How wolves "became" dogs

CaveCanem said:
In Dr Willis' book, some of the anecdotal evidence for wolf blood in the GSD was that a dog called Phylax was growled at by some Borzois at a dog show :rolleyes: - it is actually used as evidence by Shiloh Shepherd people.

Also, if that is part of an academic study - it's German ShepHERDS
Click to expand...

Even though I have absolutely nothing to do with any university, since it is a Swedish university, I want to offer my biggest and most grovelling apologies for this spelling mistake, that possibly happened when translating Schäfer to German Shepherd Dogs.



 
I'm also a newly-signed member, and wish to reluctantly drag this conversation back to the topic of carbohydrate digestion in the modern Canis Lupus Familiaris.

As CaveCanem and FinnishLapphund have pointed out, however many claims of wolf ancestry are made for certain breeds, all the modern dog breeds we have do belong to the above genus.

And from what I have read of the research so far, different specimens did contain widely different numbers of copies of the gene concerned, which merely confirms what we all know, that some dogs tolerate being fed scraps, and low-quality, grain-rich food, much better than others.

My dog is a Dobermann, and I've been feeding her grain-free, high-protein food from Origen for years now (the fish one), because if she gets gluten, she gets a mild auto-immune reaction, which gives her raw patches on the ends of her ears. I know I could just avoid wheat, but when it first happened, I learned how much better it is to feed something that is rich in natural, animal proteins.

What this research tells us is that dogs are, in general, far better at digesting starch than their wolf ancesters. However, this is starting from a very low base, and does not suggest that it's a good idea to feed our dogs a diet that's high in these.

On the contrary, it's why it's so easy for our dogs to get fat on these modern, high-starch diets, when they would probably just give a wolf a bad case of the squits!

It might have been advantageous for a scavenger on the edge of our society to be able to keep moving and keep weight on with nothing else available on the scrapheap, but to feed a dog a diet very rich in carbs rather than the proteins and fats they originally evolved to eat will never be the most healthy thing to do.
 
CaveCanem said:
Fact?!!

Umm, the dog in question was once known as Hektor Linksrhein and his name was changed by Von Stephanitz to HorAnd von Grafrath.
He was born in 1895 and registered as the first ever GSD so I doubt very much if he was still kicking about in the 1920s.

The founding father of the modern GSD? The GSD is a 'modern breed', which he created, which is why I hate all this 'old fashioned, big boned sales pitch' - they never were a giant breed in the first place.

The jury is still out on whether there is much wolf in the original bloodlines, it's a claim. I am surprised none of the respected breed biographers like Dr Willis or Brian Wootton or indeed Von Stephanitz himself, who was a meticulous record keeper, didn't make more of these claims. Again, it is often used as justification/sales pitch for crossing to wolves and a big sales pitch for the woman who invented 'Shiloh Shepherds'.
Click to expand...


Apologies for the spelling mistakes, I was working from memory.

This is a very inflammatory subject the original studbook is in the USA, and you can buy a copy of it from Amazon for $200, but I cannot afford $2 let alone 200! I may also have got the dates wrong, apologies for that, I was working from memory.

Personally, I think GSDs are wolf crosses - you only have to look at them to know their wonderful origins. One day when I am wealthy I will purchase a copy of the original studbook, but for now, I am afraid I cannot prove anything.
 
NothingVenture said:
I'm also a newly-signed member, and wish to reluctantly drag this conversation back to the topic of carbohydrate digestion in the modern Canis Lupus Familiaris.

As CaveCanem and FinnishLapphund have pointed out, however many claims of wolf ancestry are made for certain breeds, all the modern dog breeds we have do belong to the above genus.

And from what I have read of the research so far, different specimens did contain widely different numbers of copies of the gene concerned, which merely confirms what we all know, that some dogs tolerate being fed scraps, and low-quality, grain-rich food, much better than others.

