# DOGS are OMNIVORES!



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Sorry for making all these threads, I just have so much to say :biggrin1:

Anyways, we here all know pretty conclusively, that dogs get everything that they need from meat. However, I wanted to hear any arguments as to why they are so, as opposed to being omnivorous.

I get told often, "Yeah, when you put it that way, fresh food diet sounds pretty good actually... but what about veggies? What, none? But dogs are omnivores!"

What would you say to that person?

And not in a rude you're-so-ignorant way. I would like scientific facts if you have them, I would like to hear what you would say if you were trying to _convince_ someone to feed their dog a carnivore diet.

Anyone who answers is awesome, thanks!


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

Look in their mouth.... at their teeth... They are NOT designed for breaking down plant matter. They are designed to crush bone and tear through meat. I think you can easily see that a dog is a carnivore by simply looking in their mouth :wink: Compare them to the teeth of a true ominvore or even an herbivore

Dogs lack the long digestive tract necessary to break down plant material and gain nutritional value from it.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

That's pretty much what I say as well :biggrin1:


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Omnivores and Herbivores have an enzyme in their saliva that begins to break down plant matter as it is chewed. Dogs do not have this enzyme. Any plant matter that goes into their body un-processed comes right back out the way it went in–I've seen it, I can contest.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

That's semi-true. Dogs do not have the enzyme, amylase, in their saliva- but they do have it, in decent amounts, in their gut. Which has been used to me as an argument for the omnivorous side, and some research by me has proven it's true. I don't think it's proof they're omnivores though, just proof that they are designed to be opportunistic... because if they were omnivorous then it WOULD be in their saliva as well.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Cliffdog said:


> That's semi-true. Dogs do not have the enzyme, amylase, in their saliva- but they do have it, in decent amounts, in their gut. Which has been used to me as an argument for the omnivorous side, and some research by me has proven it's true. I don't think it's proof they're omnivores though, just proof that they are designed to be opportunistic... because if they were omnivorous then it WOULD be in their saliva as well.


It's not in their saliva, and it's not as heavily present in their systems as it is in an omnivore or herbivore's (at least from what I've heard), and their digestive tracts are far too short for it to go to work on vegetables. I almost had to take Amaya to the vet because she got all tied up by the grass she was eating and started squealing at 12:45 in the morning one night because she couldn't poop. That's enough proof to me that anything green that goes in comes right back out the same way it went down.


----------



## bolo (Jan 1, 2011)

Both my dogs eats grass and when they poop all the grass are whole and not broken down. Sometimes I see it with cooked rice.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cliffdog said:


> That's semi-true. Dogs do not have the enzyme, amylase, in their saliva- but they do have it, in decent amounts, in their gut.


Yes, dogs do have amylase in their gut but the "decent amounts" is questionable.

There are physical charateristics that make an animal a carnivore or omnivore.

1. Carnivores have large mouths as they eat other animals. Omnivores/herbivores have smaller mouths.

2. Omnivores have flat teeth in the back of their mouths. This is used to crush and mash plant material. All plant material has each cell coated with cellulose. You must mash and crush this shell to extract nutrients from the plant. Humans have these flat teeth. Carnivores don't have flat teeth. They can't get through the cellulose to get to the nutrients. Carnivore teeth are designed to kill prey(front teeth) and to rip and tear meat and crush bones(back teeth).

3. When omnivores/herbivores chew, they move their lower jaw not only up and down but also sideways in order to crush the cellulose. Carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side. Only up and down.

4. Omnivores/herbivores have an enzyme called amylaze in their salava and stomach juices. Amylaze is used to digest plant material and digestion begins in the mouth for these animals. Carnivores don't have amylaze in their salava and very little in their stomach. They don't make the enzymes necessary for digesting plant material.

5. I don't know how to explain it with words but there is a difference in the way the lower jaw is hinged in omnivores/herbivores and carnivores. Feel your own jaw bone. It begins at the joint with the skull and goes down then angles toward the front. Carnivores jaws start at the skull and go straight toward the front.

6. Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices.

7. Omnivores/herbivores have relatively long intestinal tracts. Carbs must ferment in the gut for a long time during digestion. Carnivores being meat eaters have a very short intestinal tract in order to get the meat through the body quickly before it rots. With their short intestinal tract they are not able to have carbs in the intestines long enough to digest.

8. Omnivores/herbivores chew their food into a mush before they swallow it. Digestion in an omnivore begins in the mouth. Carnivores only rip, tear, and crunch their food until it is small enough to fit down their throat. They can fit some amazingly large pieces down their throat. Much larger than an omnivore is capable of.

So there you have your biology lesson in a nutshell. There is no arguing the fact that dogs are carnivores. They have all the physical characteristics of a carnivore and none of the omnivores characteristics.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Awesome post, Bill! I was hoping you'd comment.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I was at the Natural History Museum in New York last weekend and I actually took pictures (to post on this forum :smile: ) of part of the museum that talks about canines. It specifically says "CARNIVORE". 

I think the Natural History Museum _probably_ knows what they're talkin' bout, eh? I figure that can be something I whip out and show anyone who is confused...


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

Bills reply is probably the best you are going to get!! but a couple of bits of anecdotal type evidence.

Firstly a polar bear can survive eating grass - this is an emergency situation and not ideal but animals need to be able to survive.

Secondly, we all know that the giant panda eats leaves and most consider it to only be able to eat leaves, however, it can also survive by eating meat. again not what it is primarily designed to do but as an emergency feature it works.

Dogs can partly digest some quantities of plant matter but it is their emergency feature not what they are intended to eat.

(their is a thread on here somewhere which mentions dogs in india eating nothing but fruit - not healthy dogs but also not dead dogs!!!)


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

Cliffdog said:


> Awesome post, Bill! I was hoping you'd comment.


no disrespect to bill....as if you could stop him....LOL

this is the perfect question for him....and, on another forum....convinced me with a post very similar to this one...

:biggrin1:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

magicre said:


> no disrespect to bill....as if you could stop him....LOL


:clap2: :whoo:


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

For me, the real question is whether dogs are healthier if fruit and veg are included in their diet. Is anyone aware of any studies that address whether dogs benefit from the inclusion of any trace minerals/amino acids/etc. found in fruit and veg that are not found in meat?


----------



## schtuffy (May 17, 2010)

All the scientific facts aside, I have personally seen that whenever my dog eats fruits or vegetables he either throws it up undigested because it irritates his stomach or I see it come out in his poop a couple days later (usually in the same shapes and colors as when it went in) :biggrin:


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Henry will. not. touch. vegetables. Doesn't matter what it is - he won't eat it. Millie will. But with _both_ dogs, it comes out the same way it went in, in their poop. I don't feed veggies but every now and then I will give Millie a carrot or something.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> For me, the real question is whether dogs are healthier if fruit and veg are included in their diet. Is anyone aware of any studies that address whether dogs benefit from the inclusion of any trace minerals/amino acids/etc. found in fruit and veg that are not found in meat?


None that aren't sponsored by Hill's. :tape:


----------



## funshine (Jan 21, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Henry will. not. touch. vegetables. Doesn't matter what it is - he won't eat it.


I have almost one of these as well. She'll only eats carrot but she doesn't really get any veggies anyways. :biggrin:

Once I was being nice and gave her a fresh blueberry. Well, she spitted it out, I offered it again (darn dog, expensive blueberry) and she was making various "yak" faces when she was getting it down. Like "look, I'm being polite but suffering sooo much" lol.
No more berries for her either.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

I think that in times of famine canines will eat fruits/veggies/plant matter because they can survive on it, but there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that they don't absorb/digest it very well.
What RFD said basically .

