This topic is currently discussed in another thread, however I feel it is off topic there, so I will start here with my take:

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and just about every independent research scientist since the beginning of time have classified dogs as carnivores.  However there are groups (dog food companies) and people (those who buy those companies products) who want you to believe a dog is an omnivore.

Consider the dogs upper and lower canine teeth.  Unlike human canine teeth, they protrude downward and upward in a "fang" like manner.  The purpose of these teeth is for tearing and shredding meat.  Nature has provided the dog with these teeth for that purpose.  The dogs body was not designed to process vegetable and grain matter on its own merit, as another poster had indicated this as well in the other thread.  If a dog stumbles into a vegetable garden and eats a green bean, it comes out the other end looking exactly like that, a green bean.  The only way a dogs body can process and utilize these materials is with assistance from us.  Blenders, choppers, etc., need to be used
so the dogs body can digest and process.  The dog comes to us today survivors
of millions and millions of years without the intervention of veterinary medicine.
The did so because they ate the diets nature had intended them to eat, which
would be a diet rich in meat, fat, blood, and bone.  Any incidental grain matter
digested through stomach contents of other animals is clearly that, incidental.
Studies have also indicated, many times a wolf may vigorously shake the stomach
once removed from prey in an attempt to clear the stomach of those contents.

So, why do those interest groups want us to believe a dog is an omnivore?
The explanation is very simply.  These groups and companies promote this theory because they hope to justify in our minds the liberal inclusion of vegetable, grain, and sometimes fruits in their feeds.  This way, they can maximize profit and reduce costs; for a diet heavy in meat, fish, or poultry is more expensive.  In essence, they are willing to sacrifice nutrition for your dog at the expense of profit.

A dog can survive eating an omnivore-targeted diet.  However, when feed accordingly, a carnivore-targeted diet, they suffer far less health problems and need less intervention from veterinary medicine.  Again, just because a dog can eat "processed" vegetable and grain matter, does not change the biological make up or composition of the dogs body.

Heartily agree 100%

That doesn't explain why dogs (and wild canids too) actively choose to eat plants - ears of wheat, berries, fruit (not just windfalls, but picked from the plants) ...

Agree with Jeangenie - you should see Vinnie go a-blackberrying!

Margot

JG just because an animal is scientifically classified as a carnivore does not mean that it will not help itself to variety.

Is a horse/cow etc an omnivore rather than a herbivore if it scarfs down your ham sandwich in the first case or eats its dead cousins in the second???????????????

Blimey, where do you live? I've never seen cattle grazing on dead animals! Around here they choose to eat grass and leaves, and ignore the occasional carcass (rabbit, lamb etc) that the foxes leave lying around.

Of course, whatever's disguised in concentrate doesn't count, because in itself it's not a natural food. ;)

Aha so processed food does not count then............... :D :D :D

Lots of carnivores will choose to have a bit of fruit and veggie, even crocodiles, if you watch the nature programmes.

Still does not make them scientifically an omnivore, but it does make them omnivourous ;)

No, I don't think processed food does count - it's all or nothing - the choice has been removed. (Anyone else remember Soylent Green? ;) :D) Which is why strict vegetarians shouldn't eat cheese-and-onion crisps (because animal products have been used in the manufacture) but smoky bacon ones are fine (because there's nothing meat-based)! :D

Tohme

>>Still does not make them scientifically an omnivore, but it does make them omnivourous>>

So what's more important, which taxonomic pigeon hole we put them in or what they actually choose to eat to survive?

Julie

I disagree, and I did some research on this subject when writing books. CATS are carnivores, dogs are omnivores. The reason ISN'T due to what they eat or what they choose to eat. The reason is that a dog CAN survive on a vegetarian diet, i.e. they do not need meat to survive. A cat however CANNOT, they MUST have meat or they will eventually die.

Actually the cat is an OBLIGATE carnivore, whereas a dog is scientifically classified as a carnivore due to its physiognomy which screams carnivore

Eyes in front
No molars for grinding
Large carnivores
No digestive enzymes in salivary glands
High acidic stomach
Short gut
etc etc etc

The above list can equally be used by the argument for dog being classed as omnivore ,by sheer definition a human can be classed as a carnivore as we are meat eaters , the fact that we can eat a variety of food and can process this food makes us omnivores . Like wise the dogs is a meat eater= carnivore also has the ability to survive on a diet that's not exclusively meat= omnivore. Most dogs can eat fruit i.e. bananas and gain the benefits. It will not come as a waste product as complete banana .Not only that they will choose to do so Dogs can be feed a vegetarian diet and survive (however its to something I would adhere too) cats would die if fed a veg diet ,hence the difference. Dogs survive and thrive on an omnivore diet so by definition  are omnivores Cats cannot and therefore are  a true carnivorous animal.    