My dog is a Dobermann, and I've been feeding her grain-free, high-protein food from Origen for years now (the fish one), because if she gets gluten, she gets a mild auto-immune reaction, which gives her raw patches on the ends of her ears. I know I could just avoid wheat, but when it first happened, I learned how much better it is to feed something that is rich in natural, animal proteins.

What this research tells us is that dogs are, in general, far better at digesting starch than their wolf ancesters. However, this is starting from a very low base, and does not suggest that it's a good idea to feed our dogs a diet that's high in these.

On the contrary, it's why it's so easy for our dogs to get fat on these modern, high-starch diets, when they would probably just give a wolf a bad case of the squits!

It might have been advantageous for a scavenger on the edge of our society to be able to keep moving and keep weight on with nothing else available on the scrapheap, but to feed a dog a diet very rich in carbs rather than the proteins and fats they originally evolved to eat will never be the most healthy thing to do.
Click to expand...

Carbohydrate-containing modern processed dog food does far more than just give a wolf, or a wolf cross, the squits, believe me! My old boy very nearly died as the result of being fed a kibble diet, before I knew any better!

As you rightly say, just as with us, carbohydrate is extremely fattening for dogs - far better IMO - setting aside this new discovery re the metabolisation of amylose - to feed them a diet based on fats and proteins, as you rightly point out.
 
Trying to learn more about possible domestication dates and the likelihood of starch adaptation as a domestication factor I came across this:

http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577001843790269560.html

I am inclined to believe men and wolves started by being hunting partners long before man started farming, and dogs adapted as a consequence of the changes in man's diet. Their dentition, the still relative shortness of their gut and the speed of transit of food in their digestive system would seem to point to an animal best suited to a mostly carnivorous diet even if it managed to adapt (more or less) to other foods.
 
If someone has a dog with gluten intolerance, then I'm not going to suggest that they feed their dog wheat.

However, if my bitches does not have any gluten intolerance, then I'm not going to stop feeding them the odd bit of spaghetti and other types of pasta now and then, from my leftovers.

:)
 
Nikki J said:
Personally, I think GSDs are wolf crosses - you only have to look at them to know their wonderful origins. One day when I am wealthy I will purchase a copy of the original studbook, but for now, I am afraid I cannot prove anything.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to differ :)
Brian Wootton and Dr Willis' books are not nearly so expensive as the original breed book/Von Stephanitz's books and are very interesting reads.
 
FinnishLapphund said:
I hope everyone notices the fourth breed from the top!




About the wolf crossing with purebred dogs, then I've always heard that, even though it now and then pops up rumours saying that so and so breed have been crossed with wolves at some time during the last 100 - 200 years, with the exceptions of Saarloos wolfdog and Czechoslovakian wolfdog, the rest is, again as far as I've heard, only unconfirmed rumours. For example saying that someone saw a wolf in someone's barn etc.


There have been such rumours in Sweden also, but during that very same period, wolves came very close to extinction in Sweden. If Mr average dog owning Swede wanted to mate his bitch to a wolf, he would almost certainly have had to break in to a zoo, somehow gotten his bitch into a wolf enclosure, then somehow gotten her out again and taken his, hopefully still alive, bitch home with him. Honestly, how likely is that to have happened?


Finnish Lapphund is a Finnish/Sami dog breed that comes from the northern areas of Finland (and possibly Sweden), which also is the areas where the wolves still existed in the wild, but the Sami people is also owners of reindeers, and if I was to estimate the chance of a wolf being killed, compared to the chance for it to be able to mate with a Finnish Lapphund, I would say that it is probably 100 % chance for the wolf being killed.


So personally, I doubt any of the five Nordic breeds in the study have had any wolf crossed with them for the last 100 -200 years, they might very well have been crossed with other domesticated dogs than their own breed, but wolves, I doubt it.

:)
Click to expand...

That "someone" was me! And the person who told me that they had seen 2 wolves in Eddie's barn happened to be a wildlife expert, with a degree in Zoology. He works for a country park, and his special interest is badgers. He is absolutely convinced 100% that there were 2 wolves in the barn, and Eddie's reaction when the wind blew the door open was very evocative.

