Talk:Dog: Difference between revisions
Coaster1983 (talk | contribs) Revert to revision 322457173 dated 2009-10-28 01:43:06 by Curtis Clark using popups |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
||
Brqandon rochefort loves men |
|||
== Diet == |
|||
It's just a general "thought" of the person who wrote it. There is even a "disclaimer" at the bottom of the article the footnote references to make sure a reader knows that it is "written for and by students without any claims of accuracy." |
|||
The use of this as a "footnote" boggles the mind. |
|||
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed the absurd assertion in the article that dogs are omnivores. |
|||
The absurd thing is that Wikipedia normally observant and quick to catch nonsense like this, has completely missed how the concept of the "footnote" to "verify" a fact has been royally abused. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jolorious|Jolorious]] ([[User talk:Jolorious|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jolorious|contribs]]) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
<b>More published proof that dogs are carnivores, not omnivores: |
|||
<br> |
|||
As you look into your dog's mouth, notice those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth). These are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar. Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred, scissor/crush and swallow. |
|||
However much, we humans have done to tinker with and change the dog's body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines. "Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore" |
|||
(Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). |
|||
They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum |
|||
(Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). |
|||
They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to requiring longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). Some educated People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be pre-processed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly questionable practice. |
|||
"Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down process of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. The carnivore's pancreas does not secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose molecules, nor have dogs become efficient at digesting and assimilating and utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores do those sorts of things" |
|||
Canine and Feline Nutrition Case, Carey and Hirakawa Published by Mosby, 1995 |
|||
Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes |
|||
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). |
|||
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA ( |
|||
Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). br>This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html). "The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..." |
|||
Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"(www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf |
|||
(Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). |
|||
Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" |
|||
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.). |
|||
References: |
|||
Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI, Cert. Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM., B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N P A |
|||
Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD |
|||
Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland |
|||
Dr. Weston A. Price |
|||
Dr Tom Lonsdale |
|||
Carissa Kuehn |
|||
Dr. Dr Jeanette Thomason http://www.thewholedog.org/artcarnivores.html </b> <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/167.7.176.5|167.7.176.5]] ([[User talk:167.7.176.5|talk]]) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
It´s classified like a carnivore but is a omnivore... ??? what kind of affirmation is that? |
|||
Although there are reported cases (...) of carnivores eating plants, '''the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores'''. |
|||
''‘Have you ever seen a dog attack a wheat field?’ |
|||
Professor David Kronfeld'' |
|||
Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pág 258 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AbdónMorales|AbdónMorales]] ([[User talk:AbdónMorales|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AbdónMorales|contribs]]) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AbdónMorales|AbdónMorales]] ([[User talk:AbdónMorales|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AbdónMorales|contribs]]) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The article mentions milk as a source of proteins for dogs. But my vet told me that dogs cannot digest milk (We use buffalo milk) and should be given meat or eggs (I have a lab female)?--[[User:Nikhil Sanjay Bapat|Nikhil Sanjay Bapat]] ([[User talk:Nikhil Sanjay Bapat|talk]]) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The "footnote" used to "backup" the notion that "dogs are Omnivores" is BOGUS! A quick check of the link tells you it is Non-Scientific information written by and for students. That's It. It is NOT a reflection of any sort of scientific thinking or research. {{unsigned2|22:00, September 18, 2009|Mokonik}} |
|||
:I've added some additional/better supporting cites. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Carnivores == |
== Carnivores == |
Revision as of 16:58, 29 October 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Dog was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dog article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Brqandon rochefort loves men
Carnivores
The omnivores statement is why wiki is not accepted by any university, much less elementary school teachers. There are countless articles that classify dogs as carnivores. Anyone with a basic science background can look at the anatomy and tell where dogs fall in the classification. Domestication changes nothing. A horse is a horse if it's wild or tame. Wiki calls dogs carnivores under the carnivores section. Here they someone that chooses to feed their dog veggies thinks that changes their classification. Sorry, you just have a bias. Here's some links: http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2009/07/dogs-the-omnivore-carnivore-controversy.htm http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Carnivore
So, now we KNOW dogs are carnivores and all dietary decisions must conform to this if they are to result in proper, appropriate, nutrition. This is not something we can change to suit our own likes, needs and beliefs. In order to respect animals we need to honor their true nature rather than creating myths to allow for our convenience or even for our denial of living with carnivores in our homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.44.111 (talk • contribs)
- Okay, are coyotes carnivores?--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Dogs are actually omnivores. Even though most of them probably do eat more meat than plants if they can help it and may prefer meat, they still do eat plants. Saying that they are carnivores is like saying that people are herbivores simply because most people eat more plants than meat. The truth is dogs do rely on plants for proper nutrition as well as on meat. I have dogs of my own and I know for a fact that they love several types of plants: they snatch carrots every chance they get, adore celery, and like to eat the wild grasses they find in their yard, to name a few. That is one reason why most, if not all, commercial dog foods include vegetables and at least one type of grain, but have more meat than other ingredients, as healthy wild dogs would eat a lot of meat as well. And about the milk: I think dogs are meant to generally be lactose intolerant, so it probably should be avoided unless your veterinarian says otherwise. Zonafur (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Zonafur
^ You're 100% wrong in your assumption. Just because a dog is opportunistic, absolutely does NOT mean it has a nutritional need for plant matter. My dog eats cat poop. Does that mean she has a nutritional need for cat poop? Should you be feeding your dog cat poop?! Of course not. By your logic, my dog must be a catpoopivore!
