RE: dogs are omnivores?

[Guest guest]

>>>>Turkey makes up most of their meat diet, chicken probably about 6-8

weeks a year because turkey necks are easier to portion out to my

small dogs. They aren't strong enough to eat even turkey wings, a

little used bone of there ever was one, large animal bone just risks

tooth breakage with my determined chewers.

****Believe me, I understand - my dogs are 9 lbs. each! One can't handle

whole bones at all and the other can only handle chicken necks. But, I don't

feed nearly as much bone as typical barfers, so everything but bone is from

ungulates - both meat and organs. Fish is an occasional meal. I don't refer

to my dogs' diet as BARF, either, FWIW. I associate BARF with Billinghurst

or Schultze style diets, which I don't follow. But it's true that it's very

hard to find consumable bone for toy dogs.

>>>>There was somebody on a PBS Documentary that concluded that wild mice

made up a large portion of the wolves diet, he even lived on them

himself.

***That was a Disney movie called " Never Cry Wolf " based on Farley Mowat's

book. He was a hapless gov't biologist who supposedly lived with these mice

eating wolves in Canada. Unfortunately, it's not true. Mech, a wolf

biologist who is recognized as the leading authority on wolf ecology, author

of 4 books and over 240 articles on wolves, refers to Mowat's story of

wolves living on mice as fiction. In " The Arctic Wolf: Ten Years with the

Pack, " he writes that he learned from Canadian authorities that Mowat's

story was untrue. If you think about it, it makes sense. If wolves lived on

such tiny creatures then they too would be small like foxes, and would live

individually or in pairs as smaller canids that live on small prey do.

Wolves are *large* predators that live in packs. A major function of the

pack is to work together to bring down large prey. An individual wolf would

have a very difficult time bringing down a moose, for example, by herself.

If you've ever seen or read a description of how they work together, it's

like a well-practiced sports team. Wolves are large team players who've

evolved as such in order to hunt large prey. Their jaw power alone (much

stronger than a dog of equal size) is testament to the fact that they've

evolved to tear flesh and chew bones of large creatures. If they had evolved

on mice they would not need such powerful jaws. They also would not have

such a tremendous stomach capacity. They can gorge at one sitting, fitting

many pounds of prey in their stomach at one time. I think the largest

quantity recorded in a wolf's stomach was something like 19 lbs! You can be

sure it wasn't 19 lbs. of mice. Additionally, a single wolf would have to

eat a phenomenal amount of mice just to meet its kcal requirements.

It was a cute story, and I enjoyed it myself, but it doesn't reflect what

real wolves eat, or have evolved on.

>>>>Dachshund the size of mine were called 'rabbit dogs' since

they were trained to go into burrows to get the rabbit, I am certain

they ate a few of them, the larger size, up to 35 pound or so went

underground to hunt badgers, but none ever went to big animals.

***Well there you have it! Rabbits, or actually hare, are also a common prey

of grey wolves, although consumed in smaller quantities than large

ungulates. You could think of them more like snacks, whereas large ungulates

are staples. But still, the nutrient profile would be much more " natural "

for a dog than any domestic poultry. I'm looking for an affordable rabbit

source myself. I'd much rather feed that than poultry.

>>>>So, while I may not offer as wide a variety as some, I have healthy,

itch free, non breeding dogs, who may someday get a steady diet of

rabbit or mice if dad can find a reasonably priced source.

****I think if your dogs are healthy and you are happy with the diet, that's

the most important thing. I know I tend to ramble on about this subject, but

I don't mean to criticize anyone's way of feeding either their companions

nor themselves. So I hope my ramblings on red meat for dogs didn't appear

that way

>>>PS, as you probably know, there is a growing movement away from a lot

of Dr B's thoughts, not only including grains, which he has changed

his mind about, but how much vegetables should be in the diet. There

are now people with a couple of years worth of meat only diet and they

claim their dogs are doing just fine. What can you say??? shrug!