I stopped feeding veggies/fruits altogether (used to give w/ kibble before starting raw), even as snacks, because it would give them the runs... and cannon-butt on dogs with butt-feathering is not pleasant.
They're pretty much garbage disposal in terms of what they eat though, if it comes out of my hands it's good enough for them LOL.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

I suspect dogs have amylase secreted by the pancreas so the few carbs found in meats can be assimilated. There is some, especially in liver! 4 grams carbs per 100 grams and about 20 grams of protein in raw beef liver. 

More enyzme is probably produced when over cooked grains and all are fed so the dog gets some good out of over feeding carbs. Probably helps wear out the pancreas too.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> Is anyone aware of any studies that address whether dogs benefit from the inclusion of any trace minerals/amino acids/etc. found in fruit and veg that are not found in meat?


There are none. There are no needed nutrients in fruits/veggies that aren't in the meat, bones, and organs of the prety animals that eat them.


----------



## Nievesgirl (Jan 5, 2011)

My teacher who is a vet keeps telling the class dogs are omnivores ....
I always believed they where since you would think a DVM would know what he is talking about lol 

I always wondered why dogs never had flat teeth in the back. This is all I needed to see to confirm my suspicions.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

As a couple of posters said, there are no studies comparing a meat-only diet and a diet that includes fruit and veg, so no one knows for sure. From what I've read, the justification for including fruit and veg is the benefit of trace minerals not found in meat. But without an actual study, there's no way to prove this.

Raw feeders commonly state that any veg they feed their dog passes through undigested. But everyone I know who feeds veg cooks them first, precisely for this reason.

I feed an all-meat diet because there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that says meat is sufficient. However, a good friend of mine feeds home-cooked and adds veg, and her dogs are gorgeous. When my puppy joins them for a meal, I have no qualms.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> As a couple of posters said, there are no studies comparing a meat-only diet and a diet that includes fruit and veg, so no one knows for sure.


I think we do know. If veggies were a necessary part of the dog's diet wolves would have gone extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago. My almost 11 year old Great Dane, Abby, hasn't had any fruits/veggies in 9 years with no aparent dietary deficiencies. My 6yo Dane, Thor, has never been fed either of those with no aparent deficiencies.

If you stop and think about it. Any nutrients in plants would also be in the meat, bones, and animals that eat them.



> From what I've read, the justification for including fruit and veg is the benefit of trace minerals not found in meat.


I hear this from time to time but no one ever says specifically what they are and if you ask you either get no answer or a vague general answer without specifics.



> Raw feeders commonly state that any veg they feed their dog passes through undigested. But everyone I know who feeds veg cooks them first, precisely for this reason.


If you must feed veggies, pureeing would be better than cooking.



> I feed an all-meat diet because there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that says meat is sufficient. However, a good friend of mine feeds home-cooked and adds veg, and her dogs are gorgeous. When my puppy joins them for a meal, I have no qualms.


They are not necessarily gorgeous because of the veggies. MAYBE they are gorgeous in spite of them. :biggrin: Don't get me wrong. I have NEVER said that eating fruits or veggies is bad for a dog. I just haven't seen anything that convinces me that they are good for a dog either.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

The fact that veggies and fruits need to be processed in some way before feeding them tells me enough that dogs cannot process them and extract nutrients on their own. Meaning they are an unnatural food source for them. If dogs needed fruits and veggies in their diet they'd be capable of breaking them down from their natural state to their trace minerals on their own. But they can't....logic is all you need for this concept to make sense.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

i wish someone would specify which trace minerals veggies and fruits have that are necessary for a dog's health...because it's too general just to say trace minerals....no disrespect intended spoo....

we did home cook...and we did add veggies...no fruit because the sugar is higher in fruits than in green veggies and even orange and yellow veggies....but we added veggies, which were pureed raw and added to the mix....because we needed a binder....fibre....

when feeding a raw diet, bone acts as fibre...

my dogs looked gorgeous on home cooked....and they look gorgeous now....gotta say, though....there are subtle differences in how they look being fed raw that i notice...

if i had never fed raw and stayed with home cooking plus supplementation...i would have never seen those subtle differences....which over the past year, have become very obvious to me...

i've been to lectures by many nutrition docs for humans....it has always come down to eat everything in moderation, stay away from trans fats, fake foods, processed foods.... and eat every colour of the rainbow.

the science changes like farts in the wind....coffee is a bronchodilator, coffee causes cancer, coffee helps with asthma and heart conditions, coffee will put you into an early grave...each statement is backed by science...

you should see the reports on soy, wheat, corn, red meat, white meat, chicken, eggs were always my favourite....people are so confused about the science on eggs, no one is listening anymore...

and so it goes with dogs...we all know, at least, those of us who feed raw....that what we see is not an illusion....or a delusion...

i'll take what i see and smell over what i read any day of the week....i don't need science or lack of it....other than the actual physiology of the animal....to tell me that i was wrong for many years.....but in my gut, which is what counts for me....i am now right and comfortable...


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

magicre said:


> the science changes like farts in the wind....


LOL




(tooshort)


----------



## DeltaNDoc (Nov 14, 2010)

My biggest fight that people don't really talk about too much is the actual stomach portion. We talked about it in my advanced animal nutrition class. It was mostly about four chambered stomach animals, but he did mention carnivores (which he said dogs were) once. He says that we have four areas of our stomachs. The one that secretes the HCl is the Fundic region. In carnivores (again he said dogs), this is the largest region in the stomach, way bigger than in a human, because they need so much more acid to break through the meat as fast as they do. So while their stomachs are not a lower pH, they have a lot more acid secreted than we do. Everything moves through their system so much faster that the meat doesn't have time to sit in their system and rot. It's also a lot shorter, and their teeth are made to rip, slice, and kill prey.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

DeltaNDoc said:


> My biggest fight that people don't really talk about too much is the actual stomach portion. We talked about it in my advanced animal nutrition class. It was mostly about four chambered stomach animals, but he did mention carnivores (which he said dogs were) once. He says that we have four areas of our stomachs. The one that secretes the HCl is the Fundic region. In carnivores (again he said dogs), this is the largest region in the stomach, way bigger than in a human, because they need so much more acid to break through the meat as fast as they do. So while their stomachs are not a lower pH, they have a lot more acid secreted than we do. Everything moves through their system so much faster that the meat doesn't have time to sit in their system and rot. It's also a lot shorter, and their teeth are made to rip, slice, and kill prey.


there's that physiology again...: )

sounds about right to me....isn't that scientific enough? 

well said.


----------



## DeltaNDoc (Nov 14, 2010)

Oh, and also that their food stays longer in the stomach region than in the small intestines/large intestines, while omni/herbs are the opposite so they can ferment.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

No disrespect taken, because you all are agreeing with me on the essential points. No one has adequately studied canine nutrition, so all we have is anecdotal evidence. What you decide to do depends, in part, on your comfort with the anecdotal evidence. And we all agree that the anecdotal evidence points to dogs doing best on raw diets, with no fruit and veg. (My pup happens to love fruits and nuts, so she gets a little ... a very little.)

RFD is incorrect in saying that we know all about dog nutrition despite the lack of scientific studies. But if this is the same RFD who has been banned on other sites, then he is extremely skeptical of western medicine in general, and his view on dog food is consistent with this skepticism. No one will change this. But no matter how strongly he asserts this, it doesn't make the statement correct.

DM is incorrect in concluding that if a food source is "unnnatural," it cannot be beneficial. All you need is logic to understand that even though a food is not traditionally in a species' diet, the food may still offer nutritional benefits. There are many examples in nature of symbiotic relationships where a species is not able to consume a food unless it is processed by another species first.

Magic is incorrect in stating that "the science changes like farts in the wind." In fact, none of the statements which follow that assertion are contradictory. The science on human nutrition is not so flimsy, though the way it is reported in popular media certainly is.