I agree with your doubt about Nordic breeds having had any fresh wolf blood put in recently - I wouldn't go back 200 years, but I would think it safe to go back 100 or more. However, once you have a closed gene pool in any breed of animal, then you have just that - a closed gene pool. You cannot somehow diminish the DNA just by not introducing any fresh blood - from, in this case, a wolf. All thoroughbred horses are descended from 3 original Arab stallions - Darley Whatsit etc. etc., i cannot remember all the names. The centuries passing does not somehow mean they are "less thoroughbred" than those 3 original stallions.

Behavioural is of course a different matter. My little F1 was far far more wolfy than my old boy who was an F4.
 
CaveCanem said:
We'll have to agree to differ :)
Brian Wootton and Dr Willis' books are not nearly so expensive as the original breed book/Von Stephanitz's books and are very interesting reads.
Click to expand...

Apparently, all books except for the original stud book in the USA, are to be discounted as fudges. there was a huge whitewash campaign to hide the fact that GSDs are wolf crosses, and the original stud book ended up in the States. You used to be able to buy a copy for $200 off Amazon of this original studbook, but as I say, i cannot afford that. If and when I can, I shall definitely be buying a copy !!
 
Come across alot of dogs with allergies to cereals yet not one with an allergy to meat, offal or bone. That says it all for me :-)
 
MrPotts I hate to say it but my fella was intolerant to raw - he was intolerant to most things, bless him, the best thing for him was an own brand fish and rice mulch for £19 a bag, that ended up being discontinued because no one bought it apart from me, it seems!! But he was a speyshul spud. I do agree raw is the best, if you have the inclination and it suits the dog.
 
I've been giving a lot of thought to this whole topic of RAW vs starch diets as it pertains to my experiences in dogs. When I was active as a breeder/exhibitor for 25 years (starting in the mid 1970s), and a dog magazine columnist for 16 years, RAW wasn't even a subject. Yes, the odd person fed cooked meat to particular dogs in their kennels for whatever reasons. But, on the whole, the feeding topics always related to the various dry feeds that had this amount of protein, that amount of fat, and whether any of them contained ethoxyquin, a big no no. Living in Hawaii, the dog fancy was very receptive to lectures and seminars on all aspects of canine husbandry due to our isolation in the Central Pacific. Most of the breeders and exhibitors imported dogs from the States, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (the last 3 countries being particularly attractive because of their rabies-free status, which Hawaii honoured within its rabies-free borders). Of course, bloodlines within the breeds dictated the geographic locations of those imported dogs. Over the years I imported 8 Golden Retrievers from the US, and 8 Norwich Terriers from the UK (the former were quarantined for 4 months, the latter came straight home with me from the airport). And through it all, the type and quality of food was always at the forefront. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I never had a problem with messy, yukky stools. Even my pups went comfortably from their dams to solids without incident. Interestingly, one of the foods available in the baby food department of local supermarkets is something called poi. It comes from a tuber known as taro, a staple of many Polynesian islands. The tuber is pounded until it becomes a smooth paste. The fresh poi comes in 1 finger, 2 finger, or 3 finger grades, and has to do with how thick or runny it's been pounded. The baby poi is available in vacuum sealed jars which contain taro and water, that's all. It is considered one of the most highly digestible foods known (to man). Many breeders of my acquaintance use baby poi for a few days when introducing solids to their pups. Poi is a starch which has been broken down by the pounding process. In the context of this thread, go figure. In all the years I was involved in the fancy, I have had only one dog, a Norwich, with inexplicable skin problems which, if I knew then what I know now, might have been helped by a RAW diet.