***Yes, I know. I'm 'anti-guru' on principal, so have always been a bit

skeptical of the fanaticism toward one author's approach, no questions

asked. I respect and appreciate all the authors who've brought the issues of

canine nutrition to the forefront and made us think about what we're putting

into our dogs - they've all contributed to my understanding of a healthy

diet for canines. But I'm glad that not everyone's just " following " without

questioning. I'm aware of a number of folks who are feeding animal foods

only, but most or all that I know of have not done this long term with a

number of dogs. The only way to truly know how successful a diet is, is to

feed it not only for multiple life stages of one dog, but to feed it over

generations to multiple dogs. That's why I find the experiences of NR

breeders who HAVE fed generations on their diets, important sources of

information of what works in the long term. Although, it's also important to

keep in mind that not *every* dog will do well on the exact same diet.

Biochemical individuality is a fact of life for them, as much as it is for

us. Keeping that in mind, NR breeders are still a great source of anecdotal

info of what works over multiple generations. It's really kind of a WAP

approach - look around and see what diet works long term for disease-free

populations. But, of course most dogs are descended from previous

generations that ate kibble, so damage has already been done, and it

sometimes takes multiple generations to undo

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>> That was a Disney movie called " Never Cry Wolf " based on Farley

Mowat's book. He was a hapless gov't biologist who supposedly lived with

these mice eating wolves in Canada. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Mech, a wolf biologist who is recognized as the leading authority on

wolf ecology, author of 4 books and over 240 articles on wolves, refers

to Mowat's story of wolves living on mice as fiction. <<

Now, what did you have to go and do that for? One of my favorite movies,

and now I won't be able to enjoy it any more!

~ Carma ~

To be perpetually talking sense runs out the mind, as perpetually

ploughing and taking crops runs out the land. The mind must be manured,

and nonsense is very good for the purpose. ~ Boswell

Carma's Corner: http://www.users.qwest.net/~carmapaden/

[Guest guest]

>

> To be perpetually talking sense runs out the mind, as perpetually

> ploughing and taking crops runs out the land. The mind must be

manured,

> and nonsense is very good for the purpose. ~ Boswell

>

hey, those squirmy expressions on the lfaces of the still living mice

while he bites into his mouse sandwitch, and his attempts to mark his

territory will still be funny

Jusitn

[Guest guest]

>If the digestive

>system could adapt to a new diet in 10,000 years then there wouldn't be any

>Celiac disease today among humans and we wouldn't have to soak or ferment

>grains or take supplementary phytase because we would've developed enzymes

>to digest phytic acid. Not to say it's not happening as we speak since

>evolution is a dynamic process, but I think humans have certainly not

>adapted to high grain diets any more than dogs have adapted to human

>leftovers. Not that they can't *survive* on human garbage and/or leftovers,

>but I differentiate between mere *survival* and *optimal health.* My goal

>for my dogs is the latter

I'm no geneticist either, but I was interested to read that a species can

turn into a whole new species within about 1,500 years (not the millions

that had been previously supposed). Depends on the forces at work, I guess.

I personally think we WOULD have " adapted " to wheat a lot quicker, but

really high-gluten wheat as a major part of the diet has only been an issue

in the last 50 years, believe it or not. Last 200 to a lesser degree. Wheat

flour molds very quickly in damp climates, houses didn't have central

heating, and even my own German grandfather said when he was growing up,

most people didn't get bread all that often. Rich people did, and rich

people had cows, but poor people ate oats, potatoes, cabbage, turnips,

rabbits, geese, pigs, and goat products (mostly goats, according to him:

they are cheap to feed), and most people were poor. And in the north, Rye

was more common than wheat too. And the wheat they did have had a lower

gluten content. And even in my childhood, bread molded after a day or two

so we didn't keep it around all the time or use it in every meal. Most

meals that most Moms on my block made were made " from scratch " and actually

involved vegetables and meat and cheese (what a concept!), though pasta

(which comes from low-gluten wheat generally) was pretty common.

Today, on the other hand, wheat is found in 90% of the supermarket

products, in some form or another. The change that has happened in my

lifetime astounds me!

