Dogs have been hanging out with human beings for a very long time, between 15,000 and 33,000 years, perhaps even as long as 100,000 years by some estimations.
Let us take the conservative figure: 15,000 years ago is 5000 dog generations, since a dog can reproduce at 3 years of age. My dog Tango doesn't even have gonads and she is 3 years and 2 months old and has been presenting herself to me for at least 2 years in the most shameless way that you can imagine. [ Too bad for her because she is not my type, but I love her anyway. (:->) ] 5000 human generations would be 80,000 doggie years, assuming that primitive 16 year old girls would be ready to reproduce. 80,000 years is a lot of evolution.
If we take the longer estimate of 33,000 years ago, then we come up with 176,000 years of evolution. Either figure means that dog's metabolism could easily adapt to what human beings have been eating for those 15,000 to 33,000 years.
My dog Tango will eat just about anything: apples, apple cores, meat, kefir (last to be eaten in her doggie bowl), shoes, sandals, Christmas ornaments, gravy, commercial dog food made with grains, commercial dog food made with sweet potatoes, etc. etc. It is not possible that wolves ate grains in the wild. It is possible that wolves ate proto-sweet potatoes in the wild, along with elk, deer, rabbits, etc.
I have switched from the cheap grain and meat based commercial dog food to the more expensive sweet potato and meat based commercial dog food. If there were a pure meat commercial dog food, I might consider buying it.
Roger Bird
dogs
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: dogs
The oldest evidence I found was 12,000 years - article here:
http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/dever/dog_evo.pdf
But I can believe it may be longer.
Evolution is slow though, in nature. It takes about 50,000 generations to effect a standard deviation that is significant.
Under selective breeding by humans it is different - art least for polygene effects. Those account for the differences of "intensity" of characteristics - such as size, length etc. and thus the difference btween a chihuahua and a great dane.
But other genes called major genes, code for specific discrete tings, sich as for example an enzyme needed for digestion which is either there or not there- it is not an amount issue.
SO while dogs can vary a lot under human sleection criteria the variation is not basic enough to affect their overall metabolism. Dogs hvae indeed developed some TOLERANCE fro toxins that sows morein some breeds than others. Fore example, Siberian Huskies are closer to the wild dog genetically than many other breeds, and the result is their tolerance to toxibs is much less. Vets must accoutn for this in using drugs or anesthetics, and they can tiolerate less food toxins as well.
SO when you think that it is okay to feed yor dog humnan fgood instead of food the dog can actually use for health, it is not really a good idea. Being able to TOLERATE somethig is nbot anywhere like the same as being able to BENEFIT form it - or even to be neutral.
It is the same with cats - their small intestine is actually a little bit longer than it used to be before domestication - except in the newer breeds like Bengals, Savannahs etc who are closer to the wild genetics. These latter cats get sick and succumb to human toxins sooner..but they all succumb.
SO the wrong food does not do dogs or cats any GOOD - some of them tolerate it better than others without visible symptoms though it will destroy their kidneys over time. (Can also cause liver failu\re depending on RATE of toxin feeding.) It is not for nothing that domestic dogs and cats have chronic kidney disease/failure as the leading medical cause of death. It is from all the forced incorrect food.
"Tolerated" food is not beneficial. Kidneys have 75% overdesign at birth but if you feed wrong food all the time becasue it LOOKS like the dog eats it and does not drop dead immediately - that does not mean it is good food. The kidneys gradually get damaged till they fail.
Would YOU knowingly eat toxins daily rather than known beneficial food?
Why should your dog or cat be different?
But is that a fair thing to encourage?
It is possible but unlikely. Their prey however, would likely have contained grains in the gut of the prey, so the would be exposed to grain proteins/DNA.
NOt really possible.
Food has to be digested, not just swallowed. Either the ability to digest it is there, or it is not. Prey of dogs are not likely to be eating sweet potato.
