# The Facultative Carnivore



## danecolor (Nov 22, 2010)

hello all. this is my first real post here but i have been reading for a while. i am interested in feeding my dogs raw in the future. i do have one question.

in my research, dogs are generally classified as facultative carnivores, which eat primarily animal matter but also eat a _significant_ amount of non-animal food. this is different than an obligate carnivore like the domestic cat, which cannot thrive without meat and does not generally consume a significant amount on non-animal matter. i have observed that the majority here believes that meat, bones, and organs are the only necessary components in a dog's diet. i do not mean to insinuate that dogs are omnivores. physiological adaptations clearly prove otherwise. i do wonder, though, if a dog's diet could contain the proper proportions of nutrients without vegetable matter included in the diet. any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.


----------



## SilverBeat (Jan 16, 2011)

I think you answered your own question in there. If dogs were omnivores, they would be able to break down and digest plant matter, which they cannot. So then, a complete and balanced diet for them consists of bones, organs and flesh from a variety of animals.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Yes dogs get all they need from bone, meat and organs. I put Max's diet into nutritiondata.com to analyze it. He is on the lower end of his zinc and magnesium requirements, very low on the unproven need for manganese and that is it. If I could feed my senior dog 2-2.5% his body weight there would be no low numbers.

Meat is much more nutritious than veggies, fruits and grains. My 38 pound dog needs as much or more calcium, copper, selenium, vitamin B12 and zinc as I do according to NRC. He could never get enough from grain, fruits and vegetables.

A dog can live on a diet containing those items just fine but for optimal health a well thought out diet of meat, bone and organ is by far the best thing you can feed your dog. I fed a kidney dog home cooked food for 3.5 years using a lot of additional supplements to make up for the extremely limited number of foods that worked in her limited diet. Max ate that food supplemented with additional foods so he was getting enough nutrients for his healthy body and was okay but once put on raw blossomed. He gained 13% of his weight in muscle, got stronger, fur doubled in length, temperament improved, teeth and ears got even cleaner than they were on cooked food.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

This is my understanding of this topic after much reading, observation, and discussion. Dogs in the wild are survivors and have adapted to eat non-animal matter if they are starving and have no other choice. They have also been known to eat some plant matter for taste (like berries, in much the same way we eat ice cream which is not necessary for proper nutrition). They gain very few nutrients from plant matter though and simply pass most of it. So to answer your question, "...if a dog's diet could contain the proper proportions of nutrients without vegetable matter included..." the answer is YES. They can eat vegetable matter but they will not thrive on it. They thrive on a meat-based diet and while you can include vegetable matter, it is completely unnecessary and even has the potential to cause problems in some dogs (such as allergies). 

Hope you join us on the raw side.


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

Dogs are carnivores. They scavenge as well, and because they are domesticated animals, they often times do consume plant matter. A diet of meat, bones, and organs is all they need to survive. Their anatomy tells us so, they can only move their jaws up and down not laterally, meaning they cannot grind vegetation. The way their digestive system is built, they cannot digest vegetable matter in it's whole form...No one out in the wild is going to be grinding up and cooking their veggies, which means they are gaining nothing nutritionally and are only satiating their hunger.

There is no need to feed a dog vegetables or fruit unless their diet is lacking in meat, and even then, they aren't extracting many nutrients from the vegetables. Remember that cooking things causes them to lose nutrients, so even if you made the vegetable matter more digestible, your carnivore is gaining nothing substantial by ingesting cooked veggies.

In my experience feeding my dogs a diet high in carbs has caused problems, especially digestive upset. I think the poop speaks for itself. I saw cow pies yesterday when I went to a rodeo/fair (which I HATED, ughhhh) and seriously their poop looks like the poop of a canine who has been eating low quality kibble high in carbohydrates. Now why should your dog be pooping cow patties when they can have smaller, firmer poops that they were obviously meant to have (in part due to their need for anal gland expression, I always keep that in mind) If you feed your dog a diet of organs, bone, and muscle meats, they are getting everything they need to have an optimal diet. I think anything more I can say would just be a redundancy.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Hello and :welcome: 

I think everyone here has touched on your concerns perfectly so I have nothing to really add. Except that you should keep reading and researching.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

The only thing I can add is that I have been feeding my 11 year old Dane, Abby, a diet of nothing but raw meat, bones and organs for 9 years. She has eaten no plant matter in that time span. That in itself should say something. Except for liver cancer that she's had for almost a year, she is in perfect health. Until the cancer came, she was never at the vet for other than checkups her entire life.


