lactose. It would allow them to benefit from these and pull the Glycogen from the starches and benefit fast twitch muscles. Increase fat stores and boost the immune system.
It would make sense since they are past the weening stages and the metabolic boost from mother’s milk is gone.
This would effectively be a immune system booster shot provided by mother nature.
My Dogs love raw carrots.
I’ve known raw feeders for many years (at least 10 years, thinking back). It certainly is a matter of zealotry for many people. When you get told you’re killing your dog if you don’t feed raw, well, the urge is to push back a little.
IME, dogs that don’t have any particular special needs don’t do any better on raw food than they do on a half-decent kibble. People who feed raw because they HAVE to to manage an immune problem or allergies–those dogs may do better (or they might do just as well on a cooked diet, or a food with very few specific ingredients).
To your other point–of COURSE they can eat a carrot or corn without it being cooked or pureed. Do they get much nutritional value from a raw carrot? Probably not, but mine certainly enjoy eating raw carrots, and other raw fruits and vegetables.
This is my quickest go-to link that has studies on grass fed vs grain fed meats. http://www.eatwild.com/references.html Much of it is about the Omega 3 content in the fats, and a bit on Vit E and D at a glance. I have yet to read all of these and I’m sure these are already OLD studies. If you have more I’d love to see them.
As to the fervor of raw enthusiasts, not all are fanatics and it MIGHT even be accurate to say most are not. But it’s certainly not accurate to simply state “Raw feeding is not done by fanatics or zealots…” as if none of them are. I’ve been part of, and kicked out of, enough raw forums to know how sensitive many of these people can be if you even remotely suggest that, for example, whole prey is not the ONLY way to feed a dog, or that there might just be some dogs that cannot digest bone well and would be better off with other calcium sources, or that maybe one’s dog could use a carb source in lieu of fats because of pancreatic issues. The list goes on.
One group even told me that their true purpose was to “spread the word” about raw feeding. I had been in the group for a few months and none of them had even mentioned it. Once it was brought up, I had to go back and re-read the Yahoo group description. Sure enough, part of the purpose was to “educate others.”
I never participated. I’m sure if I had been extreme enough to, I would have lost many friends in the process and rightfully so. If the topic of food comes up and someone wants my opinion, I’m happy to discuss all sorts of ideas and explore. But by and large, what someone feeds their dog is their business.
I also wonder who has read the whole article, and not just the abstract. I read the abstract because it took about two seconds to look it up and I can see conclusions but I can’t see the actual methods or how they figured out what they conclude.
I have the full article on my hard drive. The gene comparison methodology is sound research, but all the speculation about how dogs were domesticated is not.
Rman if you pay for the Nature articles, I would gladly find a way to send you cash if you could send me a copy. If I spent cash on every journal I wanted to be a member of, I’d be out on the street burning the journals for warmth!
This is the very issue that led to the Aaron Schwartz tragedy. How can we as a community begin to realistically discuss these issues if we don’t all have access to the same data.
I paid $32 to download all the research material….. its well worth it.
I don’t know diddly about a lot,but I do know Coyotes will clean out a watermelon patch around her (Central Texas)
around HERE.. washed my hands and can’t do a thing with them!
[…] recent discovery that dogs have evolved some adaptations to assist in the digest starches has set off a whole wave […]
The lundehund breed can’t digest grain anyways. This issue, whatever it be, can be fatal. I can’t be sure if it was a breed trait before or if it became diffused because the modern members of the breed are all descended from one bitch and her pups and it just carried to them all. (By the way, it’s an otherwise generally healthy breed. Inbreeding doesn’t magically cause mutations where there were no diseases (not any more than other pairs are likely to produce a child with a mutation in the genome). That’d be interesting to look into.)
Painted Cricket…
What about fruits and Vegetables or Dairy? Grains are only one part of the equation. There’s a difference between ingesting a berry or a plum or an apple Versus ingesting corn, oats or wheat. Is the Lundehund allergic to things other than grains? If this is a known issue then there are plenty of pet stores I see where I live selling Lundehund puppies and they don’t sell them with a bag of special no grain content kibble????
There has to be a distinction made …. Dogs allergic to Grains may not react to Fruits or Vegetables. Or Dairy or any variation of the food groups. There are even dogs allergic to protein and have to have a special diet of denatured processed proteins. Go figure.
In this post the results are revealing that dogs can process GRAINS. I believe they always could even, wolves can. It has to do much more with how they unknowingly supplement their diets in order to cope with a wide range of what they may ingest in their wild environment.
If we animals can’t manufacture the proper enzymes then they will somehow supplement their diets with them … Through the consumption of the herbervores that do process these grains for them.
Yes, it was specifically about grains.
Dogs in general shouldn’t eat dairy, although many treats include milk. Like humans, most are lactose intolerant, although both we and them rarely have it so serious that it’d kill us, but it can cause diarrhea and the dog could die of dehydration. Garlic and onions are also toxic to dogs, but even some foods have them and there are pills specifically made for dogs to prevent certain parasites, so a little of that won’t kill them either.