When the food can not be digested, the most it can do is to feed the gut bacteria. That is a relevant thing but it does NOT provide calories or protein etc to the dog. It is relevant becasue in the case of sweet potato the gut bacteria can extract carotene which the dog can absorb, and dogs need carotene for the immuen system cells in the gut area. But there are other componenets that are toxic in sweet potato. A very tiny amount therefore can provide the needed carotene via the gut bactgeria (it cannot be digested by the dog) , but more would do kidney harm in too high amounts to sustain over time. The toxins have to be dealt with and they will reduce the dog's general health.
GIven the choice bwteen a small amont of grain adn a small amount of sweet potatol I'd use more grain (as rice for example has no dog toxins) and less sweet potaqto =- I'd use a tiny bit of pumpkin for carotene - less toxins than sweet potato, and more easy to process.
Check out cat foods they have higher meat content if you huynt them down.
(Redmoonpetfood makes a chicken and salmon one without potato but it is expensibve)
Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/dever/dog_evo.pdf
But I can believe it may be longer.
Evolution is slow though, in nature. It takes about 50,000 generations to effect a standard deviation that is significant.
Under selective breeding by humans it is different - art least for polygene effects. Those account for the differences of "intensity" of characteristics - such as size, length etc. and thus the difference btween a chihuahua and a great dane.
But other genes called major genes, code for specific discrete tings, sich as for example an enzyme needed for digestion which is either there or not there- it is not an amount issue.
SO while dogs can vary a lot under human sleection criteria the variation is not basic enough to affect their overall metabolism. Dogs hvae indeed developed some TOLERANCE fro toxins that sows morein some breeds than others. Fore example, Siberian Huskies are closer to the wild dog genetically than many other breeds, and the result is their tolerance to toxibs is much less. Vets must accoutn for this in using drugs or anesthetics, and they can tiolerate less food toxins as well.
SO when you think that it is okay to feed yor dog humnan fgood instead of food the dog can actually use for health, it is not really a good idea. Being able to TOLERATE somethig is nbot anywhere like the same as being able to BENEFIT form it - or even to be neutral.
It is the same with cats - their small intestine is actually a little bit longer than it used to be before domestication - except in the newer breeds like Bengals, Savannahs etc who are closer to the wild genetics. These latter cats get sick and succumb to human toxins sooner..but they all succumb.
SO the wrong food does not do dogs or cats any GOOD - some of them tolerate it better than others without visible symptoms though it will destroy their kidneys over time. (Can also cause liver failu\re depending on RATE of toxin feeding.) It is not for nothing that domestic dogs and cats have chronic kidney disease/failure as the leading medical cause of death. It is from all the forced incorrect food.
"Tolerated" food is not beneficial. Kidneys have 75% overdesign at birth but if you feed wrong food all the time becasue it LOOKS like the dog eats it and does not drop dead immediately - that does not mean it is good food. The kidneys gradually get damaged till they fail.
Would YOU knowingly eat toxins daily rather than known beneficial food?
Why should your dog or cat be different?
But is that a fair thing to encourage?
It is possible but unlikely. Their prey however, would likely have contained grains in the gut of the prey, so the would be exposed to grain proteins/DNA.
NOt really possible.
Food has to be digested, not just swallowed. Either the ability to digest it is there, or it is not. Prey of dogs are not likely to be eating sweet potato.
When the food can not be digested, the most it can do is to feed the gut bacteria. That is a relevant thing but it does NOT provide calories or protein etc to the dog. It is relevant becasue in the case of sweet potato the gut bacteria can extract carotene which the dog can absorb, and dogs need carotene for the immuen system cells in the gut area. But there are other componenets that are toxic in sweet potato. A very tiny amount therefore can provide the needed carotene via the gut bactgeria (it cannot be digested by the dog) , but more would do kidney harm in too high amounts to sustain over time. The toxins have to be dealt with and they will reduce the dog's general health.
GIven the choice bwteen a small amont of grain adn a small amount of sweet potatol I'd use more grain (as rice for example has no dog toxins) and less sweet potaqto =- I'd use a tiny bit of pumpkin for carotene - less toxins than sweet potato, and more easy to process.