Also, there was a MASSIVE die-off of babies and young children from celiac

during the 1800's (when bread became more available) and early 1900's. If

that had continued for another 200 years, I don't think the gene would be

around much. Antibiotics and the 'banana diet' saved a lot of the babies

when they figured out what was going on, so more susceptible babies made it

to adulthood. Celiac isn't a matter of a bit of indigestion from phytic

acid, it is a very fatal immune reaction in babies, and a longer-acting

fatal reaction in adults. Humans have dealt with phytic acid quite

effectively by preparing grains, for the most part, so didn't need to adapt

physically, plus no one dies too directly from phytic acid. But celiac is a

really new thing for northern European lineages (not so much so for those

from the middle east!).

As for feeding your dogs, I totally agree with what you are doing. I do

think dogs are probably adapted for synergistic feeding with humans, but I

don't really know what the humans were eating, or what part they fed to the

dogs! Or maybe the diet with humans wasn't all that different from what a

wolf would get anyway. I'm real sure the humans weren't eating huge amounts

of grain (at least not in Northern Europe) until very recently: they

probably were eating fermented vegies (as you are feeding your dogs, and as

they would get from fermented berries etc.). Anyway, your dogs are lucky to

have you!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>It was a cute story, and I enjoyed it myself, but it doesn't reflect what

>real wolves eat, or have evolved on.

I've always loved the movie and Farley Mowat's books, but even when I first

read it, I was highly skeptical of the mouse theory, in part because of the

problem of fat starvation -- mice are too lean. Is it known whether Mowat

lied to protect the wolves (or for some other reason) or whether he was

just mistaken? I seem to remember that he tried eating just mice in his

book, not just the movie, so how did _he_ avoid fat starvation?

-

[Guest guest]

At 12:59 PM 3/29/02 -0500, wrote:

>I've always loved the movie and Farley Mowat's books, but even when I first

>read it, I was highly skeptical of the mouse theory, in part because of the

>problem of fat starvation -- mice are too lean.  Is it known whether Mowat

>lied to protect the wolves (or for some other reason) or whether he was

>just mistaken?  I seem to remember that he tried eating just mice in his

>book, not just the movie, so how did _he_ avoid fat starvation?

Like the rabbit starvation talked about in Guts and Grease if I remember

correctly. Maybe its only used for extreme survival in wolves and they know it

will not provide long term survival because of fat absence. Mice isn't my

dog's

choice either.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>Like the rabbit starvation talked about in Guts and Grease if I remember

>correctly

Yeah, same thing. I've heard it referred to both ways, but I figured since

we were talking mice, it would be best not to cloud things with rabbits. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

At 01:32 PM 3/29/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Wanita-

>

>>Like the rabbit starvation talked about in Guts and Grease if I remember

>>correctly

>

>Yeah, same thing.  I've heard it referred to both ways, but I figured since

>we were talking mice, it would be best not to cloud things with rabbits.  <g>

>-

I've wanted to raise rabbits in moveable pens in the greenhouse because their

body heat will provide 1/4 of heating needs and their manure is excellent.

Thinking twice now as I'd hate to get stuck with a lot of them.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>>I've always loved the movie and Farley Mowat's books, but even when I

first

read it, I was highly skeptical of the mouse theory, in part because of the

problem of fat starvation -- mice are too lean. Is it known whether Mowat

lied to protect the wolves (or for some other reason) or whether he was

just mistaken? I seem to remember that he tried eating just mice in his

book, not just the movie, so how did _he_ avoid fat starvation?

***,

Mech doesn't mention Mowat's motivation to present fiction as truth. He does

wonder aloud in his book why Mowat never produced a single photo of any of

the wolves, though.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>I'm no geneticist either, but I was interested to read that a species

can

turn into a whole new species within about 1,500 years (not the millions

that had been previously supposed). Depends on the forces at work, I guess.

***Heidi,

I recall reading something about this re a canid species in " The Velvet

Claw: a History of the Carnivores. " Somehow, some members of the species had

become isolated geographically from the rest, and in a relatively short

period of time (in evoltionary terms) evolved into a separate species.

