# Dogs... carnivores or omnivores?



## rapnek74 (Mar 19, 2009)

What are your opinions on this? Some places you look you see them being carnivores and some places say they are omnivores. I have an idea why the big dog food companys want them to be called omnivores but would like to have your opinions.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Based on the most recent research into (and IMO most compelling argument about) the evolution of dogs, I'd actually say they are omnivores. You could argue they're carnivores based on their teeth or phylogenetic classification but both those arguments could equally be applied to bears which are clearly functional omnivores - and in many cases consume very little actual meat at all.

But of course that does NOT mean I think dogs should be fed a primarily corn based diet.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

My dogs are clearly omnivores no matter that the current kick is to classify them as carnivores. My dogs forage on their own for fruits and vegetables in my yard, plus they get potatoes and sweet potatoes in their diet every single day and do extremely well.

Any sort of hard fruit or vegetable isn't going to be digested very well without being pureed first, but the softer more mushy ones are. In the natural state, they would be eating the very ripe ones to aid in digestion.


----------



## GSD4LIFE21 (Mar 8, 2007)

I would love to see opinions on both sides of this.


----------



## rapnek74 (Mar 19, 2009)

If a dog was to be classified as a carnivore, that would have a huge effect on the dog food business. I have done a lot of study on it over the last few days and I still am confused. From all the information I have read.... the digestive system of a dog does not do well with corn and other grains. If a dog food company had to purchase better ingredients to make this food then the profit would go down which would mean less money they can give for dog shows and other events they sponsor. It would mean less money they can throw at the vet offices for them to recommend their brand of foods. Of course I believe it would mean we would have a lot of happier and healthier pets.... which would mean that the average Joe could no longer afford pet food and their dogs would be on the street which is an even larger problem. 

Ok, lets hear the rest of the story from some of you guys.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I say carnivores. Dogs and wolves evolved to eat animal matter. Just because an animal can or will eat something does not mean that should classify the species. They are opportunistic and will eat whatever food they can find if necessary.

My Golden Retriever loved bread and pasta over all other foods. If she had the ability she would have foraged for bread and eaten it even if there was meat available. She would also eat other types of grain if she could get it, even bird seed from my bird feeder. Does that mean she was a herbivore, or a "granivore"? I don't think so.


----------



## GSD4LIFE21 (Mar 8, 2007)

I lean towards carnivore as well. But I am open minded and may change my mind if I come accross hard evidence that they are omnivores. But I think if it takes lots of processing and us having to break down the plant cell walls to get them to be digestable, then they probably naturally dont need plants.


----------



## windwalker718 (Oct 9, 2008)

At first glance people would think Carnivore... but Wild wolves generally eat the stomach and it's contents ASAP, thus consuming veggies also. I know that my guys eat grass every chance they get and Again wolves will consume nuts, berries and such as well as meat.

As far as the Dog food business... for far too long dogs have been fed kibble. Either corn or wheat based in most cases. The meat content was way down the list too often. The pendulum has swung way over to the other extreme now with the new RAW diet craze. Some people going to 100% meat diets. 

Most likely the best diet for the domestic dog is somewhere in the middle. 

When I fed a lot of dogs (10-20) I usually had a pot of "Dog stew" in the fridge. After family dinner everything on the plates got scraped into the pot... meat, veggies, taters whatever. I didn't include huge amounts of greasy drippings, though a bit of bacon fat or such was no problem. This got Heated up and added to the kibble that they were fed moistened with hot water, and left to sit for 1/2 an hour to cool. (I use Blue Seal Natural 26 btw) The dogs seemed to do well no matter if they were house dogs or kennel dogs. Even now I generally dump whatever's left from Dinner into the blender with some hot water, zap it and add it to the kibble. 

Knock on wood... I've not had problems with allergies, dry coats, loose stools etc.. and the gang vacuums up their dinner every night. As the old axiom goes... if it ain't broke don't fix it.


----------



## LuvWorkingGSDs (Aug 24, 2008)

Dogs are carnivores, BUT they are also opportunistic scavengers. This means given the opportunity they will eat just about anything in the right situation. (celery is the only exception for my dog, although my husband also tends to agree with her that it's not a food item )

Just because your dog will choose to eat non-meat items doesn't make them an omnivore. 

Just because they may benefit in certain situations from non-meat foods doesn't make them an omnivore either. 

