# Is tripe hype?



## ohrats9 (Dec 19, 2007)

I am hearing about people that feed their dog green tripe. That's it. Just green tripe. Does anyone else do this? How has it affected their dogs? 

Thanks.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

I've heard of it being used to supplement a dogs diet, but not as the total diet. I haven't used it myself. I've thought about it, and probably will try giving them some at some point in the future.


----------



## Dog5 (Jan 13, 2008)

I asked about tripe in a post a few weeks ago...a lot of people said it's a good thing to feed, as a supplement, not alone. I mix something wet with my dogs' kibble, and sometimes its beef tripe. Man oh man does it STINK!!!! But they love it!!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Yes, tripe is hype. Tripe is a stomach with traces of grass in it. Some people think its some kind of miracle food because it has some enzymes in it. What is has is traces of digestive enzymes to aid in the digestion of grass. Very valuable ot a cow. Not valuable to a dog.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

My dogs love tripe 
it stinks to high heaven but they love it.....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Tripe is a supplementary feeding only, good for the dogs digestion and dogs love it becasue it tastes good and is stinky! Other than the digestive enzymes it really doesn't have a lot of nutritional value. 

Also, if you're looking into raw feeding, I believe it's suggeted to rotate protien sources.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I have never heard of a dog being fed on nothing but tripe, and I can't imagine it would be very good for the poor animal. 

I don't feed it, because I can't get my hands on any. Dogs love it, but it's not particularly nutritious or anything.


----------



## heidiann (Feb 3, 2008)

I feed it as an addition to the main meal...like to supplement. 

It's so stinky, but the dogs love it.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

I'm with you on this Shalva!!



> it stinks to high heaven but they love it.....


I ordered some freeze dried green tripe a few weeks ago, and it came in neat convenient cubes, but it STINKS! The dog's do absolutely love it though. It says on the bag of course, that it's a "natural body booster". I know quite a few raw feeders that feed it and sing it's praises, so no, I wouldn't say "tripe is hype".


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Alpha said:


> The dog's do absolutely love it though.


Hehe, I love cake and ice cream but they are not "body boosters". 



> It says on the bag of course, that it's a "natural body booster".


Of course and if you go to the web pages of the places that sell it, they will make it sound like a wonder food ... it's not. It is no more nutritious than any other animal part and not as nutritous as some.



> I know quite a few raw feeders that feed it and sing it's praises,


Because they have been taken in by the hype. Thats what hype does. By definition hype makes you think something is what it isn't. The thing that it has that some people think makes it special is traces of enzymes for digesting grass. That is NOT nutritious for a dog. If you fed those enzymes to a cow, they might be useful.


----------



## dusty&lulusmom (Jul 30, 2007)

I have given it to my dogs more as a treat...I agree they do love it but it is so smelly. One time I opened a can and in an instant there was a fly that must have been in the house on it so fast. Gross...Anyway for those that are interested I have found it in a can by the company "solid gold". I buy it at my pet food store.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

We feed ours green tripe - maybe 10%-15% of their total diet - for the same reason we feed them organ meat, raw meaty bones and muscle meat. Not because of hype but because its part of their natural diet and they love it. There's a lot of beneficial stuff besides enzymes in it: short and medium chain fatty acids, minerals, protein and, as with most whole unprocessed foods, probably stuff we don't know about.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

wyx said:


> We feed ours green tripe - maybe 10%-15% of their total diet - for the same reason we feed them organ meat, raw meaty bones and muscle meat. Not because of hype but because its part of their natural diet and they love it.


It is a natural part of a dog's diet but there is nothing natural about 10%-15% of the diet being tripe. Tripe is an organ just like all the other organs. 10%-15% of the diet in nature would be organs. That would include, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas, brain, trachea, AND tripe. That would make tripe about 2% or less of the diet in nature. Heart and tongue are also organs biologically but nutritionally they are muscles. Some say that tripe should be classified as muscle also. 



