# why can't dogs eat cat food if they are carnivores?



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

If dogs are definitely carnivores, which means they don't require carbohydrates, then, I will ask again, why would cat food be bad for them? I asked this question in another thread and the reply said it was because of the taurine in cat food. But some dog food manufacturers have added taurine to their foods. If dogs are actually wolves, then they would get carbohydrates from eating the intestines of their prey. So then they don't digest these? Cat food is mainly meat and higher in protein so wouldn't this be better for dogs? Why does my dog dive for my cat's food all the time?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Too high in fat and calories.

And dogs, unlike cats, are omnivores.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

I don't believe there is any problem with a dog eating cat food. Cats cannot produce taurine from their diets so it must be supplemented directly in their food. Cat food is also higher in protein and fat, more dense in calories. So the only downside I see is that the vitamin / mineral / overall nutritional requirement for dogs and cats are a bit different...and you may end up with a chubbier dog from the caloric content.

A lot of dogs love cat food because of the high protein and fat. But also, cats eat by following their nose. If they can't smell it or it doesn't smell right...they won't eat it. So most cat food is very fragrant, usually with fish products. Dogs also love smelly things!

However, cats should never be fed a strict diet of dog food as some of them do not have enough taurine for the nutritional needs of cats.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

flipgirl said:


> If dogs are definitely carnivores, which means they don't require carbohydrates, then, I will ask again, why would cat food be bad for them?


They can eat cat food just fine. Of course I feed my animals raw but both dogs and both cats get exactly the same food. Only the volume and size of animal parts is different. For example the dogs may get a chicken quarter but the cats will get either a drumstick or wing.



> If dogs are actually wolves, then they would get carbohydrates from eating the intestines of their prey.


Neither cats nor dogs nor wolves eat intestines of their prey unless the prey is so small that a couple of chomps is all thats necessary to swallow them whole. I have fed my dogs whole rabbits many times and they never eat the intestines. They pull them out and stack them in a neat little pile. BTW: They don't eat stomach contents either. The dogs sissor open the stomach, shake out the contents then eat the stomach. The cats don't even bother with stomach or intestines of the wild critters they catch. I am often finding little stomachs and intestines on my porch or in the driveway.



> So then they don't digest these?


They are already partially digested but they are still not eaten.



> Cat food is mainly meat and higher in protein so wouldn't this be better for dogs?


Yep, the more meat the better in either dog or cat food.



> Why does my dog dive for my cat's food all the time?


Because it smells good and they can't read the lable.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

flipgirl said:


> If dogs are definitely carnivores, which means they don't require carbohydrates, then, I will ask again, why would cat food be bad for them?


First, dogs are not true carnivores, and by definition they would be classified as omnivores. In general, dogs eating cat food is not harmful. Cat food contains more calories and nutrients. If the dog is overweight or has some other medical problem, eating cat food may not help you manage those problems. 



> If dogs are actually wolves, then they would get carbohydrates from eating the intestines of their prey. So then they don't digest these?


Dogs are not wolves. They are dogs. All we know is they are likely descendants of wolves, but this does not make them wolves. Carbohydrates are a source of calories. In meat only diets, one could feed no carbohydrate source but would then have to over feed protein and/or fat to decrease the carbohydrate portion and that then brings on it’s own set of different problems, like management of vital calcium and phosphorous ratios. 



> Cat food is mainly meat and higher in protein so wouldn't this be better for dogs?


There is no one diet for all dogs, so you tell us...how does your dog fair on a high protein diet? Please have your dog checked for the onset or renal disease before considering a diet high in protein. 



> Why does my dog dive for my cat's food all the time?


I dive for rocky road ice cream, but my preference does not mean a diet high in rocky road ice cream is good for me.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> First, dogs are not true carnivores, and by definition they would be classified as omnivores.


Who classifies them as omnivores?



> Dogs are not wolves.


So are you saying you are not in agreement with the experts? You say that the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists whose job it is to classify animal species are wrong? What is your basis? Who knows more than the people who actually decide taxonomy?