Would you feed a horse meat? No, of course not. Could you? Well, sure if you pre-digested it properly with the right enzymes. Same goes for veggies and dogs (loosely, but for this point I think it works). We pulverize them to destroy the cell wall so that the dogs can benefit from them. This is the part that dog's bodies can't properly achieve themselves...so we are essentially pre-digesting it for them.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

For those of you saying "carnivore" how are you defnining these terms? Are you basing this on where the animal is on the evolutionary family tree or what the animal does if left to its own devices? 



> Quote:Just because your dog will choose to eat non-meat items doesn't make them an omnivore.


Why not? 

What would you consider a bear to be? 

And I don't mean to sound argumentative!







It's just an interesting question of whether we're talking behavior or semantics.


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)

Carnovores with omnivorous leanings. meaning, the dogfood companies lose here. Corn is not something a wolf or dog would consume as the main part of it's diet. (and remember, this "corn" in the dogfood is NOT the kind of succulent, juicy corn we eat, but rather the tough-as-nails, fibrous, hard, impervious "corn" fed to ruminants such as cattle-- it is CHEAP, and hard to digest, therefore makes poops HUGE and dogs often itchy)

My dog eats raw. Most of his meal is meat and bones with a bit of organ meat. What else goes in? Yes, a little blob of pureed spinach. Sometimes a teeny bit of pureed carrots. (dogs can not break down plant cell walls the way we can, so it's gotta be pureed/mashed up or frozen & thawed into a glop). Sometimes it's mashed red currants or peach or apple. Sometimes kale. It's a tiny amount of these things when he gets them. Sure, yogurt, salmon oil, vitamin E and brewer's yeast gets added. But, mainly, it's meat and bones and organs. 

The dogfood companies want you to buy their dogfood without thinking too closely about the main ingredients often being "corn, rice, wheat gluten...."


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: BrightelfCarnovores with omnivorous leanings.


i pretty much think along these lines. so, primarily carivorous. wolves will eat the stomach contents usually with smaller prey where they are eating almost the entire carcass, in which case they are getting little plant material anyway. with larger prey they will leave the stomach contents unless they feel they need to consume more after consuming most of the meaty parts of the kill.

it sure seems that dogs who have been experiencing the BARF/RAW diet "craze" are enjoying very good health and vitality. of course, all the marketing is not going to be slanted in that direction since it doesnt serve the purposes of the pet food industry.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cats are known to be obligate carnivores yet still enjoy munching on grass, the occasional berry, etc... But it does not make up a significant portion of their diet, nor can it make up a significant portion of their diet without causing severe health issues. That munching doesn't make cats omnivores, so why would the same tendencies make dogs omnivores? 

IMO, dogs are carnivores. They may munch on the occasional veggie, fruit, grass but do not seek it out as a primary part of their diet nor will such a diet sustain a dog in optimum condition. The only reason dogs are able to do well on plant/grain based dog foods is because those foods have been significantly altered from their natural state in order to allow the dog to digest and absorb nutrition. Plants and grains in their natural state have almost no nutritional value to a dog because they are primarily undigestible for a dog. Wild canids do not go around eating grass, bark and whatever else when meat is scarce because they know it is not sufficient nor a viable alternative. 

Bears DO seek out those things as a primary part of their diet, as do raccoons and other true omnivores. And they can function quite well on a diet composed of more plants than meat because their bodies are designed to handle it. If meat is available, they'll eat it. If not, they'll find something else and do fine with it. Not the case with dogs or cats.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Chris Wild The only reason dogs are able to do well on plant/grain based dog foods is because those foods have been significantly altered from their natural state in order to allow the dog to digest and absorb nutrition. Plants and grains in their natural state have almost no nutritional value to a dog because they are primarily undigestible for a dog.


right on. yes, my dog munches on grass occasionally. however, when she poops, there it sits, interwoven with the rest of the fecal matter, undigested.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: roxy84
> 
> right on. yes, my dog munches on grass occasionally. however, when she poops, there it sits, interwoven with the rest of the fecal matter, undigested.


Yup! Same here. Completely intact strands of grass in the poop. Then there's the little orange "glitter" in the poop when they get carrots. They love carrots as a snack, but the carrots come out the back end in a chewed, but otherwise intact and obviously not digested state.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I mostly agree with this. 

But:


> Quote:Wild canids do not go around eating grass, bark and whatever else when meat is scarce because they know it is not sufficient nor a viable alternative.