But back to dogs ... the state of veterinary science is certainly lacking.  Our best and brightest are not drawn into this field, and it's poorly funded and underappreciated. Looks like we're stuck with the anecdotal evidence for quite a while. And like you all, I'm willing to rely on it.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

magicre said:


> there's that physiology again...: )
> 
> sounds about right to me....isn't that scientific enough?
> 
> well said.


Yes, it's scientific. But no, it doesn't answer the question of whether dogs do better with the addition of fruit and veg in their diet.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> DM is incorrect in concluding that if a food source is "unnnatural," it cannot be beneficial. All you need is logic to understand that even though a food is not traditionally in a species' diet, the food may still offer nutritional benefits. There are many examples in nature of symbiotic relationships where a species is not able to consume a food unless it is processed by another species first.


I am correct with the argument of fruits and veggies aren't appropriate for dogs because if they did rely on symbiosis to break down plant material those commensalistic organisms (bacteria and other microbes) would be present within their gut (which they aren't). Dogs do have plenty of gut flora....but not the right kind to break down cellulose. 

I definitely agree that things that aren't "natural" for a species can be beneficial, but not in the case of feeding food items that cannot be digested properly or even at all.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> I am correct with the argument of fruits and veggies aren't appropriate for dogs because if they did rely on symbiosis to break down plant material those commensalistic organisms (bacteria and other microbes) would be present within their gut (which they aren't). Dogs do have plenty of gut flora....but not the right kind to break down cellulose.
> 
> I definitely agree that things that aren't "natural" for a species can be beneficial, but not in the case of feeding food items that cannot be digested properly or even at all.


There are examples of extrinsic species needed for another species to digest the food. There is no evidence that dogs cannot digest fruit or veg after it has been processed (cooked or otherwise).


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

DeltaNDoc said:


> In carnivores (again he said dogs), this is the largest region in the stomach, way bigger than in a human, because they need so much more acid to break through the meat as fast as they do. So while their stomachs are not a lower pH, they have a lot more acid secreted than we do.


You are contradicting yourself in this one paragraph. When you mix an acid with other "things" you get an acidic solution. The more acid you mix in, the more acidic the solution becomes. So yes, simply the act of secreting more acid in relation to the other things in the stomach, it means that the stomach juices will be more acidic. Maybe I didn't read what you wrote the way you meant it.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> You are contradicting yourself in this one paragraph. When you mix an acid with other "things" you get an acidic solution. The more acid you mix in, the more acidic the solution becomes. So yes, simply the act of secreting more acid in relation to the other things in the stomach, it means that the stomach juices will be more acidic. Maybe I didn't read what you wrote the way you meant it.


RFD is incorrect. A solution will become more acidic only if a substance with a lower pH is added. If the acid being added to the solution has the same pH as the solution, the solution will not become more acidic. However, to some extent, the answer depends on what you mean by "acid" - a Bronsted acid, a Lewis acid, or an Arrhenius acid.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> You are contradicting yourself in this one paragraph. When you mix an acid with other "things" you get an acidic solution. The more acid you mix in, the more acidic the solution becomes. So yes, simply the act of secreting more acid in relation to the other things in the stomach, it means that the stomach juices will be more acidic. Maybe I didn't read what you wrote the way you meant it.


If you have a liter of hydrochloric acid and then a gallon of hydrochloric acid, the pH will be the same in both volumes. I think what DND was saying is that the stomach acid itself is not lower in pH.


----------



## bumblegoat (May 12, 2010)

Honestly, to me, the fact that a _human_ can live and thrive on a meat only diet (ask the eskimos!) tells me that dogs also can, and probably do it even better than us. :wink:


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Yes, yes bumblegoat I think we all agree on this point. I do think that SpooOwner is making a good point though. We simply don't have any scientific evidence that _proves_ objectively that dogs do not benefit from having veggies added to their diet.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

bumblegoat said:


> Honestly, to me, the fact that a _human_ can live and thrive on a meat only diet (ask the eskimos!) tells me that dogs also can, and probably do it even better than us. :wink:


By the same logic, the fact that a human can live and thrive on a meatless diet (ask the Indians!) tells me that dogs also can, and probably do it even better than us.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> There are examples of extrinsic species needed for another species to digest the food. There is no evidence that dogs cannot digest fruit or veg *after it has been processed (cooked or otherwise).*


So....foods we feed dogs should be processed? I personally don't think that's ideal.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> So....foods we feed dogs should be processed? I personally don't think that's ideal.


I said that it's possible that dogs can digest and benefit from veggies that have been processed. I did not say that dogs should only eat processed foods. Please do not misrepresent my views.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> By the same logic, the fact that a human can live and thrive on a meatless diet (ask the Indians!) tells me that dogs also can, and probably do it even better than us.


I disagree with you, SpooOwner. We are omnivores and that is why we can thrive on a meatless OR all meat diet. Dogs are carnivores and thus thrive on meat. Since they are opportunistic carnivores, they can survive without meat but they will not thrive.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> RFD is incorrect in saying that we know all about dog nutrition despite the lack of scientific studies.


We know about canine nutrition because studies have been done on wolf nutrition and wild wolf diet studies. You see, nature provides every species with what it needs nutritionly in order to thrive. If a species is lacking in this department it becomes extinct. Wolves/dogs have thrived for hundreds of thousands of years on meat, bones, and organs. Wild wolves today thrive on meat, bones, and organs. This has been proven by years of research on wild wolves. The most noted of these researchers is Dr. L. David Mech. If you are looking for scientific evidence, read some of his many many research papers and books.

From David Mech's Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation (2003):

_"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site."_-p123

_"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system." _-p124


From: Foraging and Feeding Ecology of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, 
Daniel R. Stahler, Douglas W. Smith and Debra S. Guernsey 

_"Wolves do not feed on the contents of the rumen; so this, along with the larger unbreakable bones and some of the hide, are often the only things remaining when wolves and associated scavengers are done."_

In my own studies of my own dogs (4dogs) eating whole prey (rabbits), as soon as the break into the belly, they will immediately pull out the intestines and set them aside. They pull out the stomach, sissor a whole in it and shake the contents out before eating it.

Since dogs have no way of digesting plant matter without otherwise having it processed for them by either cooking or pureeing and because they have thrived for hundreds of thousands of years without cooking or pureeing equipment in the wild, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no nutritional need for plant matter in the diet in order for those animals to thrive. No other conclusion can be drawn.

Some say that dogs are not wolves but the digestive system of a dog of today is exactly the same as the digestive system of a wild wolf of today. That means that the dietary needs of one will be identical to the other.



> But if this is the same RFD who has been banned on other sites, then he is extremely skeptical of western medicine in general, and his view on dog food is consistent with this skepticism.


Its probably the same RFD but I'm not sure what you are calling western medicine. I can the real medicine practiced by normal doctors and vets western medicine. I think you mean frindge medicine and yes I am not only skeptical and will go so far as to call practioners of these "medicines" charlatins and frauds.



> No one will change this. But no matter how strongly he asserts this, it doesn't make the statement correct.


I don't have to prove my take on fringe medicines. They have yet to prove themselves. Homeopathy, for example, has been around for as long as traditional medicine, yet there is no scientific study proving its validity. Traditional medicine has to prove itself every day.



> DM is incorrect in concluding that if a food source is "unnnatural," it cannot be beneficial. All you need is logic to understand that even though a food is not traditionally in a species' diet, the food may still offer nutritional benefits. There are many examples in nature of symbiotic relationships where a species is not able to consume a food unless it is processed by another species first.


The flaw of your logic is that nature provides all that is necessary in any species diet. If all that is necessary is present, adding more is fruitless (hehe). An example ... if a particular animal's diet contains all of a particular vitamin that the body can use, adding more accomplishes nothing.