----------



## danecolor (Nov 22, 2010)

i have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests prey model raw is superior to kibble. i do not doubt that. it is obvious to me that feeding a variety of whole, raw foods in their natural form (or as close as possible) is most beneficial for health. however, i am still unsure as to whether or not a diet including raw meat and a small portion of raw vegetables is superior to one containing only meat.

should i eventually decide to include vegetable matter in my dogs’ diet, i would not be cooking it as that does not replicate a natural source of nutrients and does in fact leech nutrients from the food, as was stated. i would also not be including large amounts of vegetable matter and most definitely not exclusively vegetable matter in the diet as that is obviously not natural either. instead, i am most interested in whether vegetable matter has merit as a small part of the diet and if not, why?

though dogs do not have a jaw capable of lateral grinding movement, they do have relatively flattened molars. is this enough to be able to sufficiently “chew” plants? humans also cannot break down the cellulose cell wall of plants. why are vegetables a source of nutrients for us and not canines? 

dogs do have amylase in the pancreas which aids in digestion of plant matter, so it is incorrect to say they are incapable of extracting some nutrients at least. i am not sure if these are significant amounts.

as far as dogs eating plant matter based on taste alone: given that dogs have about one-sixth the number of taste buds that humans have, i find it hard to believe that they would eat unnecessary food solely based on taste.

in my research, I have come to the understanding that there are many different types of carnivores. in and of itself, falling under the broad category of carnivore does not suggest that an animal eats 100% animal matter. it also does not suggest that vegetable matter is not an important and necessary part of the diet.

it seems that “carnivore” is a broad term that encompasses a continuum ranging from borderline omnivores to obligate carnivores (or “true” carnivore/hypercarnivore). the broad category of carnivore includes sub categories such as insectivores, piscivores, scavengers, obligate carnivores, and facultative carnivores, the lines between all of which can be blurry and undefined. 

by definition, dogs are not obligate carnivores because they can survive on a vegetarian diet (though clearly this is not ideal). this is different from cats which will fail to thrive without meat (or at least the addition of artificial taurine) in the diet. 
clearly, dogs are not omnivores. i am not disputing that in the slightest. however, i do not believe that being a carnivore alone is conclusive evidence that plant matter is not necessary in the diet. 

from _Dogs: their fossil relatives and evolutionary history_ by Xiaoming Wang and Richard H. Tedford:

“A _hypercarnivore_ is an animal that has elongated the shearing blade of the carnassial teeth at the expense of the grinding part of the dentition (usually molars). The most extreme example of a hypercarnivore is the cat, whose teeth essentially include only the shearing part of the dentition -- a pair of long, thin-bladed carnassials -- with the grinding part (molars) behind the carnassials being strongly reduced in size. Such a hypercarnivorous adaptation is thought to be related to a diet that is made up almost exclusively of meat.

“In contrast, a_ hypocarnivore_ is an animal that has shortened the shearing blade of the carnassial teeth and enlarged the grinding part of the dentition behind the carnassials. The most extreme example of a hypocarnivore is the bear, in which the shearing part of the carnassials teeth is radically reduced and the grinding parts of the molars are extremely broadened. A hypocarnivore tends to have a far more varied diet that includes meat, insects, fruits, and roots. In the most extreme case of hypocarnivory, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), which is an ursid, has become a dedicated bamboo eater.

“In between these two extremes, most of the carnivorans, including the majority of the canids, have teeth that are neither extremely hypercarnivorous nor particularly hypocarnivorous. We call these intermediate forms _mesocarnivores_.”

among the canids, some have dentition more towards the hypercarnivore end of the spectrum and some have dentition more towards the hypocarnivore end of the spectrum, though none are as extreme as bears or felines. this is what makes canines such adaptable animals in terms of diet. does this mean dogs are capable of eating vegetation as a survival mechanism only and that, ideally, they would eat only meat? or does this suggest that naturally their ideal diet would consist of both?

thank you all again.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Here is a picture of a Polar Bear's skull. Polar Bears are obligate carnivores.










Spring is almost here, and with it are the wild grasses that grow in my backyard. The dogs have taken up grazing as a past time out there, and guess what? It comes RIGHT back out the other end, same color, same shape, exact same way it went in.

And as Bill said, if their diet should ideally consist of both meat and plant matter, why would his dog have thrived for nearly 9 years without plant matter in her diet? She had no deficiencies, no vet care for problems other than liver cancer, and most danes, given their size, don't even live past 10 years old.