That's not actually true. I've done scat analysis for work on wolf, coyote, and fox scats and while wolves are primarily carnivorous, foxes and coyotes actually eat quite a lot of non-meat items as part of their normal diet.

I'm just throwing these different things out there because these kinds of determinations aren't as clear cut as our biology textbooks want to make them. While I completely agree about cats (and felids generally) being obligate carnivores, the case for many other members of Carnivora is not nearly so clear cut. While most of us agree that in spite of their tooth morphology bears are omnivores, their guts aren't actually especially well-designed for digesting plant matter, but like dogs, they do well enough. I think the previous poster's analogy about horses is faulty because horses simply aren't going to eat meat if left to their own devices, but dogs will certainly eat (and digest) a lot of non-meat if given the opportunity. And based on the most recent evolutionary theories, dogs really aren't wolves and haven't been for a very very long time. It looks like they spent thousands of years living on the margins of human civilizations scavenging scraps - and one assumes that probably comprised a varied diet of both meat and vegetable discards. 

Now, again, that doesn't mean I think dogs do best on a diet of corn-based kibble any more than I think children do best on a diet of white bread, just trying to explain where I'd classify dogs as a biologist. It is tricky though!


----------



## aubie (Dec 22, 2008)

I think if you look at their physical characteristics I'd lean more toward carnivore...

The teeth type, eye and ear placement, body build for hunting would lean to a primarily predatory or carnivorous lifestyle. Some might say they are an obligate carnivore: An obligate carnivore is an animal that by its genetic makeup must eat the tissue of other animals in order to thrive. Obligate carnivores may eat other foods, such as vegetables, grains, or fruit, but they must eat meat as the main source of their nutrients.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:right on. yes, my dog munches on grass occasionally. however, when she poops, there it sits, interwoven with the rest of the fecal matter, undigested.


True but people are clearly omnivores and their digestive systems can't do much with grass either. Grass digestion requires some specific digestive skills. Dogs certainly aren't obligate herbivores! I don't think anyone's arguing that.


----------



## LuvWorkingGSDs (Aug 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:Just because your dog will choose to eat non-meat items doesn't make them an omnivore.
> ...


Because dogs can't extract the necessary nutrients from the non-meat items unless they are 'pre-digested' in some way. A dog's digestive system is not set up to properly process non-meat items. Their jaw does not allow side to side movement, they are deficient in enzymes necessary to digest large amounts of carbohydrates, and the digestive tract itself just isn't long enough.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm interested to know how people define omnivores then because most of the things you just said apply equally as well to bears and raccoons for example. People seem to be comparing dogs to herbivores, and clearly the two are very different. But dogs seem to match up pretty closely to other omnivores within carnivora. They can't make the kind of use of vegetable matter than an ungulate or other herbivore could, but then neither can bears or people. Dogs can and do process and derive calories from a variety of non-meat food sources. What ratio is optimum and what sources are optimum is another issue. And we've got to remember evolution is not static - a species doesn't arrive fully formed and then stay put. I think you could make a pretty good case that dogs started out as primarily carnivores (aka wolves) and gradually shifted their dietary habits as they developed a relationship with people and became scavengers. This is certainly not without precedent - prehistoric bears were far more carnivorous than modern ones (not because of a relationship with people, just because of changing food sources). 

Species evolve to fill a niche. As humans stopped wandering and became more stationary, refuse middens became a good source of low energy expenditure food and now we get dogs. 

Again - definitely not arguing that dogs should be vegetarian or that crappy kibble diets are good, just trying to examine these definitions and a lot of our assumptions more carefully. I think as people we like to put things in clearly defined boxes and it has always bothered me that high school and even some college level biology classes tend to affirm that tendency, whereas in reality things are quite fluid and a lot of distinctions, such as nomenclature, are really quite arbitrary.


----------



## phgsd (Jun 6, 2004)

I am on the fence about this BUT I dug up an article about a pack of wolves that eats a large quantity of apples.
It's on pg 10
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ann_rep_pdf/ISRO_annrep07-08.pdf


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I look at the way nature designed them.

Dogs have pointy teeth everywhere:










Bears have pointy AND flat teeth:










When the Bears jaw close, although the pointed teeth keep the jaws from moving side to side the flat teeth can meet and crush/grind vegetation.

When the Dogs jaw closes the teeth overlap - there are not flat surfaces for grinding:










Bears, humans, raccoons - they all have FLAT surface teeth.