Disclaimer: I'm not Natalie and she is perfectly capable of making her own arguments but I just couldn't pass this one up. :smile:


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> I disagree with you, SpooOwner. We are omnivores and that is why we can thrive on a meatless OR all meat diet. Dogs are carnivores and thus thrive on meat. Since they are opportunistic carnivores, they can survive without meat but they will not thrive.


My post was meant to be sarcastic, Brownie.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> My post was meant to be sarcastic, Brownie.


:doh:
How am I supposed to tell these things online? LOL


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> RFD is incorrect.


You are getting where you type that a lot. :smile:



> A solution will become more acidic only if a substance with a lower pH is added. If the acid being added to the solution has the same pH as the solution, the solution will not become more acidic. However, to some extent, the answer depends on what you mean by "acid" - a Bronsted acid, a Lewis acid, or an Arrhenius acid.


So let me see if I understand what you are saying. You say that if you make 1 solution with 1 part of HCl to 10 parts H2O and compare it to a solution of 1 part HCl to 1 part H2O the two solutions will have the same pH? I don't think so.


----------



## bumblegoat (May 12, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> By the same logic, the fact that a human can live and thrive on a meatless diet (ask the Indians!) tells me that dogs also can, and probably do it even better than us.


What? No. I'm saying that if we as omnivores can thrive on only meat, then sure dogs who are carnivores (and it is no doubt about that) can thrive on only meat.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> We know about canine nutrition because studies have been done on wolf nutrition and wild wolf diet studies. You see, nature provides every species with what it needs nutritionly in order to thrive.
> 
> [...]


OK, I couldn't make it through all of the spelling errors, but I think RFD's main premise is that:



RawFedDogs said:


> [N]ature provides all that is necessary in any species [sic] diet.


There's so much that's wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin. Your point hinges on the definitions of "nature" and "necessary." For example, dogs eat poop. Some of this poop is processed fruit and veg. Therefore, dogs "naturally" eat processed fruit and veg. Do they eat the poop in order to get trace minerals from this processed fruit and veg? I don't know. Nor does anyone else.

At the end of the day, we are in 99% in agreement. The heart of our disagreement is that I require more and a different kind of evidence before calling something a fact: I'm not willing to say conclusively that dogs don't benefit from the inclusion of fruit and veg in their diets, but you are. If you'd like to focus the argument on how much evidence is required before calling something a fact, I'm willing to do so. But perhaps we should have that conversation via PM?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> If you have a liter of hydrochloric acid and then a gallon of hydrochloric acid, the pH will be the same in both volumes. I think what DND was saying is that the stomach acid itself is not lower in pH.


OK, I just saw this. In that case, I misread what was said. :smile: However in the stomach, you don't have pure HCl, there is other stuff in the stomach also. Along with the food there are numerious enzymes in differing amounts depending on what food is in the stomach. I'm not sure of the strength of the HCl secreted into the stomach. I'm sure it's not 100% pure. I'm not sure if it varies in strength but I suspect it does.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> You are getting where you type that a lot. :smile:




Bill caught Rachel's post, so I deleted the rest of this post.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> For example, dogs eat poop. Some of this poop is processed fruit and veg. Therefore, dogs "naturally" eat processed fruit and veg. Do they eat the poop in order to get trace minerals from this processed fruit and veg? I don't know. Nor does anyone else.


I think dogs eat poop because it tastes good. I don't give them the mystical ability to know what is in the poop, nor the chemical makeup of the poop, nor the knowledge of what nutrients they require to be healthy, nor whether or not they have a shortage of these particlar nutrients in their diet. It just simply tastes good.

Its similar to rolling in poop. It's fun and it smells good and they like to perfume themselves. Do you think they see some mysterious skin cream in the poop they roll in?

I used to have 2 Goldens. I took them to the groomer monthly for a bath. When they got home from the groomer, the first thing they would do is go out in the back yard and find some foul smelling substance (usually poop) to roll in to cover up that smelly stuff the groomer puts on them. :smile:

Gotta run do stuffs ... probably won't be back until late tonight.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> I think dogs eat poop because it tastes good. I don't give them the mystical ability to know what is in the poop, nor the chemical makeup of the poop, nor the knowledge of what nutrients they require to be healthy, nor whether or not they have a shortage of these particlar [sic] nutrients in their diet. It just simply tastes good.


Your statement doesn't address the question, which is whether dogs benefit from the processed fruit and veg in poop.



RawFedDogs said:


> Gotta run do stuffs ... probably won't be back until late tonight.


I'm out, too. Have a good evening, everyone.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Man, I am digging this thread. I think RFD is right.


----------



## Nievesgirl (Jan 5, 2011)

RawFedDogs said:


> I think dogs eat poop because it tastes good. I don't give them the mystical ability to know what is in the poop, nor the chemical makeup of the poop, nor the knowledge of what nutrients they require to be healthy, nor whether or not they have a shortage of these particlar nutrients in their diet. It just simply tastes good.


I agree they really like cat poop also. 

IMO just because a dog eats something does not mean the dog is needing some type of nutrients from what it just ate. Example a dog eating a shoe or plastic its not getting anything out of it but it may "taste" good to them.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> (My pup happens to love fruits and nuts, so she gets a little ... a very little.)
> 
> Magic is incorrect in stating that "the science changes like farts in the wind." In fact, none of the statements which follow that assertion are contradictory. The science on human nutrition is not so flimsy, though the way it is reported in popular media certainly is.
> 
> But back to dogs ... the state of veterinary science is certainly lacking. Our best and brightest are not drawn into this field, and it's poorly funded and underappreciated. Looks like we're stuck with the anecdotal evidence for quite a while. And like you all, I'm willing to rely on it.


nowhere have i ever read that a dog should be fed nuts. please show me where that is nutritious and not dangerous.

the science on human nutrition is driven by politics, the FDA, the AMA, the ADA, and many special interest groups...plus new age groups...

the science of dog nutrition has, until recently, been led by dog food companies and their so called studies...

the studies are not only flimsy, they do change with the wind. Talk to Dr. Andrew Weil, just one of many doctors who has made it his life's work to finally, once and for all, dispel the food myths that people swear by and point to all the studies...that's for humans...

RFD has already quoted many wolf studies...and those who studied them..

The American Diabetic Association came up with a diabetic diet that doctors SWEAR by...yet it is so damaging, the amount of diabetics has risen, in part, because of this diet. I know this because i do study nutrition and have for many years.....

the problem with any and all evidence is the move away from the simple to the complicated.

what everything boils down to is the components that do the most damage.

for humans AND dogs, it's processing AND sugar.

this is not anecdotal....even the major dog companies are changing their advertising and marketing because the evidence is becoming overwhelming about food that no longer looks, smells, acts like food. So are human foods, thinking they can fool us with aspartame and stevia and splenda....splenda is processed with formaldehyde...and the body sees it as sugar anyway...who ARE they fooling? anyone who thinks something is zero calories, that's who.

the word 'enriched' has become poisonous, so bread companies use 'all natural'....and people buy into it because they don't see that it's flour...there is nothing natural about flour...it all comes from whole wheat at some point...

even dog food in a bag came from an animal...at some point...

vegetables and fruit have sugar in them....this is bad for a dog. among all the reasons not to feed veggies and fruits.....is sugar. sugar rots the teeth, feeds disease, and overworks the pancreas.

having said that....it is then a simple leap to conclude that veggies and fruits should NOT be part of a dog's diet.

as to humans...that's a whole different ball game...the studies are now pointing toward low glycemic foods...there is a reason for this....the pancreas is getting tired of the high highs and low lows of what we ingest.....high glycemic foods cause insulin spikes in both humans and dogs....so it's easy to conclude --- don't eat those food. don't feed those foods.

if one understands the make up of food and the effect on the body, be it human or dog....it's not hard to do what makes sense....

and i can't say i agree the state of veterinary science is lacking....

the state of nutritional study has always been lacking for both vets and MDs.....