>>a dog is scientifically classified as a carnivore due to its physiognomy>>

No, classification is based on phylogeny which is relationship by common ancestry.  If it was based on physiology (assuming you didn't really mean physiognomy :-) we would have other mammals included in the order Carnivora such as cetaceans, primates, and bats.  The classification Carnivore includes others that are definitely omniverous eg the bears and racoons and previously mentioned, the vegetarian giant panda.

What the carnivores have in common is carnivorous ancestry.  It is not reliable in defining the present diet.

Julie

Okay I stand corrected. :)

Hi Claybuster

In assuming an animal's diet should be governed by its ancient origins, you are not allowing for changes that species have to cope with in the ever-changing environment.  There are some that haven't changed for millions of years eg the crocodiles but others have had to adapt to survive.

The giant panda for example is a species that has adapted to a change in habitat.  Of the family Ursidae, it is a undoubtedly a carnivore in classification as, like the Canids, it is a member of the order Carnivora but its dentition though typical of a meat eating animal, is adapting to a change in diet which is now almost exclusively bamboo with just the occasional addition of meat.

Another example much closer to home is the urban fox.  Again a carnivore and along with the domestic dog, a member of the Canid family, the urban fox has invaded our towns and cities and thrives on a diet of mainly human leftovers which must include a large proportion of cooked meat, cereal and vegetable.  It may not fit in with our idea of ideal living conditions for a wild animal but in the harsh world of survival of the fittest, there is no room for romanticism and those that adapt the quickest are the survivors.  The fox has made this change in a matter of decades and is doing very nicely thankyou.  This is evolution in action before our eyes.

The wolf/dog species Canis lupus/familiaris is hugely diverse and to assume all members require a similar diet is a gross oversimplification.  Many breeds of dog have been developed on diets containing cereals and those members not capable of thriving on this would simply not have survived so this adaptation has actually been bred in.  Early domestication, where wolves scavenged off remains of human settlements would likely have included more cereal leftovers than meat.

One consistent difference between the wolf and domestic dog of any breed or cross is the difference in dentition.  The teeth are proportionally smaller in the dog, indicating an adaptation to a change in diet, which has occurred, not since the introduction of kibble but over the thousands of years of domestication.

I'ts not my intention to justify the practice of some dog food companies in using large proportions cheap cereal fillers in place of good quality ingredients in kibble but to use a knee-jerk response and ban all cereal and vegetable from the diet may not be the best for the health of our dogs.

Julie

I came in late on this one.  I have been studying wolves for a couple of years and I admit I am no expert but I have never been told or seen or read that wolves shake out the contents of the stomach of prey animals.  I have missed a very important point there and would value some information which will point me to this documentation.  Just goes to show you learn something new every day.  Is there perhaps a web link would help me on this one.

Having just spoken with a wolf expert - I stand corrected, wolves do shake the stomach out but they also go on to eat some of the contents.  Semi wild wolves in wolf conservation centres are given frozen cow stomachs as treat but they are filled with some finley chopped vegtalbes.  Make of that what you will, it would appear they do want a small amount of veg.  Wild wolves also eat a small amount of fruit when available.  It would appear that a small amount of veg is good and natural.

Hi,
I think everyone who has participated thus far in the thread has brought up some valid points.  JeanG has mentioned dogs and wolves eat berries and such from plants; true.  But she also said they "choose" to eat this way sometimes.  How do we know something better simply wasn't available at the time and they were hungry?  If a wolf (or domesticated dog) had a choice presented at the same time, some berries and grain or fresh meat, which do you think they would choose?  Echo had noted, yes the stomach contents may be shaken to remove contents, yet those content may also be consumed.  Yes, there are beneficial nutrients to be gained, but keep in mind; the other animals body has first done the breakdown and processing of this matter making it digestible.  The dogs body on it's own accord can't do this without help, whether the help be from us, or other animals.