> There's a lot of beneficial stuff besides enzymes in it: short and medium chain fatty acids, minerals, protein and, as with most whole unprocessed foods, probably stuff we don't know about.


Yes, you are correct but all those other things are in muscles, fat, and bones also. There is no more in the stomach than any other part of the body.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> It is a natural part of a dog's diet but there is nothing natural about 10%-15% of the diet being tripe.


What makes you believe that?


> Heart and tongue are also organs biologically but nutritionally they are muscles. Some say that tripe should be classified as muscle also.


Tripe is primarily epithelium, a completely different class of tissue from muscle.


> Yes, you are correct but all those other things are in muscles, fat, and bones also. There is no more in the stomach than any other part of the body.


The benefits of green tripe are not just in the tissue but also in the chyme, which is quite different in chemical composition from animal tissue, being composed of fermented vegetable matter and bacteria.


----------



## kelliope (Apr 4, 2008)

RawFedDogs, I love you - you know I do...but this cake and ice cream thing - I don't feel things that are naturally occuring in a dog's diet (berries included) can be counted in the cake and ice cream area. 

Cake and ice cream for dogs would be things like processed treats like Pupperoni or Milk Bones. Not naturally occuring things like tripe or berries or even grass.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

wyx said:


> What makes you believe that?


Because the stomach of a cow is not nearly 10% -15% of her body mass. It is closer to 2%.



> Tripe is primarily epithelium, a completely different class of tissue from muscle.


Actually the inside of the stomach is lined with epithelium but it's not the primary tissue.



> The benefits of green tripe are not just in the tissue but also in the chyme, which is quite different in chemical composition from animal tissue, being composed of fermented vegetable matter and bacteria.


Most of the chyme has been washed out of green tripe and chyme has never been shown to be of any nutritional value to a dog. The bacteria in chyme if any happens to be on the green tripe you feed, will die almost instantly upon reaching the dog's stomach. If you happen to feed canned tripe, there won't be any bacteria in it. What possible use could fermented vegetable matter be to a carnivore? 

When my dogs eat stomachs from whole prey, they will sissor open the stomach and shake out the chyme before eating the stomach. Wild wolves do the same.

Too often people want to believe the promotional material on green tripe on the web pages of companies that sell it. Thats like believing the words of a used care salesman. Green tripe is thrown away by the slaughter houses. Some industrious people go by the slaughter house and get some for free or very very cheap, package it, and sell it at exorbatent prices. It's a profitable item to sell.



kelliope said:


> RawFedDogs, I love you - you know I do...but this cake and ice cream thing - I don't feel things that are naturally occuring in a dog's diet (berries included) can be counted in the cake and ice cream area.


Hehe, I love you too!!! If it comes from a plant, it is of no nutritional value to a canine the same way cake and ice cream has no nutritional value to us. Actually cake and ice cream probably have more nutritional value to us than plant stuffs to a canine. 



> Cake and ice cream for dogs would be things like processed treats like Pupperoni or Milk Bones. Not naturally occuring things like tripe or berries or even grass.


Tripe has nutritional value. Just no more so than any other part of a cow or whatever animal it comes from. As part of an animal, it has nutritional value. It's not the wonder food it's sometimes touted to be. Berries and grass = cake and ice cream nutritionally.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

My dogs and cats get green tripe once a week, and none of them give a rat's behind if it's nutritional or not! LOL They love it!


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

Rawfeddogs....

You have an answer for everything! People may not agree but you always seem to have an argument that seems intelligent....

how did you learn all this stuff?? You have a background in this? Or is this just TONS of research you've memorized?


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

I feed tripe about twice a week. There are folks who say it's the perfect food and I know of a few dogs fed nothing BUT tripe their entire lives.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Criosphynx said:


> Rawfeddogs....
> 
> how did you learn all this stuff?? You have a background in this? Or is this just TONS of research you've memorized?