> In meat only diets, one could feed no carbohydrate source but would then have to over feed protein and/or fat to decrease the carbohydrate portion and that then brings on it’s own set of different problems, like management of vital calcium and phosphorous ratios.


You don't OVERFEED protein, you feed the right amount of protein. Yes, carnivores use mainly fat but also some protein for energy in the same manner that omnivores use carbs. Calcium/phosphorous ratios are not a problem when feeding a carnivore a diet of meat, bones, and organs. Notice I didn't say, "meat only". Meat only diets are definately not healthy. You must include bones and organs.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Dogs are not wolves. They are dogs. All we know is they are likely descendants of wolves, but this does not make them wolves. Carbohydrates are a source of calories. In meat only diets, one could feed no carbohydrate source but would then have to over feed protein and/or fat to decrease the carbohydrate portion and that then brings on it’s own set of different problems, like management of vital calcium and phosphorous ratios.


CP, could you link me to more information about this?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Regardless of the taxonomy, most domestic dogs do not hunt for their food and, despite our best efforts, lead a pretty sedentary lifestyle compared with wild dogs.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Taxonomy

Domestic Dog:
Order: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canus
Species: Lupus
Sub-species: Familiaris

Domestic Cat:
Order: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: Catus

Nutritiional differences:

"Scientists agree that physiologically the dog does not require any carbohydrate at all in its diet, as they are able to sustain normal blood glucose levels by metabolizing fat and protein into energy. Metabolically, the dog has a few characteristics of omnivores such as the conversion of carotene to Vitamin A, Tryptophan to Niacin, Cysteine to Taurine and Linoleic acid to Arachidonic acid."

And another...

Vitamin A... Also called retinol, is required at the cellular level by both cats and dogs.
Cats – Process little or no enzymes that will break down the plant-produced carotenoids. Must eat preformed active Vitamin A. Dogs – Have enzymes in the lining of the intestine that can break down plant carotenoids and convert these into active Vitamin A.

Niacin... An essential B vitamin (essential means must be eaten, can’t be made inside the body’s chemical factory.)
Cats – Can obtain Niacin only by eating the preformed vitamin. Cannot convert Tryptophan to niacin.
Dogs – Obtain Niacin in two ways. One is by converting a dietary amino acid call Tryptophan into Niacin and the other way is by eating preformed Niacin.

Arginine... Is a building block for proteins, called an amino acid. Arginine is vital to many of the animal’s internal chemical functions.
Cats – Are extremely sensitive to even a single meal deficient in Arginine and are unable to make their own Arginine. Cats need lots of protein, and Arginine is involved in aiding the elimination of the protein waste products .
Dogs - Are not very sensitive to low levels of Arginine in their diets and produce enzymes internally that can aid production of Arginine.

Taurine... An amino acid that is not built into proteins, but is distributed throughout most body tissues. Taurine is important for healthy functioning of the heart, retina, bile fluid and certain aspects of reproduction. 
Cats – Must eat preformed Taurine and since Taurine is not found in plant tissues, cats must consume meat to obtain Taurine. Cats can’t make their own, therefore, Taurine is essential in the diets of cats. 
Dogs – Make their own in their internal chemical factory.

Felinine... Is a compound made from a sulfur amino acid (SAA) called Cysteine.
Cats – Have a much higher requirement for SAA than other Mammalia and are the only creatures to manufacture the Felinine chemical. 
Dogs – Don’t know and don’t care what this stuff is.

Arachidonic Acid... An essential fatty acid that plays a vital role in fat utilization and energy production.
Cats – Cannot make their own Arachidonic Acid even in the presence of adequate linoleic acid. The reason cats can’t make Arachidonic Acid from linoleic acid is because the cat’s chemical factory (liver) contains no delta-6-desaturase enzyme to convert linoleic to Arachidonic. 
Dogs – Can make their own Arachidonic Acid if they consume enough linoleic acid by eating proper fats. Therefore, we can say that Arachidonic Acid is not an essential fatty acid for dogs.

The debate among scientists about a dog being a carnivore or an omnivore is based on the chemical differences of dogs from most of the other carnivores. Cats are strict or obligate carnovores because they must have meat containing essential amino acids and vitamins for sustaining life. They cannot produce these by conversion of other elements in their own body. Dogs on the other hand can produce these essential amino acids and vitamins. Therefore, the debate.