When's the last time you ate something you don't have a nutritional need for? Yesterday, I ate a piece of cheesy garlic bread. It may have contained some iron and some calcium an a few other vitamins and minerals, but I'm sure I could've gotten those nutrients and calories by eating a much healthier option. On top of that, I have the ability to digest what I ate (well, for the most part) -- dogs do not have a the ability (they're lacking enzymes and a proper digestive tract) to digest whole veggies. If you feed a dog a whole carrot and he swallows it whole, it'll come out whole. And if you're feeding your dog pureed veggies for vitamins and minerals, well guess what, those same vitamins and minerals can be found in meat, bone, and organ which dogs can digest much more efficiently. So, WHY would you intentionally feed them veggies for nutritional reasons when you know 1. they're not going to get anything out of it and 2. there are much more species-appropriate options available?
And, of course most commercial dog foods contain veggies and grains (take note that higher "quality" kibbles do not contain grains) -- they're cheaper than meat, afterall, and *industry* is built on *profit margins*! The pet food industry exists to line the pockets of the people in the industry. Naive and ignorant consumers (and many veterinarians) have been completely brainwashed. One more thing, did you know that your veterinarian most likely receives incentives and kickbacks for pushing certain brands (think how many vet offices you've seen pushing Hill's. And then think about what a horrible quality "food" Hill's is proven to be).
Additionally, I find it very intriguing that this same debate doesn't exist for wolves. That fact in itself really speaks to the fact that dogs are carnivores. Do you realize wolves are also opportunistic feeders? Wolves eat berries and carrots, too! With wolves, like dogs, the fruits & veggies come out just as undigested as they went in. Why aren't wolves classified as omnivores? The diet of a wolf and a wild dog is *identical*. As is quite common, you are confusing preferred tastes/diets to anatomical definitions, which are generally an indication of best and healthiest diets (not preferred tastes).
Weewoah333 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... a bit of googling turned up this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try reading Carnivora. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
just one subspecies?!
Wait -- so just the one subspecies encapsules all the different shapes and sizes of dogs? That's freaking amazing. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.62.25 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- yup, oddly enough, we consider two animals as distinct as the English sheepdog and Chihuahua to be the same subspecies, check out the article on Species for more info on the trickiness of all this. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and the dingo is classified as a seperate subspecies and sometimes even described as wolves although they are clearly domestic dogs (although not domesticated in the strictest sense just like many other dogs).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dogs have a genetic peculiarity that allows for a much wider variance in traits than other mammals. Thus dogs can be bred for a wider range of traits much quicker than for example horses or cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.223.201 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Domestic instead of domesticated?
After checking the article on domestication I wondered whether it wouldn't be better to describe the domestic dog in the article as a "domestic subspecies" of the gray wolf instead of domesticated, or just as a subspecies. According to the article of domestication one characterisation is artificial selection by humans. And although this is true for the majority of the dogs who belong to breeds, this is certainly not true for feral dogs and many (if not the majority) of cross- and mixed breed dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good point Flynneffects (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
sounds
dogs dont just go woof they make millions of sounds. some even sound like cats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.184.132 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Dogs what they really are
they are selfish men only want one thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lildani7 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that just super. Thanks for sharing that with us. Meltonkt (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
is it true that when you eat dog meat it causes your body temperature to rise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.139 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I like dogs.
Pack structure
I think this sentence needs to be changed, at least to exclude the part about wolf dominance hierarchies:
"Feral dogs show little of the complex social structure or dominance hierarchy present in wolf packs"
Leading wolf researcher David Mech has spent a good deal of time recanting the whole "alpha wolf" meme that he accidentally started, based on observation of artificially-created wolf packs in captive pens.
Here's what he now says: Rather than viewing a wolf pack as a group of animals organized with a “top dog” that fought its way to the top, or a male-female pair of such aggressive wolves, science has come to understand that most wolf packs are merely family groups formed exactly the same way as human families are formed. That is, maturing male and female wolves from different packs disperse, travel around until they find each other and an area vacant of other wolves but with adequate prey, court, mate, and produce their own litter of pups.
More information here: [1]