Check out cat foods they have higher meat content if you huynt them down.
(Redmoonpetfood makes a chicken and salmon one without potato but it is expensibve)
Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Hennie Duits
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:00 pm
-
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:00 pm
Re: dogs
The only way to do that is to have live prey in the backyad for the dogs to kill.
The animal activists will be on your tail so fast, you would not know what hit you, even if you just bred mice and let them loose as prey.
SO it is NOT possible to feed what a wolf would eat.
Feeding meat slaughtered a long time ago and drained of blood, and without the organs and intestinal contents and blood of the prey, is not even close to wild food.
In fact the bacteria on the meat surface start doubling in number in the first 20 minutes, and keep doubling. While they grow, they make toxins that remain on the meat surface, degrading it abd also providing toxins to be swallowed if this raw stuff is fed, in the false belief that it is anything like what a wolf would eat.
Rinsing and cooking the meat surface helps a lot. But we have a world of fanatics with no microbiology classes running the show, and you find all kinds or "raw" food advocates.
Raw food is bad unless it is fresh-slaughtered - as in slaughtered within the past 20 minutes. It is less of an issue for dogs than for cats as dogs can tolerate some bad meat, unlike cats.
But to feed bad mest regularly is not smart and leads to the usual kidney disease issues.
So raw food is not smart. It needs to be rinsed and surface-cooked before feeding. The bacteria do not get inside the meat - they grow on the surface - so you can feed it raw inside or cooked inside and it has the identical nutrient valiue. If you feed it raw, the nutrient values is significantly less as the bacteria toxins on the surface, use up the antioxidants of the dog, which get destroyed in the process of reacting chemically with toxins to destroy them.
Cooking does NOT change the nutrient value other than to improve it. (Note I said cooking not overcooking)
It's not like there are any enzymes in meat - those come from plants only.
You also run a risk of food poisoning from excess salmonella, shigells etc if you feed raw meat - in other words if you would not eat it raw, nor should your dog, adn cats shoudl NEVER get raw meat - unless the dog/cat did the slaughter - there are no bacteria growing for twenty minutes after killing. There are plenty growing in the fridge and before it gets there., and after it leaves there.
Actually it is not.
Raw is bad for the above reasons.
Meat and bone are NOT a proper diet.
There is gut content of prey which provides - via beneficial gut bacteria - the necessary butyrate, propionate and acetate that keeps the carnivore's immune system, gut and internal organs functional. That also is how they get the vitamins we get from plants - made by gut bacteria (except Vit C which both dogs and cats can manufacture for themselevs) . There is no fermentable fiber in meat or bones - nor is there suitable fat - nor is the meat profile equal to the wild prey with the blood and organ meats included. Without suitable fermentable fiber (which is different for cats and for dogs) the beneficial bacteria cannot live and do their essental job for carnivores.
SO - basically - raw meat and bones is nutritionally inadequate, however well meant it is by the non-biologists who invent it.
Cooked meat, clean raw bones, species-appropriate fermentable fiber, some organ meat, fish oil, chicken fat, and a carotene source like well cooked pumpkin, would be a lot better as a basic approach.
Namaste,
Irene
The animal activists will be on your tail so fast, you would not know what hit you, even if you just bred mice and let them loose as prey.
SO it is NOT possible to feed what a wolf would eat.
Feeding meat slaughtered a long time ago and drained of blood, and without the organs and intestinal contents and blood of the prey, is not even close to wild food.
In fact the bacteria on the meat surface start doubling in number in the first 20 minutes, and keep doubling. While they grow, they make toxins that remain on the meat surface, degrading it abd also providing toxins to be swallowed if this raw stuff is fed, in the false belief that it is anything like what a wolf would eat.
Rinsing and cooking the meat surface helps a lot. But we have a world of fanatics with no microbiology classes running the show, and you find all kinds or "raw" food advocates.