Carry on.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Thank you everyone for the amazing replies and amount of information. Anyone I know that has or had cats and dogs made a point of keeping the dogs out of the cat food so I thought maybe there was something in it that may be harmful to dogs. But you have cleared that up! I'm not currently feeding a high protein food but a homecooked food with some grains. I greatly appreciate and enjoy the information and discussion that comes from this forum. THanks everyone!


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I know some people who feed their dogs cat food, one of my friends even tried it. 



RawFedDogs said:


> So are you saying you are not in agreement with the experts? You say that the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists whose job it is to classify animal species are wrong? What is your basis? Who knows more than the people who actually decide taxonomy?


Yes they are classified as a sub species of wolf. That doesn't mean they are exactly the same as wolves. The scientist are the ones who have found that they do not have as acidic stomach as wolves/have different PH levels then wolves. So obviously are not exactly the same. A wolf and domesticated dog are different. All animals of the same genus or species are not identical.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

This is extremly interesting(i need to come into different sections more often)
So say you would like a dog to put on weight would cat food be a good option?

I feed chicken and rice to my dogs sided with a 24/7 supply of kibble.

My middle dog is in good condition but always stayed extremly lean,ive upped his food intake but his not a big eater,if not cat food then what would a good suggestion to bulk him a little.

His sibblings are all bulkier than him but not as long legged.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

If you really want to put weight on you need to increase the calories. I've never had that problem. But if you consider the three food groups (carbs, proteins, fat) fat is the most caloric dense (fat 9 calories/gram,...protein & carbs 4 calories/gram). So I would add some pork or beef trim, chicken fat, ... The downside I could see to this is that you may get some repercussions out the back end if you give too much fat all at once.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

My son has a new rescue dog. His roommate has a cat.

When I visited two weeks ago, the dog was eating the cat's food and the cat was eating the dog's (which was horrible food.)

The solution was to go out and get a premium dog food with a large kibble that the cat doesn't seem so enthusiastic about, and to put the cat's food some place where the dog doesn't have access - like somewhere up high.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Briteday,yes he has "backend" probs quite often,the other 2 are always fine,suppose thats what you get when you get a pooch from a BYB..
I will try what you suggested and see how it goes.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Yes they are classified as a sub species of wolf. That doesn't mean they are exactly the same as wolves.


Actually it does. Same species means same animal.



> The scientist are the ones who have found that they do not have as acidic stomach as wolves/have different PH levels then wolves. So obviously are not exactly the same.


When you use kibble fed dogs, you are right. Raw fed dogs have the same ph stomach juices as wild wolves. Thats why it takes a couple of months for a dog to adjust from being changed from a kibble diet to a raw diet. Their stomach ph has to adjust.



> A wolf and domesticated dog are different. All animals of the same genus or species are not identical.


Actually thats exactly what makes 2 animals the same species, they are very close identical. Can you name any other two animals that are different but the same species?


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Even scientists can't agree on this. Here's a bit more (with citations) to chew on:

http://dinets.travel.ru/dogs.htm


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

You COULD feed a dog cat food without ill effects. But cat food costs about twice as much, per pound, as a good dog food, so you'd be spending a lot more. And you'd have to watch out for obesity. The only dog I knew who ate cat food (regularly---all dogs I know will sneak it from the cat's dish) was a Beagle who was VERY obese. But she free-fed from the farm cats' pan. And cats shouldn't eat dog food regularly, because it doesn't usually have taurine, and it usually isn't high enough in protein and fat. Otehrwise there's not much difference between cat food and dog food.


----------



## mark3274 (May 10, 2007)

flipgirl said:


> If dogs are definitely carnivores, which means they don't require carbohydrates, then, I will ask again, why would cat food be bad for them? I asked this question in another thread and the reply said it was because of the taurine in cat food. But some dog food manufacturers have added taurine to their foods. If dogs are actually wolves, then they would get carbohydrates from eating the intestines of their prey. So then they don't digest these? Cat food is mainly meat and higher in protein so wouldn't this be better for dogs? Why does my dog dive for my cat's food all the time?


cas it tastes better my shelties did this too before we got them on better food.