One night after dinner, we were clearing the table.  I usually always make sure my dogs get some table food.  If behaved and not begging, I like to cut off bite size pieces of meat or chicken and toss to the dogs.  However, they know begging and making a fuss only gets them into the basement with nothing, so they wait quietly and patiently.  Each piece tossed is gulped and down in about a 1/2 second (no chewing involved; dogs being carnivores naturally gulp).  So, when clearing the table there were some cumbers cut into small slices in leftover salad.  I tell my wife, bet you Zoe won't eat a cucumber.  She states, "of course she will, that dog will eat anything".  A piece of cucumber gets tossed, caught in the mouth of Zoe, held for about a 1/2 second, then dropped on the kitchen floor, refused.  She states, "try it again" and a second time tried, a second time dropped to the floor.

I wholeheartedly agree, a dog does eat like an omnivore, meaning can eat most anything; and Julie had indicated many carnivorous animals have adapted to eat basically what is most readily available.  However, I feel Tohme has stated it best, regardless of what a carnivorous animal can and will eat, that does not change the "science" and biological make-up of the animal.

I have mixed feeling concerning a "raw" diet, odd as that may seem.
BARF, or Bones and Raw feeding is a diet geared to emulate natures diet.
I feel it also is an extreme benefit to our dogs.  However, my skepticism stems from whether the nutritional benefits gained are worth the inherit risks?  These risks are not necessarily those associated with the dog, but the possible risk to family and us.  We cook are foods to kill off possibly bacteria that can make us sick.  But does handling and feeding raw meat on a daily basis increase the chances something happening to family?  Also consider we have no idea of knowing where the meat comes from?  Maybe it comes from an animal taken down with drugs?  Maybe unsafe handling and packaging, transportation etc., was not up to par?  However, if one can be in complete control of it's own meat source, in other words, you're slaughtering and butchering your own animals, I feel raw feeding in those regards is without question an ideal scenario.  I adopted these feelings towards raw after reading a web page from some kind folks in the Yukon Territory, Canada.  You can easily find the info through a search engine by typing in: feeding seppalas sled dogs.
The info is in regards to hard working sled dogs obviously, but much of the info in regards to feeding in general is very generic and can one further insight on feeding programs.

>But does handling and feeding raw meat on a daily basis increase the chances something happening to family?<

The more you and your family is exposed to the "bacteria" in raw meat the stronger your immune systems will become toward that bacteria. I handle raw chicken everyday,sometimes i forget to wash my hands and i might bite my nails or whatever,this has never affected me or my family!

>Maybe it comes from an animal taken down with drugs?<

This excuse aswell as your others can also pertain to the meat you cook,or the meat in commercial foods :)

>only gets them into the basement< :( :(

>with nothing< :(

What do you feed your dogs?

Can i ask what you hope to get out of starting this thread? :)

>>regardless of what a carnivorous animal can and will eat, that does not change the "science" and biological make-up of the animal>>

Oh but it does.  If a food source of a species is changed, there will be some members of that species that are genetically equipped to deal with the change and some that aren't. Those that aren't will gradually be eliminated from the gene pool and the population will have changed.  It's normal to have diversity such as this in a species but those that have reduced in numbers to a dangerous level, such as the giant panda and cheetah, are the ones less likely to cope with dramatic change.   A species as diverse as the dog/wolf will have the genetic capacity to cope with many various changes.

Breeds/landraces such as the Pariah dogs have adpated to a diet of mostly cereal waste from human camps whilst the Arctic breeds probably developed on little more than raw fish and seal meat.  Dogs simply eat what is available to them and they either survive or not.  Natural selection takes care of the rest by eliminating the genes that restrict the species to its former diet.

To use the argument that the dog is classified as a carnivore, really is a non starter.  The domestic dog is an omnivore as are many of the species of the order Carnivora.

Julie

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/overview.html
http://b-naturals.com/Spr1999.php
http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2003-wi-meat.html
http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~ALRF/giintro.htm
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/ana.HTML
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html
http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

All interesting reading Tohme, two sites contradict themselves on the fact we humans are ether evolved omnivores and should eat only grains and fruit and no meat as we humans are according to our make up are  Herbivores: different argument I know but I presume you quoted these site as factual reference points? One other claims we are a true carnivore who also has evolved in to an omnivore, so if they cant agree on what we humans are what little chance do they have on information on dogs. Also I see from past post your you have promoted the use of vegetables in a dogs diet and according to most of the information quoted in the above sites THIS would seem pointless as dogs cannot digest said vegetables. The English dictionary list omnivores as an animal that is naturally able to eat both plants and meat. A Banana is the fruit of a plant that can be digested by a dog naturally, can it not?-Jo 

The fact that debate goes on is healthy and promotes discussion and thought, no bad thing in any subject.