BUT - years ago, a dog with parvo just died...now they can save them...veterinary science as well as medicine has come a very long way...just not nutrition....

and that leaves it up to us...


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Oh my dog! So, last night I watched a coyote pull out his nifty pocket blender and make himself a celery and carrot smoothie!

I do have one thing to say, though...my dogs LOVE eating the cat poop, and guess what? My cats are raw fed.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

Wow! I'm glad I checked this site before heading out tonight. Here we go:



RawFedDogs said:


> I think dogs eat poop because it tastes good.


Just because it tastes good doesn't mean that it isn't good for them. I like oranges. They taste good. And they're good for me. I also like chocolate. It tastes good. And it's good for me. I cannot thrive on a diet entirely of oranges or chocolate.



RawFedDogs said:


> I don't give them the mystical ability to know what is in the poop, nor the chemical makeup of the poop, nor the knowledge of what nutrients they require to be healthy, nor whether or not they have a shortage of these particlar [sic] nutrients in their diet.


I'm relieved to hear this. After your "nature is perfect" argument, I was afraid you were into mysticism.



RawFedDogs said:


> Its similar to rolling in poop. It's fun and it smells good and they like to perfume themselves. Do you think they see some mysterious skin cream in the poop they roll in?


No, I don't.



Nievesgirl said:


> IMO just because a dog eats something does not mean the dog is needing some type of nutrients from what it just ate. Example a dog eating a shoe or plastic its not getting anything out of it but it may "taste" good to them.


I agree. But the reverse is also not necessarily true: just because a dog eats something doesn't mean that it is not getting anything out of it. (Apologies for the double negative.) That's what this entire argument is about.



magicre said:


> nowhere have i ever read that a dog should be fed nuts. please show me where that is nutritious and not dangerous.


I haven't read this either. I am not claiming that nuts are nutritious for dogs. I am also not claiming that they are not. I am simply saying that I don't know whether she benefits from them beyond her enjoyment from eating them. They do not show up in her poop undigested, so my guess is that she's getting something out of it. But I have no idea if this is true.

As an aside, some nuts are poisonous. You're welcome to do a search. I feed pecans and pistachios, if anyone's interested. She gets 2-3 pieces per week. As I said, she gets very little.



magicre said:


> the science on human nutrition is driven by politics, the FDA, the AMA, the ADA, and many special interest groups...plus new age groups...


"Driven" - no. "Responsive" - yes. "New age groups" - this I have no idea about. But I stick to Medline, JAMA, et al.



magicre said:


> the science of dog nutrition has, until recently, been led by dog food companies and their so called studies...


Agreed. They're poorly designed studies, and none of them look at raw diets.

The rest of what you wrote is off-point. You seem to attribute beliefs to me that I don't hold and haven't stated.



xxshaelxx said:


> Oh my dog! So, last night I watched a coyote pull out his nifty pocket blender and make himself a celery and carrot smoothie!


Did you take a photo? I've never seen this. I'm also not claiming that coyotes eat smoothies.



xxshaelxx said:


> I do have one thing to say, though...my dogs LOVE eating the cat poop, and guess what? My cats are raw fed.


First, if your dogs are like mine, they also enjoy deer and rabbit poop. And I doubt the deer and rabbits are raw fed. Second, and far more importantly, you're missing the point of my statement. All I am saying - and really, this is the entire argument - is that there is no conclusive evidence for or against the inclusion of fruit and veg in a dog's diet.

Finally, a reminder: I feed raw. I do not include fruit or veg in my dog's diet, aside from an occasional pecan and dried cranberry. And I only give her those because she likes them.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

again, no disrespect intended, spoo, but you might want to widen your sources of information...medline, jama....all good for medical breakthroughs, treatments, etc...

nutrition? med students get a three credit course....

and, i do think what i said is attributable to what you said way back in the beginning when you asked if there were studies --

"For me, the real question is whether dogs are healthier if fruit and veg are included in their diet. Is anyone aware of any studies that address whether dogs benefit from the inclusion of any trace minerals/amino acids/etc. found in fruit and veg that are not found in meat?"

and the answer is no...there are no studies that adequately (key words) address benefits or harm....but common sense dictates that sugar and processing and a dog's physiology will do more harm than any benefits, if any....and there aren't any.
it's not complicated. 

look up a fruit or veggie. see what nutrition it has to offer. spreadsheet your dog's intake of food according to the nutrients and see what, if anything is missing from meat, bones and organs that fills a column in the fruit or veggie section of your excel sheet.

i also asked what trace minerals/amino acids you were speaking about....? and so far, no answer on that....

i know you're a raw feeder....this is just a debate....no intention of drawing blood : )


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> Just because it tastes good doesn't mean that it isn't good for them. I like oranges. They taste good. And they're good for me. I also like chocolate. It tastes good. And it's good for me. I cannot thrive on a diet entirely of oranges or chocolate.


You're completely missing the point we're trying to make, and that's that there are some things we (and dogs) eat because we think they taste good. I mean, Ryou loves grapes, but grapes have been proven to be poisonous to dogs in large quantities. I like candy corn...it's pretty much wax, right? I mean, not really, but it might as well be for all the nutritional value it holds. Cotton candy? Ice cream?

Again, my dogs eat my cats' poop, and they're all raw fed. That tells me that they just like the taste of poop. Not only that, but they like horse poop, too, which is mostly undigested.

I was also under the impression that poop pretty much contains mostly digested stuff anyways, and if it's been digested, it means that animals have already taken out the nutrients from it. 

My dogs also like to eat the stuffing from their toys...and the binding on my books...and little pieces of paper they get ahold of...my socks...oh, and my favorite! My UNDERWEAR! Yeah, because underwear is totally healthy to eat.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I don't understand why everyone is even arguing. WE ALL AGREE for the most part. Spoo is just saying, as a _technicality_, that there is no scientific evidence to *prove* that dogs do not get any nutritional benefit whatsoever from fruits or veggies that have been processed. Unless someone can reference a study to prove her wrong, it is a perfectly valid argument to make. You must keep an open mind and be willing to explore possibilities that _may_ exist - even if they seem unlikely or unnatural. 

Really, the only difference is that Spoo is thinking in a scientific way, in that she is willing to consider something possible until proven otherwise.


----------



## DeltaNDoc (Nov 14, 2010)

I meant it as saying, a human's stomach is usually in the pH range of 1-3. A dog's pH of the stomach is 1-2. However, the dog's have a larger fundic region, which is the part that secretes that acid, so their food is in the acid for larger amounts of time. 

I think that makes sense? lol Sorry, I sometimes just get writing and it makes sense to ME. lol


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> I don't understand why everyone is even arguing. WE ALL AGREE for the most part. Spoo is just saying, as a _technicality_, that there is no scientific evidence to *prove* that dogs do not get any nutritional benefit whatsoever from fruits or veggies that have been processed. Unless someone can reference a study to prove her wrong, it is a perfectly valid argument to make. You must keep an open mind and be willing to explore possibilities that _may_ exist - even if they seem unlikely or unnatural.
> 
> Really, the only difference is that Spoo is thinking in a scientific way, in that she is willing to consider something possible until proven otherwise.


Usually the things that we tend to "argue" (I prefer to call it debate since it's not aggressive at all....usually LOL) about are trivial and don't make much difference either way. BUT debating these topics is good. Keeps people in the loop and gives them the opportunity to help form their own opinions on the matter. Plus...it can be fun to mull it all over! 