I began researching a raw diet about 8 years ago when after I saw a discussion about it. I researched for a couple of years deciding it was as close to the perfect diet you could feed your dog. Once I began feeding raw, I just continued my research, sometimes changing my thnking, because I still had questions and have just never stopped looking.  I have talken a couple of college continuing education cources, have attended some raw feeding seminars and have attended a wolf seminar which focused on the behavior and diet of wild wolves. I even attended a seminar on canine denistery.  I am good at looking at a situation and cutting through the BS and coming to a logical and reasonable conclusion. Like if a=2 and b=3 then a+b=5.

I try to analize data and not be taken in by BS and hype. I look at everything that I can find about a given subject then arrive at my own logical and reasonable conclusion which may or may not be different than the accepted norm.

I also spend time talking to and communicating with recognized experts in the field. For example, if an expert says something that I don't understand, I talk directly to him and ask him how he came to such a conclusion and what facts does he have that I don't have.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> I feed tripe about twice a week. There are folks who say it's the perfect food and I know of a few dogs fed nothing BUT tripe their entire lives.


That doesn't make it a particularly nutritous food. After all look at the number of people who feed notihng but kibble. How nutritious is that? It is a tribute to our dogs that they can survive on such a small amount of nutrition.

Here is a quote directly from Dr. Tom Lonsdale, ""When I ran a busy veterinary practice, many of my clients fed almost exclusively chicken backs and frames -- whether to adult dogs or litters of puppies -- and their animals showed excellent health."

If dogs can show excellent health on chicken backs and frames, I see no reason why they can't be healthy on nothing but green tripe. Does that make it ideal? NO. Does it make it the healthiest diet? No. Does it make it a balanced diet? No


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> That doesn't make it a particularly nutritous food. After all look at the number of people who feed notihng but kibble. How nutritious is that? It is a tribute to our dogs that they can survive on such a small amount of nutrition.


Apparently the rest of my post got cut off. I made exactly the same point. Thank you for finishing it for me.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Because the stomach of a cow is not nearly 10% -15% of her body mass. It is closer to 2%.


That's correct but you are assuming that a canine will not preferentially eat more of certain tissues, if given the choice. Canines go for the organs first and much of the skeleton, hide and even muscle meat gets left for scavengers or less powerful predators.


> Actually the inside of the stomach is lined with epithelium but it's not the primary tissue.


That inside lining of the stomach that is epithelium IS the tripe. Not the entire stomach.


> Most of the chyme has been washed out of green tripe


Sure, the less digested, fibrous portion of the chyme is removed, but there is plenty of the more liquified (and more fermented) chyme - the part richest in enzymes and fatty acids left. It is difficult to remove it, since it is semi-bonded to the tripe in the process of being absorbed. Tripe has to go through a lot of washing and chemical processing to remove the chyme so it can be sold for human consumption.


> and chyme has never been shown to be of any nutritional value to a dog. The bacteria in chyme if any happens to be on the green tripe you feed, will die almost instantly upon reaching the dog's stomach. If you happen to feed canned tripe, there won't be any bacteria in it.


There will certainly be bacteria in canned tripe. Alive or dead, they are still protein. The chyme found in green tripe is in the final step of digestion prior to absorption, and has sufficient nutrients to grow an ox to half a ton or more in under two years. That's a whole lot of protein, fatty acids, minerals and other nutrients. It is possibly the most concentrated - and bioavailable - source of nutrition on the planet. If it has never been shown scientifically to be of value to dogs it's because it's one of those things that's so obvious that no one has bothered.


> What possible use could fermented vegetable matter be to a carnivore?


Ask the carnivore. THEY seem to think it's very valuable. Our dogs will preferentially eat not only the green tripe but also the home fermented pickles (sauerkraut, kimchi) we give them occasionally. I suspect it's a mineral component (salt, maybe) and/or the VFA or SCFA that are created by the bacteria. The stinkier it is, the more they love it. I agree that raw unfermented vegetable matter is of little use to a carnivore, but fermenting it makes it into something else entirely.