I've taken quite a bit on board reading this thread. I did some searching, today, for some of the top quality foods mentioned. When I went to Taste of the Wild and Kirkland (Costco's home brand and highly rated in the States), I found that they have had a recent recall of their dry foods. Diamond Pet Foods produces both brands and had a salmonella problem. Then I went to Applaws and Orijen and there had been recalls with their foods, one was for cats, I believe. I now have one 10+ years old Jack Russell, and a 3 year old GBGV. They always have firm, easy to pick up stools, and virtually no wind. Their skin is clean and itch-free, and they have beautiful coats. If I can give them better food, I will...BUT, some of the protein is into the 40% range. I have never given my dogs that amount of protein. It worries me because of the possibility of kidney problems as they age. The Jack Russell is on Simply, and the GBGV is on Royal Canin Adult (recommended by her breeder when I purchased her). Given the breakdown on both foods, I'm very keen to replace the Royal Canin.

I'm not keen on handling raw meats (I don't do it for the people in my family), so I'd prefer to feed a high quality kibble. But, given that I don't have a problem with my dogs' poo, skin, pigment, behaviour, I'm a bit reluctant to fix something that isn't broken.

These are just some of my recent musings since I found that article re: wolves/dogs/starch. If you've gotten this far, a nice thick slice of New York cheesecake is yours.
 
Last edited:
My mother started seriously exhibiting and breeding in the early to mid-70s also - the dogs were fed on tripe which she went and cut herself at the abbatoir and minced at home (in the garage, obviously!!!). The dogs were also fed 'lights' (lungs?).
Other times the dogs were fed on tinned meat mixed with table scraps/bread.
It was a very simple diet.

Dry foods were just coming into circulation and we used Winalot, which must have been a revelation when you were used to going and collecting and cutting and mincing by hand, animal stomachs!!

The problem with protein in the dry food is that it is protein from carbs/cereals, not protein from meat. Causing many problems in lots of dogs.
 
Your mum minced the tripe, how posh.:p I've seen a whole range of diets for dogs, when I was little there used to be a huge pan always on the go in the kennel kitchen (my gran had boarding kennels), which was cooked up large chunks of meat. My mum used to buy it from a dog meat stall on the market, with hindsight I think this was probably horse. It was fed with a biscuit meal. Then mum moved on to green tripe, fed in large chunks, bitches with litters were supplemented with weetabix/eggs etc. I too fed green tripe until about 4 years ago when the local abattoir closed down, and now feed a mixture of Skinners Duck & Rice, Fish 4 dogs and raw. I keep thinking I will switch totally to raw but so far it does seem to be a more expensive option for my two, and as long as they are doing well I am not too worried.
 
CC and MM: Can I assume you are both Brits? As a Yank living in the UK for almost 18 years, I have observed many cultural differences between our two countries, as you do. One particular observation is the almost innate awareness of the life and death aspects of farm animals here in the UK. The vast majority of people in the US are so far removed from that cycle of life, that words like abattoir, 'lights,' offal don't enter their vocabulary, much less their daily lives. Granted, I moved to rural Britain and live in a farming community. But, here there are cities surrounded by farmland. In the US, people can travel for miles and miles and never see a cow, sheep, pig, much less an abattoir. I was one of those people. When I moved to Hawaii in 1975, I lived in a suburban community some 13 miles from Honolulu (which was the 12th largest city in the US at the time). I knew of a 2 dairy herds on the North Shore of Oahu, but that was it. So, the idea of mincing tripe was as foreign to me and my ilk as eating 2 finger poi and a piece of breadfruit would be for you. I remember, as a young child, having a meal at one of my distant, elderly, immigrant relative's home and seeing a tongue on a platter on the table. I was horrified (mainly, because it looked so much like a tongue, even out of context!). But she was from the old country (Europe) and was raised eating such foods.

As an adult living in Hawaii, I had an occasion in which I had to source sheep stomachs to prepare haggis for 350 people for a Burn's Night supper at a major Honolulu hotel. That was no mean feat. Apparently, just asking the supermarket butcher for several sheep stomachs required several days' advance notice. What I'm attempting to convey is a disconnect between food and its sources in the US compared with what I have experienced here in the UK. True, I have met many 'country' people here in my community. But, even in more urban settings, so many people of my acquaintance in the UK have a knowledge of the rights of passage of the food supply.
 