As for fruits and veggies, I think even wolves can digest those. But I can’t remember right so don’t quote me on that.
The syndrome is made worse by stress, and sometimes doesn’t activate at all. When it does, it can be controlled by diet, usually. It’s similar to how Dalmatians can’t digest visceral meat. As for not selling them with any special diet, I’ve not known pet stores to care much about the dog after it’s been bought and I really don’t expect them to know much about every breed they bring in. But you could probably just go up to the manager and ask them about it. If they do get them a lot, maybe they know from the breeder.
The photographs of autopsy and surgeries of Lundehunds are very interesting. I have only seen something similiar to that with humans with Crohn’s disease or IBS.
I haven’t seen that, but I’ll definitely have to!
An otherwise generally healthy breed in which ALL members of the breed are affected with “Lundehund syndrome” doesn’t sound like a “generally healthy” breed to me. and I have met a Lundehund, and she is a cutie, but this breed for sure is a candidate for outcrossing.
http://www.lundehund.com/health.htm
“7 or 8 years is an average lifespan” for a small, spitz-type? That’s awful.
Advice that I saw from the Lundehund Club of America said that they should be fed a high-protein, low-fat diet. Non-authoritative sites say that “Lundehund syndrome is the inability to digest grains” but more authoritative sites don’t say anything about grains, nor do they say that feeding an all-meat diet will guarantee that Lundehunds won’t develop the disease. Interestingly, the UKC club site doesn’t seem to say anything about health at all beyond providing a link to the OFA CHIC site.
Lundehund syndrome syndrome can be activated by stress and incorrect diet. Lundehund aren’t built crippled and although their disease is severe, can be prevented for a long time and controlled after with proper care. They ALL carry the genetics for it, they don’t all suffer from it–it’s not any good odds, but for a breed descended from a single dam, the breeders did well. (Everybody else messes up so bad, you have to wonder how they managed to screw it up like that.) Compare to the large list of crippling (and I don’t mean just in build, nor is Lundehund Syndrome excluded from this) diseases the other pedigree dogs have (per breed)… well…
Life expectancy can be up to 12 years, depending if the disease manifests early or doesn’t. And if people don’t understand it, they’re likely to cause it; high stress, improper diet.
“As a breed, they suffer from very few health concerns. The main problems a Lundehund might experience include Lundehund Syndrome and primary congenital lymphangiectasia. Lundehund Syndrome includes a range of gastro-intestinal problems that includes leaky gut syndrome, among others. They are intolerant to grains and no Lundehund’s diet should include wheat, rice, barley, corn, or other grain. A dog with Lundehund Syndrome usually lives for seven or eight years, compared to the 12 enjoyed by healthy dogs of this breed. Owners should watch for weight changes, diarrhea or constipation, or other signs of gastro-intestinal distress. It can be diagnosed using fecal and blood samples. There is no known cure, but there are management techniques.”
I took this quote from: http://www.thedogsite.com.au/all-about-dogs/dog-breeds/lundehund/ , but I’d previously gone through a good number of sites trying to find information on the breed. There wasn’t much, but it was a prominent topic that kept popping up.
A high protein diet might help, but the syndrome won’t allow protein to be digested at all when it’s on the rampage, no matter how much they eat, Like people who can’t extract iron from supplements, if at all. What would it do? Build protein reserves while it’s not active, maybe. But then what? Best cure is prevention.
Also this: http://lundehunds.com/lundehundsyndromeinfo.html . Not to do with grains, but it’s to do with care and control.
Finland tried to propose an outcross to Norrbottenspitz, but the Norwegian Kennel Club rejected it.
I think a better way to explain my statement is if you compare living with Lundehund Syndrome to people living with diabetes. They can be fit and healthy, but it they eat wrong or if they fail to treat, they’ll suffer. On the other hand, there are dogs with their skeletons falling apart and brains trying to get out of their heads.
The other person that replied told me there are many lundehund pups being sold and they haven’t seen any indication that they’re sold with a special diet, which could be why so many of them fall ill.
It’s not the end for the diet debate.
>>> Wolves have only two copies, but dogs have anywhere from four to thirty.>>>>>>>
A same kind of debate is going on with the human diet. Are we basically fruit-eaters? Or, should we eat animal fat or vege-fats ? How about grains ? I personally can’t stand much of grain – raw grain makes me almost instantly sick , but baked rye is OK to a some amount.
Giraffe— The arguments would be a mirror of each other…
Since Chimpanzee only have two genes for the production of amylase… just like wolves. And Humans have an average of 15 genes for the production of amylase….just like dogs..
I see a common development here…. Hmmmmm
[…] In the same way that these lizards have evolved to eat vegetation, domestic dogs have new digestive adaptations to consume carbohydrates. […]