> When my dogs eat stomachs from whole prey, they will sissor open the stomach and shake out the chyme before eating the stomach. Wild wolves do the same.


Again, there is a significant amount of chyme left after this.


> Too often people want to believe the promotional material on green tripe on the web pages of companies that sell it.


Too often people want to believe that they are the only one who has an objective and informed opinion on nutrition. Some of us know a good thing when we see it, from watching our dogs behavior and seeing certain health conditions improve markedly (not to mention having done thousands of hours of journal research in various areas of nutrition and metabolism).


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

wyx said:


> That's correct but you are assuming that a canine will not preferentially eat more of certain tissues, if given the choice. Canines go for the organs first and much of the skeleton, hide and even muscle meat gets left for scavengers or less powerful predators.


That MAY be true for SOME predators but not canines. Wild wolves will work on one kill for days until it's gone.



> Sure, the less digested, fibrous portion of the chyme is removed, but there is plenty of the more liquified (and more fermented) chyme - the part richest in enzymes and fatty acids left.


Again, it's enzymes used in the digestion of grass. Not very useful to a dog.



> There will certainly be bacteria in canned tripe. Alive or dead, they are still protein.


LOL I'm not talking about bacteria to eat! 



> That's a whole lot of protein, fatty acids, minerals and other nutrients. It is possibly the most concentrated - and bioavailable - source of nutrition on the planet.


Tripe has about 8% protein and 6% fat. That doesn't sound like an awful lot to me. It probably is nutritious to a cow but again, not so much so for a dog. They are different animals.



> If it has never been shown scientifically to be of value to dogs it's because it's one of those things that's so obvious that no one has bothered.


I think it has been analyzed over and over again. Just by the facts you have presented prove that a lot of study has gone into tripe.



> Ask the carnivore. THEY seem to think it's very valuable.


They think it tastes good just like we like cake and ice cream. I suspect it's the sugars in tripe that attracts them.



> I agree that raw unfermented vegetable matter is of little use to a carnivore, but fermenting it makes it into something else entirely.


Yes, it converts it to sugar.



> Too often people want to believe that they are the only one who has an objective and informed opinion on nutrition.


Yes, isn't it amazing? I've noticed that too! 

To sum up. Tripe is nutritous as a part of an animal but it's not the super food that the hype claims. It's an animal part just like all the other parts. Dogs can live long and healthy lives if they never eat tripe.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> That MAY be true for SOME predators but not canines. Wild wolves will work on one kill for days until it's gone.


Unless there is abundant game, in which case they will take the contents of the abdominal cavity and leave most of the carcass.


> Again, it's enzymes used in the digestion of grass. Not very useful to a dog.


The lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes found in a ruminent's system are certainly useful for carnivores.


> LOL I'm not talking about bacteria to eat!


Whether you want to talk about it or not, there are huge amounts of bacteria in green tripe contributing to the nutritional value.


> Tripe has about 8% protein and 6% fat. That doesn't sound like an awful lot to me.


100% of the calories in tripe come from protein and fat. It doesn't get any better than that.


> I think it has been analyzed over and over again. Just by the facts you have presented prove that a lot of study has gone into tripe.


Of course, ruminant digestion has been thoroughly studied because it is a primary concern of the meat industry. But I'm unaware of any studies on green tripe in dog nutrition. You seem very sure that green tripe is not especially nutritious for dogs, what is that opinion based on? If it's general distrust of the dog food industry I can certainly understand that but I think it is misplaced in this instance.


> They think it tastes good just like we like cake and ice cream. I suspect it's the sugars in tripe that attracts them.


What sugars?


wyx; said:


> I agree that raw unfermented vegetable matter is of little use to a carnivore, but fermenting it makes it into something else entirely.





RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, it converts it to sugar.


Fermentation does not produce sugar.


> Tripe is nutritous as a part of an animal but it's not the super food that the hype claims.


I think it's likely to have unique nutritional properties that aren't duplicated by other parts of the animal, just as liver does, or bone, or fat. They each have their own benefits. You wouldn't leave out the liver or the bone or the muscle meat? They are all necessary for an optimal diet. Yes, the dog may live and even appear to be healthy for awhile without one or the other. But it's not optimal.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

wyx said:


> Unless there is abundant game, in which case they will take the contents of the abdominal cavity and leave most of the carcass.


Hehe, you need to read scientific research papers and books by Dr. L. David Mech. He has researched and written books about wolves in the wild for over 30 years. He is considered the worlds formost researcher of wolves in the wild. No one else has his experience or knowledge.



> The lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes found in a ruminent's system are certainly useful for carnivores.


These enzymes are found throughout the bodies of all prey animals. Not just in tripe.



> Whether you want to talk about it or not, there are huge amounts of bacteria in green tripe contributing to the nutritional value.


Live bacteria might be of some use but here we are talking about dead little critters. There are much better sources of protein than a bunch of dead little bacterias.



> 100% of the calories in tripe come from protein and fat. It doesn't get any better than that.


100% of 14% isn't that much. Most meaty parts of an animal have much more protein.



> Of course, ruminant digestion has been thoroughly studied because it is a primary concern of the meat industry. But I'm unaware of any studies on green tripe in dog nutrition. You seem very sure that green tripe is not especially nutritious for dogs, what is that opinion based on?


It's based on the indisputable fact that every square inch, every little organism in tripe is dedicated and designed to digest grass. There is no reason for a cow to have anything in her stomach designed to digest meat. Again, as a part of a cow, tripe is nutritous. It just isn't any more nutritious as any other part of a cow. There is nothing in tripe that aids digestion of meat.



> If it's general distrust of the dog food industry I can certainly understand that but I think it is misplaced in this instance.


Doesn't have anything to do with mistrust of the dog food industry.



> What sugars? Fermentation does not produce sugar.


Grass is mostly carbs. Carbs are mostly sugars. Grass in stomach = sugar in stomach. As grass is processed in the stomach sugars are released from the grass. The cow uses these sugars for energy and other things.



> I think it's likely to have unique nutritional properties that aren't duplicated by other parts of the animal, just as liver does, or bone, or fat.


I don't see that. Dogs can't have good health long withoug eating bones. The calcium is crutial and it's absence will cause physical problems in time. Protein is necessary in a dog's health. Dogs can't have good health very long without some kind of protein. Meat is the best source. Organs have some very important vitamins that are necessary for good health in a dog. Most raw fed dogs don't eat tripe and live long healthy lives. I don't see any crutial need for tripe. I don't see any need for tripe at all. Yes it has nutrition. So does feces. Neither is important for health in a dog's diet.



> They each have their own benefits. You wouldn't leave out the liver or the bone or the muscle meat? They are all necessary for an optimal diet. Yes, the dog may live and even appear to be healthy for awhile without one or the other. But it's not optimal.


Perhaps if you could point out what necessary for good health nutrient is found only in tripe and nowhere else in a raw diet, you might convince me. I have been feeding a prey model raw diet for 6 years without feeding tripe in any form with no obvious detriment to the health of my dogs. My 8yo Dane has been fed this diet for 6 years and my 3yo Dane has been fed this diet all his life. I think something should be showing up by now if your statement is true.


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hehe, you need to read scientific research papers and books by Dr. L. David Mech.


I have read some of his original studies, as well as the work of other researchers and they all agree that wolves lose a substantial amount of their kills to bear and other scavengers. There is nothing to support your idea that their diet exactly corresponds to the distribution of organs/meat/bone on the prey animal, not when the prey animal is a large ruminant.