Raccoon jaw:










Human jaw:











Everyone seems to agree that CATS are carnivores. Well - can you tell the difference between these two jaws:


















Seems to me there is NOT enough of a difference between the dog (top) and the Cat (bottom) to be able to classify them differently.

And what about behavior. Why would dogs need to hunt in packs to get vegetation?

Nature gave animals speed either to hunt or to run away from the hunters. Bears don't move fast (at least not for long distances) so they do/eat more vegetation. Fish are easy to 'hunt' - you stand in the stream and wait for them to swim by.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:Well - can you tell the difference between these two jaws


Yes! Dogs are sort of an intermediate point between cats and the other jaws you posted.



> Quote: And what about behavior. Why would dogs need to hunt in packs to get vegetation?


Eh. I come back to the fact that on their own wild dogs (and coyotes, and foxes) all eat and digest non meat as a normal part o their diet nor do feral dogs necessarily hunt in packs. For the most part feral dogs are scavengers and show significant moves away from some of the attributes that make wolves such effective predators. I'd argue that bears and raccoons have just been at it longer. 

But I like your pics and analysis! That's more like it.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: phgsdI am on the fence about this BUT I dug up an article about a pack of wolves that eats a large quantity of apples.
> It's on pg 10
> http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ann_rep_pdf/ISRO_annrep07-08.pdf


You have to read the the whole thing to understand WHY the wolves did that.

From pages 7 & 8:



> Quoteuring the summer of 2007, we observed wolves on
> several occasions scavenging kill sites that had been
> made during the previous winter, chewing on nothing
> but old bones. It seemed that food in summer was in
> ...


Then at the bottom of page 8:



> Quote:However, in early September 2007
> apple trees, dating from 19th-century mining activity
> near the Daisy Farm Campground (the largest backcountry
> campground in the park), produced a bumper
> ...


If the wolves were hungry they would eat ANYTHING.

Just because they ate the apples doesn't mean they needed them as part of their normal diet. If moose had been plentiful they would never have gone after the apples.

Look at this story about sheep and deer eating baby birds:



> Quote:While crows, ravens, and eagles sometimes take live birds, Blunt says red deer became the prime suspects a few years ago when a deer hunter saw one chewing a chick.
> 
> Blunt added: "I've never witnessed this myself and there's still a lot we don't know about the phenomenon."
> 
> ...


Just because they EAT the birds doesn't make them omnivores. They are still carnivores - they have just been forced to find an alternate food source.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0825_030825_carnivorousdeer.html


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: they have just been forced to find an alternate food source.


Agreed. But some species show more diet plasticity than others and those that can convert readily to an omnivorous diet have a distinct evolutionary advantage. 

But in the case of dogs, foxes, and coyotes (I'm leaving out bears since you don't like their flatter teeth) they incorporate non-meat items into their normal diet, not just in extreme deprivation situations. Cats don't though. Animals like dogs (and coyotes, foxes, bears etc) will, to some extent anyway, eat whatever is available and energetically efficient. Bears would probably be largely carnivorous if the world were full of fat easy to catch prey but because fresh meat can be both dangerous and energetically expensive to catch, they rely more on plants which are less calorically dense but less energetically expensive to obtain.

And of course diet varies during the year. During some parts of the year coyotes eat a lot more plant matter than others. In spite of the fact that some 90% of a coyote's diet is meat (though that varies seasonally and regionally) most wildlife biologists classify them as "omnivores" when they're talking about food habits. Similarly while we mostly agree that black and brown bears are omnivores in terms of food habits, we classify them as "carnivores" when we're talking about categories of animals for conservation or involved in human/wildlife conflict. And then there are some kinds of bears (like polar bears) who are morphologically really similar to Brown (aka Grizzly) bears and yet polar bears really ARE almost entirely carnivores across the board and including food habits. Nothing's ever simple!









And it all comes down to food availability and the plasticity to allow an animal to take advantage of it. Living near humans can have a big effect on both food habits and behavioral ecology. Here's an interesting paper: http://trc.ucdavis.edu/catoft/reprints/Papers%20citing%20mine/coyote%20ominivory.pdf


----------



## george1990 (Nov 24, 2008)

Pretty interesting topic. I'm leaning towards omnivore however. Both sides have really good points, but if cats are agreeably carnivores, and I were to leave an apple on the floor, the cats I know wouldn't touch it even if they were practically starving, whereas my dogs will lap it up within seconds/minutes. I'm aware this is just a personal observation. 