However, this is not so with dogs - they are a sub species of the grey

wolf -taxonomically reclassified by The Society of Mammalogists and the

sonian Institution as canis *lupus* familiaris in 1993. (Grey wolves

are canis lupus.)

>>>>Also, there was a MASSIVE die-off of babies and young children from

celiac

during the 1800's (when bread became more available) and early 1900's. If

that had continued for another 200 years, I don't think the gene would be

around much. Antibiotics and the 'banana diet' saved a lot of the babies

when they figured out what was going on, so more susceptible babies made it

to adulthood. Celiac isn't a matter of a bit of indigestion from phytic

acid, it is a very fatal immune reaction in babies, and a longer-acting

fatal reaction in adults. Humans have dealt with phytic acid quite

effectively by preparing grains, for the most part, so didn't need to adapt

physically, plus no one dies too directly from phytic acid. But celiac is a

really new thing for northern European lineages (not so much so for those

from the middle east!).

****Good point! It hadn't occurred to me that humans have been preparing

phytic-acid containing grains in a way that lessons their danger, thus

perhaps lessining the need to adapt. Quite different than the history of

dogs adapting (or not) to dietary changes as you pointed out. Thanks again

for the Celiac links - I've got some reading to do!

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>I had dogs that would occasionally go out and eat some grass in the

yard. I didn't get it for them and put it in their dish. It was their

idea.

***Grass is commonly eaten by dogs. According to Engel in " Wild

Health: How Animals Keep Themselves Well and What We Can Learn from Them "

canids eat grass as a form of self-medication/self cleansing (as do other

species, including cats). Wolves have been observed eating grass year-round,

and the author writes that biologist Adolf Murie believed they did it to

expel roundworms, as he observed this when studying a pack near Mt.

McKinley. Engel writes that grass can act as a purgative or emetic (inducing

vomiting), so it cleanses the system from both ends (vomiting and feces).

She also says it probably expels various parasites (not just roundworms).

My Chihuahua is also a grass eater. When both of my dogs had worms last

summer, one ate acorns in my yard. The tannic acid was probably an effective

dewormer, as well as the sharp shells (scraping intestinal walls). After I

gave Interceptor for a dose or two (a rare instance that I used drugs) the

worms were gone and she was no longer interested in eating acorns.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>

>

>***Heidi,

>

>I recall reading something about this re a canid species in " The Velvet

>Claw: a History of the Carnivores. " Somehow, some members of the species had

>become isolated geographically from the rest, and in a relatively short

>period of time (in evoltionary terms) evolved into a separate species.

>However, this is not so with dogs - they are a sub species of the grey

>wolf -taxonomically reclassified by The Society of Mammalogists and the

>sonian Institution as canis *lupus* familiaris in 1993. (Grey wolves

>are canis lupus.)

Yeah, the whole thing about wolves/dogs (and rats) is really interesting.

Apparently with dogs the big difference is the amount of thyroxidine (I

have no idea if I got that right!), which is the chemical that makes the

difference between " wild " and " tame " (and " adult " and " kid " ), and the

levels can change in very few generations. Most of the dog changes we see

(between Dachshund and Doberman) are cosmetic. But you probably know a lot

more about that then me!

>****Good point! It hadn't occurred to me that humans have been preparing

>phytic-acid containing grains in a way that lessons their danger, thus

>perhaps lessining the need to adapt. Quite different than the history of

>dogs adapting (or not) to dietary changes as you pointed out. Thanks again

>for the Celiac links - I've got some reading to do!

Good luck on the reading -- it's a massive and confusing subject! It's

interesting though that humans mostly adapt with their brains, not their

bodies. I think Northern Europeans lost their pigmentation out of

adaptation to the cold climate -- but they never grew more body hair.

Instead they learned to wear warm clothes! In a sense this list is an

adaptation: part of our brains realize there is a problem, and spend time

communicating about it and coming up with solutions, instead of passively

dying and getting out of the gene pool.

-- Heidi