Yes, they have been observed scavenging of lower value tissues (bone, hide) in times of scarcity. Do you believe this is optimal nutrition? I don't think so. They eat that when the alternative is total starvation. Not a good strategy for feeding a dog.


> These enzymes are found throughout the bodies of all prey animals. Not just in tripe.


Ruminants must digest protein and fats as these are the primary nutrients they absorb. The chyme has digestive enzymes in it, in concentrations you wouldn't find outside the digestive system because they would break down tissues unprotected by the digestive epithelium.


> Live bacteria might be of some use but here we are talking about dead little critters. There are much better sources of protein than a bunch of dead little bacterias.


This "bunch of dead little critters" is the primary source of protein and fat to make a 1500 pound animal in less than 2 years, out of a diet of mostly plant fiber.


> 100% of 14% isn't that much. Most meaty parts of an animal have much more protein.


Do they? Muscle meat has about 75% water on average with the remaining 25% split between fat and protein, more or less evenly. Looks about the same as tripe.


> It's based on the indisputable fact that every square inch, every little organism in tripe is dedicated and designed to digest grass.


Actually.... past the reticulorumen, the chyme has little resemblence to grass, it has been mostly converted to bacteria and the products of fermentation - protein and fat. The 4th chamber of the stomach is a lot like the stomachs of monogastric mammals (such as humans and dogs) in function, as is the small intestine and colon.


> There is no reason for a cow to have anything in her stomach designed to digest meat.


Nevertheless, they can. Cattle get almost all their protein and energy from bacteria which are similar to meat in protein composition, so of course they have to be able to digest it. And in fact they can digest animal tissue. Meat by-products have been included in cattle feed for years. It's not their natural diet or ideal but they can utilize it.


> Again, as a part of a cow, tripe is nutritous. It just isn't any more nutritious as any other part of a cow. There is nothing in tripe that aids digestion of meat.


Ruminants secrete the protease pepsin and the HCL in their stomachs, just as humans and dogs do. They are needed to digest the protein in all those bacteria. There could be other enzymes but those are the obvious ones I can think of off the top of my head.


> Grass is mostly carbs. Carbs are mostly sugars.


I suppose you can call it sugar... like wood is sugar.


> Grass in stomach = sugar in stomach. As grass is processed in the stomach sugars are released from the grass.


Any sugar produced is taken up immediately by the bacteria so there is rarely much in the stomach.


> The cow uses these sugars for energy and other things.


The cow does not use sugar from the digestive system for energy. Under normal circumstances sugar in the chyme is fermented out before it reaches the intestines. What little sugar they need is made by gluconeogenesis from fatty acids produced by fermentation. 


> Most raw fed dogs don't eat tripe and live long healthy lives.


That's a very strong statement... you must have some strong scientific evidence to back it up. Care to share it? 


> I don't see any need for tripe at all. Yes it has nutrition. So does feces.


Are you saying that the nutritional profiles of feces and green tripe are the same? Seems a bit odd because my dogs love green tripe, but they don't eat feces (not dog feces, anyway). They do like the poop from herbivores like horses and sheep. Maybe it's the green tripe flavor, or maybe there is actually stuff in it that's good for them.


> Perhaps if you could point out what necessary for good health nutrient is found only in tripe and nowhere else in a raw diet, you might convince me.


You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that a dog couldn't be healthy without it. I said that it's part of their natural diet, and that I feed them 10-15%. To which you responded


RawFedDogs said:


> there is nothing natural about 10%-15% of the diet being tripe.


You sound so very sure about that. Almost as if you have lots of science to back up that assertion. I'd love to see it. Until then, IMO a prey-model diet isn't complete without green tripe.


> I think something should be showing up by now if your statement is true.


If you've never tried it, how can you know your dogs wouldn't be healthier with it? It has certainly helped my older PWC's digestion.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

wyx said:


> I have read some of his original studies, as well as the work of other researchers and they all agree that wolves lose a substantial amount of their kills to bear and other scavengers.