----------



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

Dogs are not carnivores. While they fall into the order _Carnivora_, dogs are actually omnivores as they will eat all forms of foods. You'll find that various dog food manufacturers offer vegetarian diets which proves this. Dogs thrive on vegetarian diets. True carnivores will not knowingly eat vegetable matter and true carnivores in the wild never eat vegetation.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

2Catahoulas said:


> Dogs are not carnivores. While they fall into the order _Carnivora_, dogs are actually omnivores as they will eat all forms of foods.


Most animals will eat anything to keep from starving. Forcing a carnivore to eat plant material will never change him into an omnivore.



> You'll find that various dog food manufacturers offer vegetarian diets which proves this. Dogs thrive on vegetarian diets.


They don't thrive on it, the MAY survive on it if it's processed enough and they add enough vitamins and minerals and other nutrients after the extrusion process. Thats a testiment to the durability of our dogs.



> True carnivores will not knowingly eat vegetable matter and true carnivores in the wild never eat vegetation.


Other than eating grass for an unknown reason and occastionally eating some a few berries, you won't see dogs eating plant material.

I have listed on a couple of other threads the physical charateristics of a dog that make him a carnivore and prevent him from being an omnivore. IF you are convinced that a dog is an omnivore, I would be interested in knowing what you think the physical characteristics are that make him so.

Personally I have never seen a dog chasing a rabbit through a corn field, stopping and deciding that catching corn would be easier than catching a rabbit, so he stops the chase and starts eating corn. I have never seen a dog grazing in a wheat field. I have never seen a dog eating in a rice paddy. I have heard of a dog getting some sweet fruit out of a garden but only for a sugar rush. They can't extract nutrition from them.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Slow down... I need to plug in the laptop so I can get comfortable in the recliner for the duration of this thread. ....And I need to microwave some popcorn... carry on...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I think some people completely missed the entire point of one of my posts concerning this subject in another thread. Let's reiterate for a second. The caps and the bold are mine. 

RFD, I will give you a guess as to who the colleague referred to is. You should know his name, I have seen you reference him in other threads.

The point being EVEN SCIENTISTS do not agree on the wolf is a dog/is a dog a wolf question. 

Also note the caps. Ability to adapt....even to living with humans who feed them vegetable matter perhaps?



Hi -
*
*One of our colleagues, whose intelligence and scholarship*I respect,*thinks wolves, dogs, coyotes, jackals are all the same animal with different adaptations depending on how long they've lived in differing environments.* He bases this largely on their inter-fertility, similarities of behavior and ABILITIES TO ADAPT TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS.*** For example, it seems for years that coyotes in most of the mid-west live in pairs and their young disperse in their first fall and reproduce next year.* But in*areas where they are not molested*by humans the coyotes have a*life style that sounds more wolf-like: packs with some yearling or young adult offspring staying with their parents and delaying reproduction.* In at least one area of Italy the wolves seemed to follow a life-style more like our mid-western coyotes: live in pairs. (I can't remember off hand whether their offspring disperse*at a young age).* *
*
But similarities are only part of the picture.* There are differences too, which are of great practical importance when you want to keep dogs or keep wolves.* We're not nutritionists here but we'd certainly argue that dogs are not simply*the same animal as*wolves, just in a different skin.* Some dog breeds are likely to have certain health problems based on their form - the foreshortened face of the modern bulldog predisposes them to difficulties in breathing and shedding a heat load -*that do not afflict either*wolves or greyhounds!
*
There are developmental differences and cognitive differences in dogs and wolves.* Dogs lived in a niche for*thousands of years, during*which time*many (probably the majority) got a significant number of calories from leftovers that humans threw out (okay, in recognition of those canine opportunivores among us, some dogs also supplement their diets with food humans don't watch :>).* Wolves tend to hunt more and scavenge from humans less, although some certainly give up hunting*in favor of*scavenging for a while as some wolves did during the building of the Alaskan pipeline.
*
*Bottom line: People obsess about diet, sometimes casting more heat than light in the process.** well duh....
*


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

The whole carnivore/omnivore argument is nothing more than rhetorical device. It's not particularly useful in helping to decide the advisability in feeding any diet. As we know 'carnivore' simply means an animal that eats meat. 'Omnivore' simply means an animal that eats meat and plants. Some people insist that dogs are carnivores while others insist they are omnivores. As I said, the label is not particularly useful because it is too simplistic and is not defined sufficiently. 