----------



## spookychick13 (Jan 26, 2010)

I think dogs eat veggies, grass and berries because they are there, and they like to gorge.

I see a lot of dogs in our practice who like to eat poop too...so...take from that what you will.

Look at Bill's dane at 11.
My spoo just turned 2 and he's in amazing condition (he's eaten PMR since he was about 7 months old. 
As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

If you want to bother feeding your dogs veggies because it will set your mind at ease, by all means, go for it. It's your own time/effort wasted.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

danecolor said:


> i have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests prey model raw is superior to kibble. i do not doubt that. it is obvious to me that feeding a variety of whole, raw foods in their natural form (or as close as possible) is most beneficial for health. however, i am still unsure as to whether or not a diet including raw meat and a small portion of raw vegetables is superior to one containing only meat.


That's easy enough to determine. Find out what nutrients are in plants that are not in animals. I'll save you some trouble. The answer is none. Plants do have carbohydrates (sugars) which are not necessary nor desirable in a carnivore's diet. Thats it. Thats the only thing. A carnivore body utilizes fat for energy the same way we utilize carbs.



> should i eventually decide to include vegetable matter in my dogs’ diet, i would not be cooking it as that does not replicate a natural source of nutrients and does in fact leech nutrients from the food, as was stated. i would also not be including large amounts of vegetable matter and most definitely not exclusively vegetable matter in the diet as that is obviously not natural either.


If you are going to stay natural and feed them plant matter, the only plants they would have access to would be grass, weeds, leaves, and twigs and berries in season. So if you feel a great need to feed veggies, feed those items. Wild carnivores don't eat carrots, squash, corn, wheat, rice, etc.



> instead, i am most interested in whether vegetable matter has merit as a small part of the diet and if not, why?


No, because there are no nutrients in vegetable matter that isn' t in the meat, bones, and organs of the prey animals that eat them.



> though dogs do not have a jaw capable of lateral grinding movement, they do have relatively flattened molars.


Go visit a vet's office. SOME vets have a model of a dog's mouth, teeth, & gums. Hold it in your hand. Work the mouth open and closed. Notice how the upper and lower rear teeth slide by each other like the blades of sissors. This will answer your question about grinding veggies. 



> is this enough to be able to sufficiently “chew” plants?


By reason of the above sentence, no.



> humans also cannot break down the cellulose cell wall of plants.


Of course we can. We do that while chewing. Thats why the food we swallow is a mush. It's ground up mush having already begun the digestive process. In dogs, digestion doesn't begin until the food reaches the stomach.



> why are vegetables a source of nutrients for us and not canines?


For the reasons stated in the preceeding sentence. 



> dogs do have amylase in the pancreas which aids in digestion of plant matter, so it is incorrect to say they are incapable of extracting some nutrients at least. i am not sure if these are significant amounts.


They do have a small amount secreted by the pancreas but not much at all. They can probably absorb A LITTLE amoount of nutrients from plants but it can't be much.



> as far as dogs eating plant matter based on taste alone: given that dogs have about one-sixth the number of taste buds that humans have, i find it hard to believe that they would eat unnecessary food solely based on taste.


I'm sure they can still taste sugar. Because they have fewer taste buds doesn't mean they have no taste at all.



> in my research, I have come to the understanding that there are many different types of carnivores.


This is where you are bringing smoke and mirrors into the discussion. We are not discussing many types of carnivores. We are discussing wolves/dogs. Don't confuse yourself by bringing other animals into the discussion.



> by definition, dogs are not obligate carnivores because they can survive on a vegetarian diet (though clearly this is not ideal). this is different from cats which will fail to thrive without meat (or at least the addition of artificial taurine) in the diet.


Anytime I see the term "obligate carnivore" I know I'm talking to someone who is going to try to convince me that a dog isn't a true carnivore. Cats must have meat for the taurine. Dogs produce their own taurine. Dogs and cats need to eat the same diet - meat, bones, and organs and nothing else.



> clearly, dogs are not omnivores. i am not disputing that in the slightest. however, i do not believe that being a carnivore alone is conclusive evidence that plant matter is not necessary in the diet.


Animals who require both animal and plant matter in their diet are called omnivores. You are overthinking this and confusing your own self. You just cannot accept the fact that dogs don't need veggies because you have been told all your life that you need your veggies to be healthy. For humans, that is a correct statement. For dogs, it isn't. Don't confuse human biology with canine biology. Our bodies are different and function differently. 