I agree they loose SOME of thier kills to bear but "substantial amount" is a huge stretch. It would be difficult for a bear to take a kill from a whole pack of wolves. It doesn't happen every day.



> There is nothing to support your idea that their diet exactly corresponds to the distribution of organs/meat/bone on the prey animal, not when the prey animal is a large ruminant.


I think it would be rare for a pack of wolves to walk away from part of their kill. On any one prey animal, each wolf would get differing amounts of different parts, but over time it would pretty much equal out with a few exceptions.



> Ruminants must digest protein and fats as these are the primary nutrients they absorb.


Yes, they absolutely do but that would be plant based protein. Thats the part you keep conveniently forgetting.



> This "bunch of dead little critters" is the primary source of protein


Balonely ... The primary source of protein is by FAR grass since that is the only thing a cow eats. The bacteria in the stomach is such a miniscule part of the contents of the stomach as to be not worth mentioning.



> Do they? Muscle meat has about 75% water on average with the remaining 25% split between fat and protein, more or less evenly. Looks about the same as tripe


.

So you are trying to tell me that tripe is dry powdery stuff with no moisture in it?



> Cattle get almost all their protein and energy from bacteria which are similar to meat in protein composition, so of course they have to be able to digest it.


That statement is so far out in left field that I can't even think of a funny come back. 



> And in fact they can digest animal tissue. Meat by-products have been included in cattle feed for years. It's not their natural diet or ideal but they can utilize it.


Yeah, its the same principle of dog kibble. The meat is so very highly processed that the cow CAN extract some nutrients from it. Like veggies in dog kibble. The inappropriate ingredients in these kibbles couldn't be digested in the natural state but can be by the poor animals forced to eat them. 



> Ruminants secrete the protease pepsin and the HCL in their stomachs, just as humans and dogs do. They are needed to digest the protein in all those bacteria.


All what bacteria? The volume of bacteria wouldn't fill shot glass. You talk like you could reach into a cows stomach and pull out a full double handful of bacteria. I think you believe too much of what the tripe salespeople tell you.  

Any sugar produced is taken up immediately by the bacteria so there is rarely much in the stomach.

You are going to have to point me to some evidence of this massive amount of bacteria in a cow's stomach.



> The cow does not use sugar from the digestive system for energy. Under normal circumstances sugar in the chyme is fermented out before it reaches the intestines. What little sugar they need is made by gluconeogenesis from fatty acids produced by fermentation.


There are 2 sources for energy for any animal. One is fat the other is carbohydrates. Carnivores use fat for energy. They get it by eating fat in prey animals. Herbivores(cows) get their energy from carbs in the form of sugar. They don't eat animals so they must get their energy from grass which is the only thing that cows eat. Omnivores can get energy from either carbs or fat.



> That's a very strong statement... you must have some strong scientific evidence to back it up. Care to share it?


It comes from my observations from being on several raw feeding lists for 6 years. Diet is obviously the main topic on these lists. One of these lists have as many as 11,000 members and well over 200 posts a day. The greatest majority of the people on these lists don't feed tripe. Some do but most don't. Most of the ones that do feed it to get their dogs to eat something they don't like, not for nutritonal purposes.



> Are you saying that the nutritional profiles of feces and green tripe are the same?


No, not at all. Not even close. Tripe is the stomach of an ungulate. Feces is the contents of the stomach after it has been processed by the animal. Not even close to the same thing. It's like saying lungs are the same as air.



> Seems a bit odd because my dogs love green tripe, but they don't eat feces (not dog feces, anyway).


I think all dogs love tripe just as I love cake and ice cream. The cake and ice cream has no nutritional value to me so taste has nothing to do with nutrition. My dogs eat all kinds of feces from all kinds of wild critters. They will occasionally eat feces from a kibble fed dog but never from a raw fed dog.