Cats are indeed carnivores. I've seen no one dispute this. Dogs on the other hand are much more omnivorous than cats. So we really should call dogs both. I tend to believe it is a more accurate to label dogs omnivores because they do in fact eat plant sources (whether feral or companion) and so by definition they are omnivores.

Not only do dogs eat plant sources, more important is the fact that they can metabolize plant sources and nutrients, and anyone who tells you differently does not understand a dog's physiology. Dogs do not digest raw plant sources as well as some other animals including humans, and cats digest even less plant-sourced nutrients. 

Part of the problem with the labels though is that dogs and cats do not have to eat raw plants. Cooking makes much of the nutrients contained in various plants more bioavilable to the dog. If the plant sources are cooked properly the dog and even cats can indeed digest and make use of various plant-based nutrients. And so calling a dog in particular a carnivore does not deductively imply the conclusion that dogs should be on raw meat diets.

The shape of the teeth may tell us what an animal has historically, in an evolutionary sense, eaten but does not tell us what they can eat and digest or even what they tend to eat in the present, or most importantly, what is optimal for them to eat. Various internal anatomical or physiological features can suggest certain nutrient requirements also but again this does not imply that dogs must or even should eat a raw meat based diet.

Zim's bottom line says this all.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> RFD, I will give you a guess as to who the colleague referred to is. You should know his name, I have seen you reference him in other threads.


I don't think you saw me reference him. It was someone else.



> The point being EVEN SCIENTISTS do not agree on the wolf is a dog/is a dog a wolf question.


Actually most scientists do agree. If you look hard enough, you can find scientists who say the world is flat. It doesn't make it a controverisal subject. Wolves being dogs is not controversial in most places other than this list. 

The scientists whose job it is to decide such things agree that wolves and dogs are the same species. If they were different, their classification would not have been changed in 1993.



> Also note the caps. Ability to adapt....even to living with humans who feed them vegetable matter perhaps?


The part about humans feeding wolves/dogs vegetable matter is nothing more than speculation. We don't know that happened until recent times. Even if it happened 1,000 years ago, feeding veggies to a carnivore does not make him a omnivore. It makes him a carnivore forced to eat inappropriate food. He has not adapted to eating veggies over the years. He still has the dentation, jaw structure, stomach, liver, pancreas, and intestines of a carnivore. None of that has changed.



> *One of our colleagues, whose intelligence and scholarship*I respect,*thinks wolves, dogs, coyotes, jackals are all the same animal with different adaptations depending on how long they've lived in differing environments.* He bases this largely on their inter-fertility, similarities of behavior and ABILITIES TO ADAPT TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS.***


OK, we are talking about ONE person who thinks wolves, dogs, coyotes, and jackals are the same animal. Me and the majority of scientists agree with him about wolves/dogs but disagree about coyotes and jackals. Coyotes and jackals are just too far seperated to be the same animal. Most all animals of any species have the ability to adapt to changing envoronments.



> For example, it seems for years that coyotes in most of the mid-west live in pairs and their young disperse in their first fall and reproduce next year.* But in*areas where they are not molested*by humans the coyotes have a*life style that sounds more wolf-like: packs with some yearling or young adult offspring staying with their parents and delaying reproduction.* In at least one area of Italy the wolves seemed to follow a life-style more like our mid-western coyotes: live in pairs. (I can't remember off hand whether their offspring disperse*at a young age).* *


 *

I don't argue with that. This paragraph in and of itself does not prove that coyotes are or are not wolves, which is not the discussion anyway. The discussion is wolves/dogs.