I don't know of any person that agrees with any other on ALL things, thank goodness.

I do promote the feeding of fruit and veggies, for all sorts of reasons.

Remember, dictionary definitions and scientific definitions are not necessarily the same........ ;)

Context is everything.

Again with most people who insist that the BARF Diet is the only  correct diets for a dog you will find if you look back on this board that the question of vegetables crops up time and time again. If as you say a dog is a true cannonries beast it has no need of vegetable mater, but time and time again you will have BARF experts telling you how to feed vegetables to dogs cooked or uncooked. Why do it? It's a human thing. The nature of the beast allows itself to be able to eat both meat and plant in order to survive. As I have stated before a cat cannot survive without meat a dog can. Ones a true carnivore the others an omnivore. Science is by its nature an evolutionary process. As with all animals the ones who adapt survive the one who don't become extinct. -Jo

I don't think anyone insists that the BARF diet is the only correct diet for a dog. 

Whether or not an animal has a NEED for an ingredient is irrelevant.

We don't NEED chocolate (actually that isn't true, I do) :D but we like to eat it; dogs and other animals are the same.

Dogs are also opportunists, they eat whatever is available at the time, just in case nothing better is around the corner.

We will all eat all sorts of stuff in order to survive, however for optimum nutrition, all animals do best on what they were designed for.

You are entitled to your beliefs as is everyone.

A cat is an obligate carnivore, which means it is OBLIGED to eat meat or it will die; a dog is a carnivore, however it can survive on other stuff. 

Whether or not a species adapts or not depends on a number of criteria, it does not "move" from being a carnivore to an omnivore, unless of course you are suggesting that Pandas will somehow adapt to a diet other than bamboo, Koalas to other than eucalyptus etc.

New Forest ponies eat meat sandwiches, I don't think they have scientifically adapted to become carnivores or omnivores, they have just taken advantage of tourists! :D

Hailey,
I noticed the sad face icon in regards to the dog(s) going into the basement!  This was only a tactic lasting about two weeks, for being firm in the beginning yields it rewards.  The end result is well-behaved dogs that sit nicely and wait patiently without making a sound around the table, and now they also get their table bites.

You had asked what I feed my dogs.  Regardless of the feed I use, not the issue here in this topic.  Yes, it does contain some grains.  Even if I choose feed a vegan diet (which I don't) it does not change my belief in regards to a dog being a carnivore.

Not sure if any bothered to look at the informative site: http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/feeding.htm but I find these folks to be right on track with their thinking.  I don't own sled dogs, but I find the information very informative and generic in regards good nutrition for canines.  I like these few sentences in particular:* "Canine nutritionists whose grant money comes from multinational corporations try to sell the proposition that the dog is basically an omnivore. We think that basically he is a carnivore who likes to vary his diet with vegetable food sources, and has been encouraged by humankind to depend on these sources, not for his own interests, but to suit our own convenience." * seppalasleddogs

I didn't hope to get anything out of starting this thread but some good discussion and fair debate, which can inspire thought.  I had mentioned in my first post starting this, I noticed the omnivore-carnivore topic being discussed in another thread "Dry Puppy Food".  I didn't start the discussion there pertaining to omnivore-carnivore, but wanted to interject some of my thoughts and felt it simply did not fit in the other thread.

I do feed some "raw", but only in the form of Pheasant by-product during our bird season here in the States.  When I clean my birds, I would typically leave all the yucky stuff for the raccoons.  When I first started to hear about "raw" and "BARF" years back, I decided why leaves that nutritious by-product for the coons?   After my Countess Zoe does her work in the field pointing those birds, I let her now share in some of the yucky yummies; good raw feed from only meat sources in my control, not the supermarkets!

Re dogs eating cucumber - I have had a dog who wouldn't eat cucumber, and currently have one who wouldn't eat lettuce - the first would accept a salad sandwich, eat the rest, and still spit out the cucumber!  He also wouldn't eat crab sticks or prawns.........  I don't think it proves anything except dogs have their likes and dislikes, the same as us!