But it is also important to realize that dogs and wolves are not the same animals, and dogs were domesticated after becoming scavengers, living closer and closer to humans for their scraps. They took what they could and as far as I know, humans were not confined to a strict meat diet. Essentially, we shared diets.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: george1990But it is also important to realize that dogs and wolves are not the same animals,


Physiologically they are. They can interbreed and produce not only viable but fertile offspring.

And just because a dog will eat an apple doesn't mean they NEED to eat that apple. Heck, my dogs would eat a pound of chocolate if I left it out.

And for you viewing pleasure ...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cats+eating+vegetables&search_type=&aq=f

Youtube vids of cats eating vegetables.


----------



## Strana1 (Feb 9, 2008)

I had a cat that would go out of her mind everytime I cooked peas and she loved Chinese Lo Mein. As for the dogs that eat veggies & fruits, I wonder if in becoming part of our "pack" they pick up our habits. I beleive that they are carnivores, but as someone else mentioned, they are opportunist.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

A dog can actually live on a vegetarian diet. I would never advocate that, but it is possible. I do not think it is for a cat. 

Dog food in general has much less meat in it than cat food. 
If you believe that has anything to dog with AAFCO feeding trials, it suggests that cats only maintain on the higher meat contents while dogs can maintain on a diet with a lot more grain and non-meats. 

Lastly, I know there are a lot of RAW feeders here and as I know only enough to be dangerous, I know I am treading on some thin ice, but I have heard that after feeding a RAW diet, many dogs are having pancreas problems. My guess is that the people feeding the diet are not taking into consideration all of the factors in the dog's diet and are missing some points, providing too much fat with the meat or not providing other neceessary nutrients. I feed my dogs raw chicen, but I also feed them kibble. The chicken is just to get some real meat that still has some unadulterated nutrients into them. 

So my vote is omnivore. They are an ominvore that eats the way I would like to eat: eats meat when they can get it, prefers meat, will also eat fruits, veggies, and grains when they must.


----------



## phgsd (Jun 6, 2004)

Another completely nonscientific thing - dogs need 10 amino acids in their diets. Cats need the same 10 with the addition of taurine, so they need 11. Humans only have 7 essential amino acids. I don't know how many other carnivores or omnivores need but maybe that is another thing that can help determine which a dog would be?

Ugh keyboard is dying! Sorry for any typos.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't know if that's unscientific - to me that's part of the difference between dogs and cats. Cats absolutely MUST eat meat or they'll die. Dogs might do best on it but their needs are a lot more flexible.

As far as dogs as wolves, they're certainly similar but dogs (even wolf sized dogs) have much smaller teeth, less jaw strength, and are behaviorally less adept at hunting large game. Dogs and wolves can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but so can dogs and coyotes (from whom they're not descended), as can wolves and coyotes. The biological species concept is one of those things I was alluding to in a previous post where it sounds like a nice neat tool for putting things in separate categories but is actually a lot more murky.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: selzerA dog can actually live on a vegetarian diet. I would never advocate that, but it is possible. I do not think it is for a cat.
> 
> Dog food in general has much less meat in it than cat food.
> If you believe that has anything to dog with AAFCO feeding trials, it suggests that cats only maintain on the higher meat contents while dogs can maintain on a diet with a lot more grain and non-meats.


Yes, that is true but that is because cats are_ obligate_ carnivores. I would not take that as evidence that any other species is not a carnivore.
Not all dog food is lower protein/meat content than cat food. Cat food does tend to be higher in meat/protein due to the needs of cats as obligate carnivores-- however more and more dog foods now are higher in protein.


----------



## LuvWorkingGSDs (Aug 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: selzerLastly, I know there are a lot of RAW feeders here and as I know only enough to be dangerous, I know I am treading on some thin ice, but I have heard that after feeding a RAW diet, many dogs are having pancreas problems. My guess is that the people feeding the diet are not taking into consideration all of the factors in the dog's diet and are missing some points, providing too much fat with the meat or not providing other neceessary nutrients.


How is this at all relevant to this topic? Pointing out that there are some people out there who don't feed raw properly doesn't have anything to do with whether dogs are omnivores or carnivores.









Now if you want to talk about raw diets....feel free to venture over to that section. I'm sure there are plenty of us who can show we know what we are doing, have vet support behind us, and have the excellent blood test results to prove it!