> But similarities are only part of the picture.* There are differences too, which are of great practical importance when you want to keep dogs or keep wolves.* We're not nutritionists here but we'd certainly argue that dogs are not simply*the same animal as*wolves, just in a different skin.* Some dog breeds are likely to have certain health problems based on their form - the foreshortened face of the modern bulldog predisposes them to difficulties in breathing and shedding a heat load -*that do not afflict either*wolves or greyhounds!


 *

I don't see what this paragraph has to do with proving dogs/wolves are or are not the same animal. Yes, some dogs(wolves) have been in-bred by man to mutilate the snout. That doesn't affect the discussion. Remember the fox experiment. The resulting foxes who looked different were still foxes. No one questions that. No one has tried to say they are a different species.



> There are developmental differences and cognitive differences in dogs and wolves.* Dogs lived in a niche for*thousands of years, during*which time*many (probably the majority) got a significant number of calories from leftovers that humans threw out (okay, in recognition of those canine opportunivores among us, some dogs also supplement their diets with food humans don't watch :>).


Again, this is speculation that they were fed a significant amount of veggies. Even if they were, it doesn't prove dogs are different than wolves. NONE of their digestive system has changed.



> Wolves tend to hunt more and scavenge from humans less, although some certainly give up hunting*in favor of*scavenging for a while as some wolves did during the building of the Alaskan pipeline.


 *

It greatly depends on what the availability of prey was at the time. I suspect that the presence of the construction crews scared the prey animals away, forcing the wolves to scavenge. 



> *Bottom line: People obsess about diet, sometimes casting more heat than light in the process.** well duh....
> *


Well there is a correct diet fo feed a dog(wolf). They may have been fed inappropriate food for 100, 500, 1,000 or 10,000 years. Regardless of the amount of time, it doesn't make the food any more appropriate today than it was in the beginning. Dogs digestive system has not changed to adapt to eating plant material. It is the same now as it was 10,000 years ago. This can be determined by comparing a dog's digestive system to a wild wolf of today.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> The whole carnivore/omnivore argument is nothing more than rhetorical device. It's not particularly useful in helping to decide the advisability in feeding any diet.


I see this as more of a discussion than an argument. In my view, in an argument, someone gets upset or angry and in a discussion, that doesn't happen. I hope this is a discussion. I think understanding whether an animal is a carnivore or omnivore is of the utmost importance in determining what his diet should be.



> As we know 'carnivore' simply means an animal that eats meat. 'Omnivore' simply means an animal that eats meat and plants. Some people insist that dogs are carnivores while others insist they are omnivores. As I said, the label is not particularly useful because it is too simplistic and is not defined sufficiently.


Simplistic or not, it defines what a diet should be.



> Cats are indeed carnivores. I've seen no one dispute this. Dogs on the other hand are much more omnivorous than cats. So we really should call dogs both. I tend to believe it is a more accurate to label dogs omnivores because they do in fact eat plant sources (whether feral or companion) and so by definition they are omnivores.


I don't think an animal can be both. Either one or the other. If you think there are degrees of omnivorism, how much of an omnivore is a dog? 10%? 25%? 50%?



> Not only do dogs eat plant sources, more important is the fact that they can metabolize plant sources and nutrients, and anyone who tells you differently does not understand a dog's physiology. Dogs do not digest raw plant sources as well as some other animals including humans, and cats digest even less plant-sourced nutrients.


They eat plants when is no meat availabe. 

The digestive tract of an animal gives you an idea of what kind of food that animal is suited for. Carnivores, including dogs, have a short foregut and short hindgut (and overall a much shorter digestive tract) because their food source is going to be meat and bone. A carnivore must have a short digestive tract for optimal digestion. If the waste products produced by the breakdown of meat were left in the intestinal tract for too long, they can putrefy and build to toxic levels. Any animal that consumes large amounts of meat is going to need that short digestive tract to push the meat through in the optimal amount of time that allows for the best nutrient absorption without putrefaction of any remaining products which would then allow for toxic byproducts to build to dangerously unhealthy levels.