MrPotts said:
Come across alot of dogs with allergies to cereals yet not one with an allergy to meat, offal or bone. That says it all for me :-)
Click to expand...

I've been holding my tongue about this, but now I can't any longer, because -


I've known a meat allergic Dalmatian!

So maybe I should hereby begin to suggest that we all begin to feed our dogs tofu. :eek:



But no, only because I've known a dog (sometime during the late 1980s) who was fed a strictly vegetarian dog food + some pills/vitamin supplement due to being meat allergic, I have no plans on beginning to feed my bitches neither a meat or cereal free diet, nor have I any plans on beginning to promote tofu feeding in All about Dogs.

:)
 
I have a friend who feeds raw ( as I do), one of her dogs is allergic to chicken, beef and lamb, the only meat she can eat is pork.
 
MrPotts said:
Re' a dog with a meat allergy, if I'd bred it, raised it and it was allergic to meat then I'd believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

Good point! I would query whether any dog who was apparently allergic to meat was in fact allergic to something in the meat, such as antibiotics fed to the animal, growth hormones or some other nasty. I personally find it very hard to accept that any dog ... an animal which is virtually 100% carniverous ... could possibly have a true meat allergy ... I would suspect some other organic cause for such an allergy, or an allergy to something in the meat itself.
 
I don't know if it was an allergy to meat, chicken or whatever but my dog scratched himself raw, until he bled, so he went back onto a fish-based mulch. He was PTS a couple of weeks ago, he was never 'right' anyway.
 
CaveCanem said:
I don't know if it was an allergy to meat, chicken or whatever but my dog scratched himself raw, until he bled, so he went back onto a fish-based mulch. He was PTS a couple of weeks ago, he was never 'right' anyway.
Click to expand...

O dear, I am so sorry CC, poor dog and poor you. I hope you didn't think I was being insensitive, I won't comment any further as it is not going to bring your boy back - I'm sending you big hugs
 
Oh no, not at all, keep commenting, no need to apologies, we knew he wouldn't make old bones, he developed AF which made a lot of sense when you added up all his issues/sensitivities/ailments over the years, there wasn't much that was right with him towards the end, sadly. Thanks for your kind words x
 
CaveCanem said:
Oh no, not at all, keep commenting, no need to apologies, we knew he wouldn't make old bones, he developed AF which made a lot of sense when you added up all his issues/sensitivities/ailments over the years, there wasn't much that was right with him towards the end, sadly. Thanks for your kind words x
Click to expand...


No probs! x
 
Further to the article in the journal Nature, based on Erik Axelsson's study at Uppsala University in Sweden, re: dogs' ability to break down starch, I've just read the Los Angeles Times' article "Carbs were key in wolves' evolution into dogs."

This article goes into a bit more detail regarding Axelsson's research. I quote the last two paragraphs of the piece: "Oscar Chavez, director of the veterinary technician program at Cal Poly Pomona (in California), said 'the findings served as a reminder that dogs don't eat like wolves.' He said he and his colleagues were befuddled by the trend toward pricey low-carb dog foods and raw diets, which could stress the dogs' kidneys with their extra protein load.

'Dogs are dogs - they're more reliant on starches and grains,' he said, which is why commercial dog foods are formulated to contain 20% to 30% protein and 40% to 50% carbs. 'I don't know any vets in my circle of colleagues who would recommend a low grain diet.'"

I found his quotes interesting because it has been said that predatory canines, when bringing down herbivorous prey, go for the stomach and its contents before devouring other body parts. Those stomach contents are packed with grasses and their seeds.

Something to ponder...
 
RutlandH2O said:
Further to the article in the journal Nature, based on Erik Axelsson's study at Uppsala University in Sweden, re: dogs' ability to break down starch, I've just read the Los Angeles Times' article "Carbs were key in wolves' evolution into dogs."