----------



## george1990 (Nov 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: LuvWorkingGSDs
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: selzerLastly, I know there are a lot of RAW feeders here and as I know only enough to be dangerous, I know I am treading on some thin ice, but I have heard that after feeding a RAW diet, many dogs are having pancreas problems. My guess is that the people feeding the diet are not taking into consideration all of the factors in the dog's diet and are missing some points, providing too much fat with the meat or not providing other neceessary nutrients.
> ...


I see the relevance completely. I think that pupresq is trying to say that because some dogs put on a raw diet are put on a meat-only diet, and this sounds like it would be true as I'm sure some (i.e. not all) people may be too lazy to blend vegetables, mix in some yogurt or fruits, etc, are experiencing problems. Without these other non-meat foods, they aren't at their best physically, alluding to their omnivorous attributes.


----------



## LuvWorkingGSDs (Aug 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: george1990I see the relevance completely. I think that pupresq is trying to say that because some dogs put on a raw diet are put on a meat-only diet, and this sounds like it would be true as I'm sure some (i.e. not all) people may be too lazy to blend vegetables, mix in some yogurt or fruits, etc, are experiencing problems. Without these other non-meat foods, they aren't at their best physically, alluding to their omnivorous attributes.


Then why is it that my dog only reached excellent health when I made the move from BARF to prey-model? 

I only feed meat, bones and organs and my dog is the picture of health and has been praised by various vets (holistic, traditional and even a sports/performance specialist).

I certainly didn't switch because of laziness. I would (and did) everything I could think of to fix her skin problems and wonky blood values. Her problems weren't completely resolved until I cut the yogurt, veggies and fruits out of her diet. 

The only raw feeders I know who have experienced real problems with the diet either fed pre-made (which is BARF) or did their own home-prepared BARF and even those were few and far between.







I certainly haven't seen any problems in those who treat their dogs as carnivores and feed accordingly.


----------



## george1990 (Nov 24, 2008)

Because I clearly emphasized some (i.e. not all) may have some problems. Not all dogs are the same. I do know, personally, of a dog that had problems on a strict meat-only raw diet. None of this is an attack on your particular dog, that I don't even know. 

I just tend to believe that dogs are omnivores based on the fact that if we shared diets, my dogs and I, we would both thrive. Just like me, I prefer to eat meat with some vegetables, occasional fruit, etc. And I think it was noted here, that although it is something I would never do, dogs can survive on a vegetarian diet.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think the optimum diet for an individual dog is a slightly different question that the categorization of a species. While an individual dog (or many individual dogs) might to better on one diet or another, that doesn't necessarily address their basic nature evolutionarily. 

Coyotes would probably be fatter and have nicer coats if fed a diet of high quality kibble, but that doesn't mean that's their "natural" diet. 

I guess this is why I keep weighing into this thread - from a biological perspective I feel like there are one set of answers, from a functional perspective of how we care for a dogs perhaps another one and the difference keeps triggering my biology teacher nerve. There's a widespread idea that what happens in nature is necessarily "optimum" and that's not necessarily the case. 

I think some dogs clearly do great on a primarily or even exclusively carnivorous diet. If your dog has certain food allergies or sensitivities, that's going to be doubly the case. But as an organism and a species, I think dogs are clearly omnivores for all the various reasons I and others have listed.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Dogs have been domesticated for centuries. I would imagine that for centuries people have been giving dogs their leftovers ans scraps. Meat being generally more expensive than grains, etc, I would not be surprised if dogs haven't become accustomed over the generations to NEED less meat in their diets. If you believe in evolution at all, it would suggest that this would happen. 

Dogs living in warmer places, lose their undercoats or grow thinner ones. Where food is harder to come by, dogs get smaller and lighter. Where food must be chased down, dogs get speedier. Some of this is due to survival of the fittest, and some probably due to the fact that creation evolves to survive in the environment, so why not the digestive tract too? 

Wolves and fox and coyotes are distant relatives.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Exactly - there are thousands of years of changes between wolf ancestors and modern dogs, many (most actually) of which are moves away from being effective predators. 

ETA: Just wanted to affirm my agreement over here since we're disagreeing on the other thread.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We can certainly disagree on one thing and agree on another. The topics are totally unrelated. I think there is a lot of thought demonstrated on both sides of both topics.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree again! (On both counts)


----------