I don't think there will be a scientific study on raw in any way, shape or form in the near future. Plus it would take numerous studies that all have good planning and execution behind them to even get a correlation one way or the other. Most scientific things that we know today are still just theory. True "proof" of things is in the eye of the beholder. It also depends on what one is willing to learn, because if a person isn't interested in learning something...they don't go looking for information and they typically aren't open to new things.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

magicre said:


> and the answer is no...there are no studies that adequately (key words) address benefits or harm....


Good. We agree.



magicre said:


> but common sense dictates that sugar and processing and a dog's physiology will do more harm than any benefits, if any....and there aren't any. it's not complicated.


Common sense also told people that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth. Common sense can be misleading.



magicre said:


> look up a fruit or veggie. see what nutrition it has to offer. spreadsheet your dog's intake of food according to the nutrients and see what, if anything is missing from meat, bones and organs that fills a column in the fruit or veggie section of your excel sheet.


This would not provide conclusive evidence that dogs do not benefit from fruit and veg in their diets. Even if, hypothetically, all the boxes are ticked off under meat, it says nothing about the absolute values or ratios necessary for dogs to thrive.



magicre said:


> i also asked what trace minerals/amino acids you were speaking about....? and so far, no answer on that....


I didn't answer this because it's irrelevant after you conceded that there are no studies adequately addressing nutritional needs.



magicre said:


> i know you're a raw feeder....this is just a debate....no intention of drawing blood : )


No blood drawn here. See Brownie's post just above.



xxshaelxx said:


> You're completely missing the point we're trying to make, and that's that there are some things we (and dogs) eat because we think they taste good. I mean, Ryou loves grapes, but grapes have been proven to be poisonous to dogs in large quantities. I like candy corn...it's pretty much wax, right? I mean, not really, but it might as well be for all the nutritional value it holds. Cotton candy? Ice cream?


We're not that far off. I'm saying that it's possible that they eat this stuff just because it tastes good. It's also possible that they there are other nutritional benefits from it (e.g. bacteria in poop - could be like yogurt to us). But it's also possible that they derive nutritional benefits from the plant matter. All I'm saying is that it hasn't been shown one way or the other.



xxshaelxx said:


> Again, my dogs eat my cats' poop, and they're all raw fed. That tells me that they just like the taste of poop. Not only that, but they like horse poop, too, which is mostly undigested.


See above.



xxshaelxx said:


> I was also under the impression that poop pretty much contains mostly digested stuff anyways, and if it's been digested, it means that animals have already taken out the nutrients from it.


Not exactly. There are lots of nutrients remaining in poop, because of differences in digestibility across species. See, e.g., Dung Beetles.



xxshaelxx said:


> My dogs also like to eat the stuffing from their toys...and the binding on my books...and little pieces of paper they get ahold of...my socks...oh, and my favorite! My UNDERWEAR! Yeah, because underwear is totally healthy to eat.


I think we'll all agree that dogs may eat different things for different reasons. Also, this line of reasoning is treacherous, as many raw feeders justify the diet based on their dogs' enthusiasm for the food. If you start conceding that dogs enjoy eating all sorts of things that are not good for them, then you undermine the argument that dogs' love for raw is evidence that they thrive on the diet.

OK, so someone is going to have the last word, and it's not likely to be me. I think we're at a point where everyone gets what I'm saying, so I may not respond to future posts. But if you have a point that you're dying to make, feel free to PM me.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Well, I'm pretty new here and have only been feeding raw for about a month.

So far be it for me to take on the respected veterans in this forum but ... it seems to me that the two sides in this debate are missing the point entirely. Those who are for the inclusion of plant matter argue that it can add benefits. Those against this inclusion (like RFD) say that it's not natural for them and therefore not necessary. 

As a noob, I'll stick me neck out and say both are correct. That's why I feed half their meals as RMBs and half as BARF-style patties. Plant matter is probably not NECESSARY, but can it be helpful? I doubt anyone truly knows the answer to this question. But that's the whole point, isn't it? Although RFD and those in agreement with him keep repeating that wolves don't eat plant matter and dogs are carnivores, etc., no one's arguing against that. The point is not whether plant matter is necessary, just whether it can be beneficial. 

Personally, I don't believe that limiting an animal's food to only foods that it was "meant" to eat is optimal. It may supply everything needed, but that doesn't mean improvements can't be made. Nature is not perfect. I've seen enough sickly, diseased, mangy etc. wild animals to know this. While I'm sure that sounds like blasphemy to some, I still believe that the natural diet is best but that it can stand to benefit from some supplements.

PS. who says that carnivores only eat plant matter only to survive? That's just flat out wrong. I've seen plenty of well fed predators (mostly in Africa) nibbling on certain plant matter even when there was plenty of prey nearby. I won't go so far as to say why, only that we don't know everything that wild animals eat. We don't monitor their eating habits 24/7 for months and years. So even if you believe nature is perfect, consider that our observation of nature - from which we draw our conclusions, is not.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I believe that animals in the wild look "mangey" for a whole bunch of reasons that all compound together. Stress, disease, less than ideal living conditions, genetics, famine, predation, weather and environment changes. If wild animals lived in an ideal world you wouldn't see mangey animals...for the most part (because not all factors are based on things that can change...ie genetics). 

Nature is nearly perfect by design...it has to be. And when it's not working near to perfect, natural selection changes things so it can be perfect, nearly so. Ever heard of the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I cannot tell you how perfectly this phrase fits to life and natural selection. Crocs and alligators haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. Why? Because nature got it right the first time. Wolves have gone almost unchanged in millions of years. Natural selection works slowly, but not that slowly. If the design of the wild wolf needed to be changed, it would happen in ~ a hundred thousand years. Dogs descend from the Asian wolf, which later branched out to the grey wolf of north America (Asian wolves crossed the ice bridge from Europe to north America). Dogs are 0.02% genetically different than wolves...technically they are the same species or subspecies of one another. It depends on what species concept you employ. 

Unfortunately a dogs life isn't influenced by natural selection at all (dogs, horses and humans are the three top species that aren't affected by natural selection and they are also the most plagued by genetic disease....just further proof that nature works perfectly). They are selectively bred, even the sickest animals are taken care of so they can hopefully survive, etc. The ideas of when dogs were first domesticated all point back to about 10 thousand years ago (there are several different theories on how they were initially captured/socialized). Either way these first "dogs" were simply friendlier wolves that lived off the human food scraps. Did they eat throw away plant matter? Possibly. Did it increase their fitness? Maybe. I tend to think its more due to the fact they had a constant supply of food and protection. 

The inclusion of a mostly plant ridden diet has only been for the past 75-50 years with the invention of commercially processed kibble diets. Never have dogs been so unhealthy as a result. While a barf style diet isn't anything close to kibble...it's closer than a prey model raw diet. The way I see it....I try and provide my dogs what they would get in an ideal "wild" life. In times of plenty, wolves/dogs will eat meat and in times of famine they will eat whatever they can manage to find that is edible. So I feed my dogs as though they live in constant times of plenty! 

Either way....the difference in opinions is minuscule at best and in the end it doesn't make a difference to my dogs what everyone else feeds their own. Just keep doing whatever you feel most comfortable doing because the important thing that we all must remember is that we are giving our dogs better food than most others out there!

ETA: Cosmographer....you seem to have a contradiction in your message. You say that both sides of the arguement are correct. While the truth may never be known...you most certainly fall on the side that believes the inclusion of plant material is beneficial. If you thought that raw meaty bones and organs was all a dog needs you wouldn't feed the barf patties. Just food for thought.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cosmographer said:


> Well, I'm pretty new here and have only been feeding raw for about a month.
> 
> So far be it for me to take on the respected veterans in this forum but ... it seems to me that the two sides in this debate are missing the point entirely. Those who are for the inclusion of plant matter argue that it can add benefits. Those against this inclusion (like RFD) say that it's not natural for them and therefore not necessary.
> 
> As a noob, I'll stick me neck out and say both are correct.