Raw food is bad unless it is fresh-slaughtered - as in slaughtered within the past 20 minutes. It is less of an issue for dogs than for cats as dogs can tolerate some bad meat, unlike cats.
But to feed bad mest regularly is not smart and leads to the usual kidney disease issues.
So raw food is not smart. It needs to be rinsed and surface-cooked before feeding. The bacteria do not get inside the meat - they grow on the surface - so you can feed it raw inside or cooked inside and it has the identical nutrient valiue. If you feed it raw, the nutrient values is significantly less as the bacteria toxins on the surface, use up the antioxidants of the dog, which get destroyed in the process of reacting chemically with toxins to destroy them.
Cooking does NOT change the nutrient value other than to improve it. (Note I said cooking not overcooking)
It's not like there are any enzymes in meat - those come from plants only.
You also run a risk of food poisoning from excess salmonella, shigells etc if you feed raw meat - in other words if you would not eat it raw, nor should your dog, adn cats shoudl NEVER get raw meat - unless the dog/cat did the slaughter - there are no bacteria growing for twenty minutes after killing. There are plenty growing in the fridge and before it gets there., and after it leaves there.
Actually it is not.
Raw is bad for the above reasons.
Meat and bone are NOT a proper diet.
There is gut content of prey which provides - via beneficial gut bacteria - the necessary butyrate, propionate and acetate that keeps the carnivore's immune system, gut and internal organs functional. That also is how they get the vitamins we get from plants - made by gut bacteria (except Vit C which both dogs and cats can manufacture for themselevs) . There is no fermentable fiber in meat or bones - nor is there suitable fat - nor is the meat profile equal to the wild prey with the blood and organ meats included. Without suitable fermentable fiber (which is different for cats and for dogs) the beneficial bacteria cannot live and do their essental job for carnivores.
SO - basically - raw meat and bones is nutritionally inadequate, however well meant it is by the non-biologists who invent it.
Cooked meat, clean raw bones, species-appropriate fermentable fiber, some organ meat, fish oil, chicken fat, and a carotene source like well cooked pumpkin, would be a lot better as a basic approach.
Namaste,
Irene
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: dogs
what I do not addressed in this (or many other similar discussions) is the use of GMO fed meat sources.
we do know the cheapest foods will be from CAFOs that feed massive amounts of GE grains to the animals
and that can/will transfer into our pets’ foods.
given what we already know from independent research and industry whistleblowers, GMO food will have
a distinct negative impact on mammals in their livers, kidney, reproductive organs, cancer promotion, shortened
lives, etc.
I would stay clear of any food that does not meet the non-GMO certification standard.
t
From: caramos@sympatico.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:15 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] dogs
Sent from my iPhone
we do know the cheapest foods will be from CAFOs that feed massive amounts of GE grains to the animals
and that can/will transfer into our pets’ foods.
given what we already know from independent research and industry whistleblowers, GMO food will have
a distinct negative impact on mammals in their livers, kidney, reproductive organs, cancer promotion, shortened
lives, etc.
I would stay clear of any food that does not meet the non-GMO certification standard.
t
From: caramos@sympatico.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:15 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] dogs
Sent from my iPhone
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: dogs
I know numerous people who are very holistic who feed deer and other wild game.
They do not vaccinate, use nutrition for healing along with homeopathy and ABF remedies, etc.
Despite Irene’s cautions, they feed and promote raw, species appropriate diets, organic as best
possible. There success is mirrored thru generations of dogs that are extremely healthy for long
years.
t
From: J
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:42 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] dogs
I feed my dog mostly deer meat and he is extremely healthy
Julie
Sent from my iPhone
They do not vaccinate, use nutrition for healing along with homeopathy and ABF remedies, etc.
Despite Irene’s cautions, they feed and promote raw, species appropriate diets, organic as best
possible. There success is mirrored thru generations of dogs that are extremely healthy for long
years.
t
From: J
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:42 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] dogs
I feed my dog mostly deer meat and he is extremely healthy
Julie
Sent from my iPhone