I'm not even going to comment on the balance of your post because you are confusing the issue and drifting off into never never land. We are discussing dogs and dogs alone. What other animals do is immaterial.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Dogs have amylase to digest the carbohydrates in meats. Tongue, liver and tripe all contain about 1 gram per ounce.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

:usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa:


----------



## danecolor (Nov 22, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> I'm not even going to comment on the balance of your post because you are confusing the issue and drifting off into never never land. We are discussing dogs and dogs alone. What other animals do is immaterial.


first of all, i just want to say there is no reason to be flippant. i am asking questions so that i may better understand the very conflicting opinions i have come across and make the best decision for my pets. i am not challenging your feeding ideology, simply seeking to understand it.

my point in discussing other animals was to show that being a carnivore does not necessarily suggest an animal eats nothing but 100% meat. there is variation among species, and canines are not generally classified as the most "extreme" type of carnivore like felines are.



RawFedDogs said:


> That's easy enough to determine. Find out what nutrients are in plants that are not in animals. I'll save you some trouble. The answer is none. Plants do have carbohydrates (sugars) which are not necessary nor desirable in a carnivore's diet. Thats it. Thats the only thing. A carnivore body utilizes fat for energy the same way we utilize carbs.


i understand this. my question is whether the proportions of nutrients are ideal in a purely meat diet. the world small animal veterinary association suggests that analysis of raw diets shows imbalances in calcium, phosphorus, zinc, magnesium and iron. how can this be avoided?





RawFedDogs said:


> Anytime I see the term "obligate carnivore" I know I'm talking to someone who is going to try to convince me that a dog isn't a true carnivore.


i am not trying to convince anyone of anything. as i stated, i am simply trying to educate myself to the point where i feel i can make an educated decision about whether or not a diet of animal matter alone will provide my dogs a balanced diet.




RawFedDogs said:


> Animals who require both animal and plant matter in their diet are called omnivores.


the dictionary is the only place i have seen the definition of omnivore and carnivore being so simplified. dentition and the structure of the digestive system, as well as evolutionary history, seem to have much more to do with whether an animal is classified as an omnivore or carnivore. as it has been stated many times on this forum, wolves often survive on plant matter in times of famine. i am sure we both agree this does not make them omnivores. pigs and humans are omnivores. if, for example, 10% of an animal's diet ideally consisted of vegetable matter i don't believe that alone would make them an omnivore.



RawFedDogs said:


> You are overthinking this and confusing your own self. You just cannot accept the fact that dogs don't need veggies because you have been told all your life that you need your veggies to be healthy. For humans, that is a correct statement. For dogs, it isn't. Don't confuse human biology with canine biology. Our bodies are different and function differently.


i am not confusing dogs with humans. i am quite aware that our biology is extremely different. what we seem to disagree on is whether being a carnivore and benefiting from some vegetable matter in the diet are mutually exclusive. by looking at several carnivore species, i would say that they are not. what i am trying to learn is whether dogs are one of those carnivore species that benefits from some plant matter in the diet. if there is good evidence that they are not, then i will be happy to feed PRM, as it is in fact a much simpler diet than BARF types. 

again, i am hear to learn, not to try to convince you or anyone else that their diet is wrong. i simply worry about nutrient imbalances and am hoping to be reassured that PRM will not produce any significant deficiencies if fed properly.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

danecolor said:


> first of all, i just want to say there is no reason to be flippant. i am asking questions so that i may better understand the very conflicting opinions i have come across and make the best decision for my pets. i am not challenging your feeding ideology, simply seeking to understand it.


The original question that I have been addressing is _"i do wonder, though, if a dog's diet could contain the proper proportions of nutrients without vegetable matter included in the diet."_ To the best of my ability I am trying to answer that question for you. Discussing other animals has nothing to do with the question as stated and is merely adding confuision to the original question.



> my point in discussing other animals was to show that being a carnivore does not necessarily suggest an animal eats nothing but 100% meat. there is variation among species, and canines are not generally classified as the most "extreme" type of carnivore like felines are.


As I stated eariler, the diet of a cat and dog are identical. The fact that cats are sometimes called "obligate" carnivores is for the purposes of the need for taurine only.



> my question is whether the proportions of nutrients are ideal in a purely meat diet. the world small animal veterinary association suggests that analysis of raw diets shows imbalances in calcium, phosphorus, zinc, magnesium and iron. how can this be avoided?


You said the magic words ... _"purely meat diet"_. Yes, a purely meat diet would have the mentioned deficiencies. No one here is suggesting a purely meat diet. Add in bones and organs and you have a balanced diet. Wolf/dog bodies have evolved for a million years to thrive on meat, bones, and organs. Nature always has a way to supply each organism with proper nutrition for sustaining a long healthy life. 