Omnivores and herbivores, on the other hand, have much longer digestive tracts because they eat large amounts of plant matter. Plant matter requires much more time to digest as the very fibrous cell walls of the plants need to be broken down. Plant matter needs to sit and ferment for a while and be worked on by beneficial bacteria so that the nutrients contained in the plants can be made available to the animal that ate it. Most herbivores are either ruminants and have a specialized multi-chambered stomach to assist with this process, or have a highly developed caecum to allow this to take place. They also have a very long small intestine in order to allow carbohydrate digestion and nutrient absorption to take place although the pH of their stomach is also not quite as acidic as carnivores, once again pointing to the fact that herbivores eat a carbohydrate rich food and carnivores don't. Even with the long transit time there still is a lot of waste due to the indigestible parts of the plant. Herbivores stools are frequent and in copious amounts (unless you are a sheep or a deer and then you just poop very frequently in lots of little pellets). Carnivores poop much less frequently and in smaller amounts. 

Meat does not have to sit in the stomach and ferment for a long time in order to be broken down; it is easily digested and torn apart by powerful enzymes in the stomach that function best in an acidic environment. carbohydrate digestion occurs in the small intestine because the stomach pH is too acidic for the carbohydrate enzyme to function well--another reason why carnivores have a short intestine! They don't eat carbohydrates and therefore have little to no need for a long small intestine that would provide plenty of time for carbs to be broken apart. Most of their digestion occurs in the stomach, and nutrient absorption occurs rather rapidly in the small intestine as the broken-down meat passes through. Feeding dogs a carbohydrate-rich food like kibble forces them to ferment those carbohydrates in a small intestine entirely unsuited for that process. 



> Cooking makes much of the nutrients contained in various plants more bioavilable to the dog. If the plant sources are cooked properly the dog and even cats can indeed digest and make use of various plant-based nutrients.


The requirement to cook plant material before feeding it to a dog demonstrates without question that they have no biological need for such food because they can not cook in the wild and have flourished for millions of years without eating cooked veggies.



> And so calling a dog in particular a carnivore does not deductively imply the conclusion that dogs should be on raw meat diets.


The fact that dogs can't cook their own food definatly implies that exact point.



> The shape of the teeth may tell us what an animal has historically, in an evolutionary sense, eaten but does not tell us what they can eat and digest or even what they tend to eat in the present, or most importantly, what is optimal for them to eat.


It tells us what they SHOULD eat and what their bodies are designed to eat, therefor what is optimal for them.



> Various internal anatomical or physiological features can suggest certain nutrient requirements also but again this does not imply that dogs must or even should eat a raw meat based diet.


Verious internal anatomical or physiological features definately tells us what form those nutrients should be in when ingested in order to be properly digested and optimally utilized by the body. In the case of a dog, they tell us that the nutrients should be in the form of raw meat, bones, and organs.


----------



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

I see *RawFedDogs*, is pushing his non-scientific propaganda again. Hats off to *Curbside Prophet* for attempting to squelch the noise. RawFedDogs actually believes that since you cannot cut open kibble and see meat, vegetables, and grain... you don't know they are in there and it's most likely sawdust. Yep, he wrote that to me. Well enough on this subject of carnivore v. omnivore. I hope this becomes constructive.


----------



## AkiraleShiba (Dec 9, 2007)

2Catahoulas said:


> I see *RawFedDogs*, is pushing his non-scientific propaganda again. Hats off to *Curbside Prophet* for attempting to squelch the noise. RawFedDogs actually believes that since you cannot cut open kibble and see meat, vegetables, and grain... you don't know they are in there and it's most likely sawdust. Yep, he wrote that to me. Well enough on this subject of carnivore v. omnivore. I hope this becomes constructive.


There's actually sawdust in Hill's T/D and many of their formulas


----------



## tommy1201 (Sep 17, 2008)

My son has dogs and cats. Of course he feeds him dog food, but when he can, he does steal from the cat food bowl. He's very healthy so I con't think there's any problem.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

*Just a reminder: We DO NOT release peoples' real names over this forum, as it is a violation of their safety and privacy.*


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Cheetah said:


> *Just a reminder: We DO NOT release peoples' real names over this forum, as it is a violation of their safety and privacy.*


Just to add to this, if you don't want your real name exposed to the public, I shouldn't be able to find it in your public profile either.


----------