>>Whether or not a species adapts or not depends on a number of criteria, it does not "move" from being a carnivore to an omnivore, unless of course you are suggesting that Pandas will somehow adapt to a diet other than bamboo>>

Yes Tohme, that's exactly what I am saying. Nobody can predict the future but I used the giant panda as an example because it has already done this.  It is classified as a carnivore because it is descended from carnivourous ancestors, the same line of descent as dogs.  Because of change in habitat, it has had to adapt to a different diet.  It still has the dentition of a carnivore which is in the process of changing to smaller flatter teeth for grinding. 

Julie

>I don't think anyone insists that the BARF diet is the only correct diet for a dog.

There have been many posters on this site suggesting that very thing! ;) They're generally categorised as extreme evangelists, and by and large ignored.

>unless of course you are suggesting that Pandas will somehow adapt to a diet other than bamboo,

Yes, Giant Pandas have already done this (but in reverse), and will still choose to eat carrion if they come across it.

JeanGenie and Julie V,
In regards to the Giant Panda, I have done some research and learned so new things.  Yes, the Panda is classified as a carnivore despite its diet.  Every website I visited mentioned the Panda is a carnivore, and mentioned the diet consists primarily of bamboo.

So my question is this:  Why does the dog NOT get the same respect in regards to its scientific classification as does the Panda?  If I were to make a statement, the Panda is an omnivore; this would no doubt be disputed.  Nobody is attempting to disregard thousands of years of science in attempts to sell anyone the proposition the Panda is an omnivore, but rather is a well know fact, the Panda is a carnivore regardless of a bamboo diet.  Why is it a dog must be labeled as an omnivore without regards to its scientific classification?  I think the answer to my question lays in fact no multi-national corporations with a responsibility to shareholders first have any interests in the Panda.  I wish more corporations and people took an interest in the Panda regardless, and hopefully this beautiful animal will someday not be feared extinct.

Sorry once again we are confusing the nature of the beast, the panda like a dog is an omnivore. Please read and digest.Giant pandas are an endangered species. They are often called pandas or panda bears, although their scientific name is Ailurpoda Melanoleuca.
Being an omnivore, the giant panda's diet consists of 99% bamboo along with small percentages of fish, pikas, rodents, vines, irises, crocus, and murice grass. Pandas eat in a sitting position and since they eat about twelve hours a day, they sit a lot! During these twelve hours the pandas will have consumed somewhere between twenty-three and thirty-six pounds of food.
Pandas may eat a lot, but they can be very picky eaters. There are twenty-five types of bamboo in our world that pandas will eat. Captive pandas will only eat nine of these. The panda's eating habits are an important part of the their life, this is what they spend a lot of their time doing.*  http://www.sandiegozoo.org/Zoo/panda_characteristics.html

I would just like to add a point with regards to wolves shaking out the contents of their preys stomachs.  While on holiday we visited some wolves that had been brought up with a man living among them as a wolf 24/7 for over a year.  He had become part of their pack (these people were into wolf study big time, both in zoos and in the wild).  Anyway he also ate with them, what they ate (YUK YUK - although the innards of the prey he ate were admittedly very SLIGHTLY cooked and then replaced in the animal.  He, as leader of the pack always ate first.  He said that each wolf would eat not only in the order of rank, but also would eat a particular part of the kill according to rank. 

So the higher ranking wolves would eat more flesh and the lower ones would eat the stomach contents.  They said that as a result the lower ranking animals smelt differently to the higher which helped reinforce their positions in the pack, and he also said that this was why some pet dogs fight - they give off the wrong smell.  Lower ranking (less dominant) dogs should be fed more vegetable content in their diet than higher ranking dogs.

It was extremely interesting and they obviously knew what they were talking about.

Fiona

>While on holiday we visited some wolves that had been brought up with a man living among them as a wolf 24/7 for over a year<

My guess is that this is Sean Ellis?

There is some debate, I believe, as to whether the wolves he 'lives' with can be considered to live 'naturally' enough to make his studies of them truly viable. Interesting, definitely. Typical, natural behaviour being observed - Mmm, could be debatable as even his own 'intrusion' into their society will be influencing behaviour

I agree that he could be influencing their behaviour, but as he had entered as 'a wolf' so to speak then I would have thought that the wolves would still eat in the same order as would a wild pack.  I thought it was interesting that each member always ate a certain part of the prey, not only in a certain order.

Fiona

Very intersting Fiona and good point Brierley.  I have Sean Ellis' book......must go and read it :-)

julie

Just another thought on this.......the stomach contents of wild ungulates isn't likely to contain a large proportion of grain, but rodents, particularly mice, would as they selectively eat the grass heads.  Rodents do form a significant part of the wolf diet and are eaten whole, including gut and contents.