> Maybe it's the green tripe flavor, or maybe there is actually stuff in it that's good for them.


I think it probably is the flavor. I know bestow on dogs the mystical ability to know what is good for them and what is not. Antifreeze is a good example.



> You sound so very sure about that. Almost as if you have lots of science to back up that assertion. I'd love to see it. Until then, IMO a prey-model diet isn't complete without green tripe.


I am very sure. I don't need science. I know what is in tripe. I know there is nothing nutritional for a carnivore in tripe that is not elsewhere in the body of a prey animal. 



> If you've never tried it, how can you know your dogs wouldn't be healthier with it? It has certainly helped my older PWC's digestion.


Thats a good point but I fall back on my previous statement. I'm glad your dogs are doing so well. I think we are neither surprised that the other's dogs are healthy. 

I'm getting tired of this discussion. I will let you get the last word. Make one more post then we'll move on to something more interesting. OK?


----------



## wyx (May 23, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> I agree they loose SOME of thier kills to bear but "substantial amount" is a huge stretch. It would be difficult for a bear to take a kill from a whole pack of wolves. It doesn't happen every day


Or... maybe it does. The wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park are possibly the most studied population. Here's an interesting article in which the bears clearly come out on top in almost all interactions: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2006/spring/personalencounter.pdf
Another one from National Geographic "Research published last month revealed that—unlike other top predators—Yellowstone's wolves routinely leave unfinished elk (Cervas elephas) and moose (Alces alces) carcasses.", full article here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1204_031204_yellowstonewolves.html


> Yes, they absolutely do but that would be plant based protein. Thats the part you keep conveniently forgetting.


Not plant protein, bacteria protein. In fact the little bit of protein in the grass is generally digested by bacteria in the reticulorumen.


> Balonely ... The primary source of protein is by FAR grass since that is the only thing a cow eats. The bacteria in the stomach is such a miniscule part of the contents of the stomach as to be not worth mentioning.


If it's not the microbes, how about you tell me how ruminents break down the cellulose in grass to get the sugar? (before you try to answer that, try a web search on ruminant fermentation, it will save you a lot of frustration).


> So you are trying to tell me that tripe is dry powdery stuff with no moisture in it?


I'm saying that tripe and muscle meat are similar in water and macronutrient content.


> All what bacteria? The volume of bacteria wouldn't fill shot glass. You talk like you could reach into a cows stomach and pull out a full double handful of bacteria. I think you believe too much of what the tripe salespeople tell you.


I don't know about the volume of the bacteria but it's about 7 pounds a day of high quality protein from the bacterial mass, which is good for about 25 pounds or so of beef. This is just basic ruminant physiology, any rancher or dairy farmer would tell you the same thing. Or just read this article from the University of Colorado (it's written for a non-scientific audience): http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/herbivores/ferment.html


> There are 2 sources for energy for any animal. One is fat the other is carbohydrates. Carnivores use fat for energy. They get it by eating fat in prey animals. Herbivores(cows) get their energy from carbs in the form of sugar. They don't eat animals so they must get their energy from grass which is the only thing that cows eat. Omnivores can get energy from either carbs or fat.


Protein is also an energy source, 4kcal/g (same as carbohydrate), carnivores and omnivores can both absorb sugar in the gut (but too much makes them sick)... ruminents and other large herbivores get almost all their energy from fats, specifically the VFAs made by fermentation, as well as protein.


> I think all dogs love tripe just as I love cake and ice cream..... I know bestow on dogs the mystical ability to know what is good for them and what is not. Antifreeze is a good example.


Antifreeze is a poor example, there's no evolutionary pressure for an aversion to it.


> I am very sure. I don't need science.


That pretty much says it all. Look, you have awfully strong opinions about this for someone so... unfamiliar with the subject. Why not do a little research before you hit that submit button, just in case? You wouldn't want to be passing false information to people would you?


----------