You can't say both sides are correct. :smile: Either plants add benefits or they don't. So far I have been in this discussion on one board or another for 9 years and I have yet for any of the plant feeders tell me exactly what nutrients plants add to the dog's diet. I maintain, and no one has proved me wrong in this, that there are no needed nutrients in plants that aren't in meat, bones, and organs of the prey animals that eat them.



> Although RFD and those in agreement with him keep repeating that wolves don't eat plant matter and dogs are carnivores, etc., no one's arguing against that. The point is not whether plant matter is necessary, just whether it can be beneficial.


Cool. Point out a benefit.



> Personally, I don't believe that limiting an animal's food to only foods that it was "meant" to eat is optimal.


I disagree. Nature supplies an optimal diet to every species it creates. When that optimal diet disappears for one reason or another, that species goes extinct.



> It may supply everything needed, but that doesn't mean improvements can't be made.


No one has yet pointed out how plant matter can improve the natural diet of a wolf/dog.



> Nature is not perfect. I've seen enough sickly, diseased, mangy etc. wild animals to know this. While I'm sure that sounds like blasphemy to some, I still believe that the natural diet is best but that it can stand to benefit from some supplements.


None of these sickly, diseassed, mangy animals are that way because of diet. If that were the case, ALL of them would be that way. Usually those sickly, diseased, mangy animals are dead pretty quickly. I can tell you from experience that dogs fed a diet of meat, bones, and organs ONLY are more healthy than the ones fed kibble/canned diets. Are they more healthy than the barf fed ones? I honestly don't know but I know my 6yo Great Dane has never been to the vet in his life except for one time when he was a puppy he had a conginatile defect that needed to be repaired. My almost 11 year old Dane has only been to the vet one time in her life and that was recently when she was diagnosed with liver cancer. So saying wild animals eating an optimal diet are sickly because of diet just doesn't fly.



> PS. who says that carnivores only eat plant matter only to survive? That's just flat out wrong. I've seen plenty of well fed predators (mostly in Africa) nibbling on certain plant matter even when there was plenty of prey nearby.


Yes, I agree ... They will sometimes eat sweet fruit and berries most likely because they taste good. Kinda like us eating cake and ice cream which supply no nutrients to us but they taste good.



> I won't go so far as to say why, only that we don't know everything that wild animals eat. We don't monitor their eating habits 24/7 for months and years.


I think we pretty much do. You evidently don't know about wild wolf researchers that will follow a wild wolf pack for years observing and recording everything that happens. You should Google Dr. L. David Mech and look up some of his reaseach. He has, among other things, exensive research into wild wolf diets and he maintains very stronly that wild wolves just have no need or reason to eat plant matter. They even go to the trouble to remove plant matter from the stomach of a killed prey before eating their stomach.



> So even if you believe nature is perfect, consider that our observation of nature - from which we draw our conclusions, is not.


I suspect you think its not but you obviously are not aware of the extensive research on all wild animals. Years and years of observations and measurements. Necropsies are done on dead animals. Scat is thouroughly studied and analyzed. There are many ways to determine what a wild animal eats and it is being done all the time by researchers.

Show me the benefits and maybe I'll change my mind. I think people who feed plant matter to their dogs such in the BARF diet, do so "just in case". Just as many people give supplements to their dogs and to themselves "just in case". Sometimes they do it because it was drummed into their head when they were children about how much we need to eat our veggies and they errorounously apply that same thing to their dogs.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

SpooOwner said:


> I think we'll all agree that dogs may eat different things for different reasons. Also, this line of reasoning is treacherous, as many raw feeders justify the diet based on their dogs' enthusiasm for the food. If you start conceding that dogs enjoy eating all sorts of things that are not good for them, then you undermine the argument that dogs' love for raw is evidence that they thrive on the diet.


Well, I don't agree here, because then you could say that a dog thrives on whatever it really goes nuts over. My dogs absolutely go NUTS for the cat kibble, and Ryou loves any kibble, really, and kibble is sub-par compared to raw in many ways. The dogs also go nuts for cheese and many other things that aren't really the pinnacle of health for them. 

I don't think a raw feeder should justify their dogs' diets on such a notion, because then they could also justify feeding them anything that they could go nuts over.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

Those of you who are kinda' new here and looking for the answers from science should read this thread...all 13 pages of it.

http://dogfoodchat.com/forum/dog-food-ingredients/2329-backed-scientific-study.html


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

This guy makes my point better than I can.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

He thinks fiber sates the appetite? Fat is better at sating the appetite than fiber! Eat a nice warm bowl of oatmeal with non fat milk and raisins I am hungry in an hour. Put a dab of butter on top and I am good until lunch. If I use non fat yogurt in a smoothie I don't last long but if I use low fat yogurt I am on the go for a lot longer. And those are high carb examples. With lots of fiber.

Corn affects behavior? I haven't read that before. Sassy did have sweet smelling poop when she was on kibble with corn in it.


----------



## Tekoah (Jan 24, 2011)

Cosmographer said:


> Well, I'm pretty new here and have only been feeding raw for about a month.
> 
> So far be it for me to take on the respected veterans in this forum but ... it seems to me that the two sides in this debate are missing the point entirely. Those who are for the inclusion of plant matter argue that it can add benefits. Those against this inclusion (like RFD) say that it's not natural for them and therefore not necessary.
> 
> ...



I only quoted you because you raise some valid points here that I liked. But I'm curious, are people suggesting that carnivores only eat what they need? Therefore are we (generally speaking) basing their diets on what we think they eat, or what we know they eat or what we _observe_ them to eat?
I have seen wild wolves eat berries. I have seen coyotes pluck grapes off of vines and nibble on fallen apples. And fox LOVE blueberries!

I wonder, tho, if they like to snack on these things in the wild from time to time, why not give them to your dogs are treats? Regardless whether or not some feel they are not needed, it's obvious that their wild cousins seem to enjoy a treat every so often  

Wolves DO eat plant matter. That is a fact. No, they don't eat it to survive but they _do_ eat it.


----------



## Cosmographer (Jan 19, 2011)

Hey RFD, you raise some interesting points. I am aware of the research that goes into wild animals, but I still believe that they are not watched and monitored 100% of the time. I think everyone would agree that we know far more about domesticated animals' diets than we do about wild animals. 

As a former wrangler, horses come to mind as an appropriate example. If you watch horses in the wild, you can spend years observing them daily and never notice their need for salt. Yet, they do need it, and we place salt licks in their stalls for this reason. Of course, when applying to wolves, even if I'm right and we don't have 100% coverage of their eating habits, one might argue that the part that escapes our observation is so miniscule as to make no nutritional difference.

But as interesting as that side discussion is, it's kind of besides the point. I think the issue is whether plant matter can provide benefits. (By the way, thanks for clarifying your position by saying that it provides no benefits rather than not being needed - I guess it's a fine point, but to the lawyer in me, it's an important disctinction :biggrin

Let's dig a little deeper. I don't even think that it's your position that plant matter provides no benefits. They clearly do. Vitamins, oils, etc. Since you can't argue with that, I think what your position boils down to is: *Plant matter provides no benefits above and beyond those provided by a prey model diet. * (Again, my apologies if I'm dissecting this too much.)

If that is indeed your position (and correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think anyone can make a definitive case against that. I'm no nutritionist, but I suspect that every nutrient found in the veggie portions of a BARF diet can be supplied by the right combinations of a meat-only diet. But as you said, barf feeders tend to add the veggie portion as a "just-in-case" measure. I fall into that category too. My position is that if it doesn't hurt them and might help them, then it's worth doing.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cosmographer said:


> Hey RFD, you raise some interesting points. I am aware of the research that goes into wild animals, but I still believe that they are not watched and monitored 100% of the time. I think everyone would agree that we know far more about domesticated animals' diets than we do about wild animals.


