Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dogs - General Dog Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Beanie's Avatar
Beanie Beanie is offline
Clicker Cult Coordinator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 13,257
Default

Wow. Usually studies of this kind have been done as scatology studies examining what things ARE eaten rather than looking at genetic studies of what CAN be eaten. The genetic side of it is oddly fascinating to me.
__________________


Auggie - The Flash RN NAJ MXP MJP CGC
Payton - Sharp Dressed Man NA NAJ CGC
Pepper - Chocolate Swizz-l-icious
& the pest, Georgie - Peach Pudding N Pie NA OAJ
The Sheltiechick Blog
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-23-2013, 07:30 PM
GoingNowhere's Avatar
GoingNowhere GoingNowhere is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,660
Default

fascinating! It took me awhile to scout out the full text article, but after going through my university, I managed to find it and it's an interesting read (PM if you'd like). It only became available online today.

Thanks for sharing - I went ahead and shared it with my genetics professor who I thought might get a kick out of it.
__________________
-GoingNowhere



My Hiking Blog: http://thehikinghokie.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-23-2013, 09:31 PM
Pops2 Pops2 is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UT
Posts: 3,067
Default

Just because they CAN digest a lot more starch doesn't mean they SHOULD. Just like you & I can digest high fructose corn syrup, but there are definite downsides to doing so.
It only confirms my conviction that dogs did not evolve from wolves.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-23-2013, 09:42 PM
Red.Apricot's Avatar
Red.Apricot Red.Apricot is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pops2 View Post
Just because they CAN digest a lot more starch doesn't mean they SHOULD. Just like you & I can digest high fructose corn syrup, but there are definite downsides to doing so.
It only confirms my conviction that dogs did not evolve from wolves.
What do you think they evolved from? Is there evidence for a different origin?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-23-2013, 10:02 PM
Pops2 Pops2 is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UT
Posts: 3,067
Default

IF you believe in evolution, there is pretty good evidence they evolved from a common ancestor rather than directly from wolves.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-23-2013, 10:09 PM
Red.Apricot's Avatar
Red.Apricot Red.Apricot is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pops2 View Post
IF you believe in evolution, there is pretty good evidence they evolved from a common ancestor rather than directly from wolves.
Well it would obviously be impossible for them to have evolved from modern wolves (like, the ones alive on the planet now). I don't think anyone thinks otherwise?

But the common ancestor of wolves and dogs is very recent and would have been much much more like modern wolves than it would have been like modern dogs. ETA: so much like modern/on the planet today wolves that, were they transported here in a time machine, they would in all likelihood have been called wolves.

Are you saying that you don't think evolution happens, and so the whole comparison is a bunch of hogwash?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:38 AM
Linds's Avatar
Linds Linds is offline
Twin 2
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,679
Default

Very cool!

I've always been a vegetable inclusive raw feeder so it's nice to have a little bit of science back up what I've always kinda thought about them being true scavengers.

It always amazed me how when I would talk to a raw feeder and say I fed veggies I would get the look. Now I feel validated
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:47 AM
release the hounds release the hounds is online now
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,025
Default

The only look I think of when feeding veggies in RAW is the look of the poop, it always changes color depending on the veggies
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:50 AM
PWCorgi's Avatar
PWCorgi PWCorgi is offline
Priscilla Winifred Corgi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Twin Citay!
Posts: 14,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by release the hounds View Post
The only look I think of when feeding veggies in RAW is the look of the poop, it always changes color depending on the veggies
Can't say I've ever had that issue. My dog's diet is about 5% veggies and if they're broken down correctly they aren't going to show in the poop. If I feed him a whole carrot, yeah he craps orange, but the veggies that have been cut down through a processor seem to digest just fine.
__________________

Ado's Gimme Victory RL1* "Siri"
1.5 year old Jack Russell Terrier
Gimme Drugs Not Hugs RL1 "Frodo"
8 year old Pembroke Welsh Corgi


*All Siri's rally/obedience titles are to be considered handled by Megan,
because ain't nobody (read: me) got time or skills fo' dat.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-24-2013, 12:07 PM
Lyzelle's Avatar
Lyzelle Lyzelle is online now
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,681
Default

In a way, I'm not surprised, but in another I'm not really sure what this is supposed to change anyway. Humans have no species-specific diet, but there are a lot of things we *can* digest that aren't necessarily good for us, such as grains and starches. In no way does this mean dogs should have a diet high in starch or carbs, but it's the same as it has always been. Feed your dog according to it's own personal needs. Some dogs, some breeds, are slightly different than others when it comes to nutrition. Siberian Huskies typically do better on fish, for example. That was their diet for a couple thousand years, so it's natural that their bodies would have optimized in order to get the most out of that diet. And some cons, too, such as being more sensitive to a diet lacking copper and zinc, since the diet they became acclimated to was so high in it. Really no different from some humans who can tolerate cow milk(unnatural to humans), but most can't. How some people handle carbs or grains better than others.

So, in the big picture, I really don't think it has changed anything at all. Amylase is still a protein that turns starch into sugar, and then maltase breaks it down into a more simple sugar. Sugar carries little to no nutritional benefit at all, and these proteins aren't extracting any nutritional benefit from it. No minerals, no vitamins. If anything, sugar is converted to fat, and the dog's body would simply then burn the usable stand-by body fat in lean times, while still starving on a molecular level from the lack of nutrients. Common enough for a scavenger.

In no way would I see "oh, they can digest this, so they must NEED IT". I mean, scavengers can also digest rotting, vile meat. Do you think there's any nutritional value or need to feed your dog rotting meat? Probably not. They can have it, but it's not like it's any better for them to have it over fresh meat.

So I guess I really don't see how anything has changed at all, except maybe proving it, I guess.
__________________
Zander and HarleyQuinn
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site