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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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...

 

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!!!)

 

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:

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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

LOL




(tooshort)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 : )

 

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

Good. We agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.