Julie

Hey Jo,
I checked out your link to the San Diego Zoo.  It clearly states the Panda is family carnivora.  See here:  http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html


Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Ursidae
Genus: Ailuropoda
Species: melanoleuca

Fun facts
* They seem pretty quiet, but giant pandas can bleat, roar, growl, and honk.
* Giant pandas are technically carnivores, but they have adapted to live mostly on bamboo. They will eat small mammals if they can catch them, though!

So, my question remains:  Why doesn't the dog get the same respect as to scientific classification as does the Panda, despite the Panda Bear diet?

Claybuster

>>So, my question remains:  Why doesn't the dog get the same respect as to scientific classification as does the Panda, despite the Panda Bear diet?>>

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  I used the giant panda as an example of a mammal of the order Carnivora (the family is not carnivora), that has evolved into a herbivore, as it illustrated well that taxonomy, which is the classification of species, is based on phylogeny (relationship by descent) not physiology, as Tohme states.   The panda is relevant to this discussion because of its classification.  Other members of the Ursidae (bear) family are omnivores and have also descended from carnivores. 

Likewise, the dog has descended from the same carnivorous ancestors as the bears and has now become an omnivore and gets the same "respect" in classification, at least as far as I'm concerned.  It is an omnivore of the order Carnivora.

If it is a generally held belif amongst Barfers that the dog should be given carnivorous status simply because it is a member of the order Carnivora, then the whole concept seems to be on shakey ground.

Julie

if you had read further you will have discoverd that the Panda is as an omnivore because of ability to consume food matter other than meat, all animals that eat meat can called be  carnivors its the ones that can eat and digest other food s that can be called omnivores If you realy want to know what a true carnivor is look at the feline (LION,TIGER.ECT)They are still genetically the same as they were 1000s of years ago and are true carnivores today as the were then. .

I am starting to see things in Jo's perspective concerning the "nature" of the beast.  Notice when we look at classifications, we see: Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, yet nothing in regards to "nature".  Comparing the "nature" of the beast in regards to scientific classification we therefore are comparing apples and oranges.  What an animal can scavenge for food to survive (wild or domestic) can be whatever simply happens to be available at the time or in the area; just chalk it up to nature.  Nature of the animal could also be how the animal conducts itself and gets along with other animal: aggressive, docile, etc., a trait that could be considered part of their nature.  I tend to see animals in regards to their "classification" rather than their "nature".

It will be in my nature today, to watch some football!!!!

Wow this is really interesting stuff.  I hadn't realised that dog diet could stir such debate as I hadn't realised there was so much too it.  All I know is that my dog's behaviour changed when I changed her complete food from one brand to another as for fruit and veg I throw it to her as a treat as some people do sweet stuff which I don't do.  She will eat leftover meat in one gulp but chews and crunches her kibble and I assumed that was because it was hard as is the broccoli stalks, carrots and cucumber and various other bits thrown to her during meal preparation.  Incidentally I throw worming tablets to her which she catches and crunches them as well, bless her.  My dog will eat anything I give her except mushrooms and of course she doesn't get onions, grapes or chocolate.

My dog loves mushroom peelings :)

You peel mushrooms?  Blimey!  Mine are lucky if they get washed!

:)

"Giant pandas are technically carnivores, but they have adapted to live mostly on bamboo. They will eat small mammals if they can catch them, though!"

They may have adapted to eat bamboo, but this adaptation is not one of natures success stories!

They spend most of their waking hours eating vast quantities, because they take very little nourishment from the bamboo. That which they do eat causes them to have permanent indigestion, with the resultant belching and farting.

No wonder they have a very poor libido and are in danger of extinction, let's hope that our dogs don't face the same peril from feeding them a biologically inappropriate diet, even though they can survive on it!

Snomaes

Hi Snomaes

You are right, the giant panda is in danger because it has become too specialised in diet but the fact that the species took an unfortunate evolutionary turn doesn't make it null & void.  It still exists and it is living proof of the possible changes when environmental pressure is great.

There are many other examples of members of the order Carnivora that have similarly adapted.  The families Ursidae (bears), Procyonidae (racoons), Canidae (dogs) all contain very successful omnivores, the urban fox in particular is one of nature's success stories.  It may be thriving on what some would call a "biologically inappropriate" diet but if it works it is successful.

Julie