The question that you should ask is to have "world small animal veterinary association" (whoever they are) how they arrived at their information and prove their numbers are correct. Why don't you question them instead of questioning nature?



> i am not trying to convince anyone of anything. as i stated, i am simply trying to educate myself to the point where i feel i can make an educated decision about whether or not a diet of animal matter alone will provide my dogs a balanced diet.


I just don't understand why you would doubt it. The evidence is overwhelming.



> the dictionary is the only place i have seen the definition of omnivore and carnivore being so simplified. dentition and the structure of the digestive system, as well as evolutionary history, seem to have much more to do with whether an animal is classified as an omnivore or carnivore.


Exactly. Thats what I have been saying. Everything in the dogs body points to meat, bones, and organs. NOTHING points toward eating plants in any form.

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. Dogs have large 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). Dogs don't have flat teeth anywhere in their mouth.

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. Dogs cannot move their lower jaws horizontally.

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. Dogs make only a tiny amount of amylaze.

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. Dogs have the carnivore jaw in this case.

6. Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices. Dogs have stomach juices 10 times as acidic as a human.

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. Dogs have short intestines.

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. Dogs chew as a carnivore in this example.

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.



> as it has been stated many times on this forum, wolves often survive on plant matter in times of famine.


Wolves can survive for a short time on plant matter but I have never seen it happen in nature. Yes, wolves will eat some tasty berries when in season but I have never seen an account of a reputable scientist observing wild wolves eating any measurable amount of plant matter in any situation.



> if, for example, 10% of an animal's diet ideally consisted of vegetable matter i don't believe that alone would make them an omnivore.


If they are eating the veggies in order to be more healthy i would definatly classify them as omnivores.



> what we seem to disagree on is whether being a carnivore and benefiting from some vegetable matter in the diet are mutually exclusive.


Yes, I think we do disagree here. :smile:



> by looking at several carnivore species, i would say that they are not. what i am trying to learn is whether dogs are one of those carnivore species that benefits from some plant matter in the diet. if there is good evidence that they are not, then i will be happy to feed PRM, as it is in fact a much simpler diet than BARF types.


You, in fact, have seen a LOT of good evidence that they are not benefiting. What you won't see is unbiased scientific research pointing to that because none exists. Again, find some needed nutrients that are in plant matter that isn't in prey animal bodies and you might can make a case. 



> again, i am hear to learn, not to try to convince you or anyone else that their diet is wrong. i simply worry about nutrient imbalances and am hoping to be reassured that PRM will not produce any significant deficiencies if fed properly.


Well that opens a whole new can of worms. Exactly what is balance? Who determines it? How accurate is it? Why does it change from time to time? To me balance is contained in the body of a prey animal. If that were not the case wolves wouldn't have thrived on that diet for a million years. Wild wolves today are still thriving on the same meat, bones, and organs as their ancestors did a million years ago.

Again, I have fed my 11 year old Great Dane, Abby, on a meat, bones, and organ diet without any plant matter for 9 years and she has only shown good health all that time. Eventhough she has liver cancer right now, she still goes on walks with us and runs through the pasture chasing rabbits and squirrels and birds. She doesn't chase them as far as she used to but heck, she's 11 years old. I'm proud of my old girl. :biggrin:


----------



## danecolor (Nov 22, 2010)

what i am taking away from your last post is that while a PMR diet might have some "imbalance" it's not significant enough to cause detriment to health, and this would be the same for any diet, including BARF types. i know my own diet likely lacks the proper proportions of many nutrients but not to the point of deficiency or any significant detriment to my health. exact proportions aren't guaranteed with this diet but neither are they with any diet, and exact proportions are relative anyway. in any case, a PMR diet is superior to kibble full of unecessary fillers like potato and corn. and if my dogs are lacking anything from meat, bones and organs, there is plenty of grass out back for my carnivores to graze on should they so choose :biggrin: 

this makes sense to me, thank you.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

If you want to analyze you can. 
AAFCO standards.
Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985
NRC standards, this are old but more up to date than AAFCO.
Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985
USDAA
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
Which is more easily used here, you can make up recipes and save foods.
Nutrition facts, calories in food, labels, nutritional information and analysis – NutritionData.com
And here are some meaty bone numbers
Raw Meaty Bones Analysis

If you do the work you will see that a raw diet with the right amount of bone and organ and including quite a bit of red meat is not just mostly good but exacly right.


----------