Wild wolves are monitored 100% of the time for several months running. I doubt they sneak anything until the know that no one is watching them :smile:. We know what domestic animals eat because they eat what we feed them. 



> As a former wrangler, horses come to mind as an appropriate example. If you watch horses in the wild, you can spend years observing them daily and never notice their need for salt. Yet, they do need it, and we place salt licks in their stalls for this reason. Of course, when applying to wolves, even if I'm right and we don't have 100% coverage of their eating habits, one might argue that the part that escapes our observation is so miniscule as to make no nutritional difference.


I won't argue with the conclusion you draw in the above paragraph. :smile:



> Let's dig a little deeper. I don't even think that it's your position that plant matter provides no benefits. They clearly do. Vitamins, oils, etc. Since you can't argue with that, I think what your position boils down to is: *Plant matter provides no benefits above and beyond those provided by a prey model diet. * (Again, my apologies if I'm dissecting this too much.)


Hehe, I DO think you are way overthinking and getting much too miniscule with your observations. It's kinda like saying, "If I eat one piece of cake in a year, what effect will it have on my health for that year?" I will say that plant matter in the natural state eaten by a dog will deliver a the the most a minimum of nutrients. They must be processed by man to enable a transfer of nutrition.



> My position is that if it doesn't hurt them and might help them, then it's worth doing.


My position is that in the wild, canines wouldn't eat things like zuchini(sp), tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, kelp or any of the other veggies most want to feed their dogs. A few berries? an apple occasionally? Yeah, probably.


----------



## Tekoah (Jan 24, 2011)

RFD, you say _Wild wolves are monitored 100% of the time for several months running. I doubt they sneak anything until the know that no one is watching them . We know what domestic animals eat because they eat what we feed them. _

Who is monitoring wild wolves 100% of the time, and where?

As far as domestic animals eating what they eat because that is what we feed them, don't you think they'd eat ANYTHING (edible), no matter what it was that we'd feed them? I mean, eventually, they'd learn to eat it.

I wish I knew where you were going with that least sentence! :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Tekoah said:


> RFD, you say _Wild wolves are monitored 100% of the time for several months running. I doubt they sneak anything until the know that no one is watching them ._


 We know what domestic animals eat because they eat what we feed them.[/I][/I]





> Who is monitoring wild wolves 100% of the time, and where?


There are many wild wolf researchers that will follow a pack of wolves for months at a time in the wild and record everything they do. What they eat, when they hunt, when they rest, how they behave towards each other, how much sleep they get, etc. David Mech is probably the best known of these. He has spend over 30 years studying wild wolves.



> As far as domestic animals eating what they eat because that is what we feed them, don't you think they'd eat ANYTHING (edible), no matter what it was that we'd feed them? I mean, eventually, they'd learn to eat it.


Nope, thats not even close to what I meant. I mean we feed our dogs kibble, or PMR, or BARF, or table scraps. We know exactly what they eat because we are the ones feeding them. We feed our horses hay, leave them in the pasture, give them supplements. Whatever we give them, we know exactly what they eat. I'm not saying anything about forcing them to eat anything. Just say we know that they eat because we are the ones feeding them.



> I wish I knew where you were going with that least sentence! :smile:


And now you know the REST of the story. :biggrin:


----------



## Ania's Mommy (Feb 8, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> My position is that in the wild, canines wouldn't eat things like zuchini(sp), tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, kelp or any of the other veggies most want to feed their dogs. A few berries? an apple occasionally? Yeah, probably.





Tekoah said:


> I wish I knew where you were going with that least sentence! :smile:


If I could maybe bridge the gap here a little bit...

I think what RFD was saying was that typically, things like zucchini, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, and kelp don't typically grow in areas populated by wolves. Yet a lot of people who feed veggies feed those items to their dogs.

I could be wrong in deciphering RFD's meaning, though.

And now, stay tuned for neeoose (that was MY Paul Harvey reference, Bill.:biggrin1


----------



## Tekoah (Jan 24, 2011)

I tend to over-analyze things, and this may be what I'm doing here, but not for arguements sake ... just becasue I don't get what you were getting at. But that's just me being me arty: 

I was just mentioning that animals become what we make them. Some adapt to their environment and some don't. Wolves need a variety of raw/whole meats and bones, they do poorly without. Horses, on the other hand, do not need grain, but people tend to feed grain for supplement, anyhow.

As far as David goes, you must give the man more credit; he's been at it for 50 years or more. :happy: I have a history with David and I respect him more than words can say! But as far as he, or any other wolf bio watching wolves 100% of the time ... come on, you know they can't do that! Besides, there are only a small handful of respected, well-known wolf biologists working today .. the rest work for the devil :tongue1: 

It's too bad that we're stuck behind a computer screen, you'd be an interesting person to talk to.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Actually, there are people who are known to integrate themselves into wolf packs and seriously follow them around for months to even years.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Tekoah said:


> I only quoted you because you raise some valid points here that I liked. But I'm curious, are people suggesting that carnivores only eat what they need? Therefore are we (generally speaking) basing their diets on what we think they eat, or what we know they eat or what we _observe_ them to eat?
> I have seen wild wolves eat berries. I have seen coyotes pluck grapes off of vines and nibble on fallen apples. And fox LOVE blueberries!
> 
> I wonder, tho, if they like to snack on these things in the wild from time to time, why not give them to your dogs are treats? Regardless whether or not some feel they are not needed, it's obvious that their wild cousins seem to enjoy a treat every so often
> ...


They eat it because it tastes good, like we eat cheesecake, it doesn't nourish us, it just has a good flavor. And yes, coyotes eat grapes. I have seen them. I have also seen undigested grapes in their scat. They get nothing from it and it is pointless to have a diet inclusive of it, they can't even digest it.


----------



## richie (Jan 30, 2011)

*amylase is a STARCH digesting enzyme*

Excellent information here, I just wanted to clarify the enzymology reference. The amylase (present in human saliva, and in most animals' guts) digests starches only, converting them into sugar. They have NO effect on cellulose. 

Salivary amylase activity explains why when we chew a cracker a long time, it starts to taste sweet -- for humans, digestion does start in the mouth and saliva and good chewing goes a long way to digest our starchy foods. Dogs do not have this enzyme in their saliva, which makes starch digestion quite a bit more difficult for them. 

Dogs still can absorb sugars just fine, but like any other animal, if the cellulose cell walls are not ruptured, the sugars in fruits and vegetables are not readily available. As was well documented here, the canine dentition is not well adapted to this task, unlike our teeth, which do a decent job on raw fruits and veggies.

To say amylases are active on plant material is correct, but not specific and could be confusing. These enzymes have NO activity on cellulose, which is the cell wall component of plant materials such as grass. In fact, I don't believe any animal can digest cellulose without microbiological help. The termites that eat wood, the cows that eat grass, etc. all rely on microorganisms in their guts (in the rumen of cows for example) to do the actual work or breaking down cellulose.


----------



## richie (Jan 30, 2011)

*Goose poop*

Someone mentioned that dogs eat poop which is a 'naturally processed' vegetable matter... which reminded me... 

I have noticed that nearly all dogs seem to LOVE fresh goose poop, especially during the times of the year when the grass is actively growing and the goose poop is mostly bright green. I can believe the argument that fruits are eaten for their sweet tasting sugar content, but what is it in those tasty morsels of crap that most dogs seem to find irresistible? Maybe there is some nutrition in there, that the dogs can absorb once the geese have partially processed them through their gizzards??? None of the dogs who enjoy these snacks seem to suffer from them, but who can tell if they benefit?


----------