This article goes into a bit more detail regarding Axelsson's research. I quote the last two paragraphs of the piece: "Oscar Chavez, director of the veterinary technician program at Cal Poly Pomona (in California), said 'the findings served as a reminder that dogs don't eat like wolves.' He said he and his colleagues were befuddled by the trend toward pricey low-carb dog foods and raw diets, which could stress the dogs' kidneys with their extra protein load.

'Dogs are dogs - they're more reliant on starches and grains,' he said, which is why commercial dog foods are formulated to contain 20% to 30% protein and 40% to 50% carbs. 'I don't know any vets in my circle of colleagues who would recommend a low grain diet.'"

I found his quotes interesting because it has been said that predatory canines, when bringing down herbivorous prey, go for the stomach and its contents before devouring other body parts. Those stomach contents are packed with grasses and their seeds.

Something to ponder...
Click to expand...

Dogs are dogs, that is quite true, and this latest "discovery" that dogs have evolved slightly away from the mainly carniverous diet of their wolf ancestors and some can now tolerate carbs, this does not mean that dogs are not still primarily wolf ... as borne out by the fact that they can mate freely with wolves and produce fertile offspring and share 99.2% DNA.

It is a fascinating subject, but how I see it is this. For the past 15 years I have only had "wolfie" type dogs - by that I mean an F4 wolf cross 15 years ago, we then kept one of his puppies as a stud fee from his first litter, we then lost Mr F4 tragically and rescued a registered utonagan, which are a wolfie breed being a mix mainly of Alaskan Malamute, Siberian Husky and very low % wolf. We now have one of F4's sons from his second litter, who is very wolfie in his looks and manner. All 4 of these dogs were totally intolerant of carbs - the higher the wolf %, the more the higher the intolerance, which is interesting because it would support the new scientific discovery. So we are left with the situation where some dogs can eat just anything, some dogs who have to proceed with caution and some dogs who really will only thrive on a raw diet - whether it be prey model, or BARF.

You said in your post:

"I found his quotes interesting because it has been said that predatory canines, when bringing down herbivorous prey, go for the stomach and its contents before devouring other body parts. Those stomach contents are packed with grasses and their seeds.

You need to remember that the stomach contents of the herbivorous prey will have been semi-digested by the enzymes in the stomach - thus rendering the contents more digestible. Wolves are not 100% carniverous like, say, cats. They have a very small need for vegetative material, which of course can be quite high in carbs - but when eaten as semi-digested vegetative material, the wolf can tolerate them much better. Indeed, the stomach contents of herbivorous prey is vital to the health of any wolf, they would not be able to thrive on a carniverous diet of muscle meat, organs and bone, just like we can live on a diet of Macdonalds but we won't be very healthy.

So I don't "buy into" that dogs are more reliant on grains now - that's like saying we are more reliant on processed food now, on ready meals, so therefore it's OK to eat it. It's not, if you want your dog to be 100% fit and healthy and to thrive and live to an old age without living in the vets, then the very best diet for him is the natural wolf diet, even though as the latest research has proved, many dogs are now producing the enzymes to digest certain starches. As I say, we can digest junk food - it doesn't mean that it is good for us.

A very interesting discussion ... over to you!!
 
Nikki J said:
Dogs are dogs, that is quite true, and this latest "discovery" that dogs have evolved slightly away from the mainly carniverous diet of their wolf ancestors and some can now tolerate carbs, this does not mean that dogs are not still primarily wolf ... as borne out by the fact that they can mate freely with wolves and produce fertile offspring and share 99.2% DNA.

It is a fascinating subject, but how I see it is this. For the past 15 years I have only had "wolfie" type dogs - by that I mean an F4 wolf cross 15 years ago, we then kept one of his puppies as a stud fee from his first litter, we then lost Mr F4 tragically and rescued a registered utonagan, which are a wolfie breed being a mix mainly of Alaskan Malamute, Siberian Husky and very low % wolf. We now have one of F4's sons from his second litter, who is very wolfie in his looks and manner. All 4 of these dogs were totally intolerant of carbs - the higher the wolf %, the more the higher the intolerance, which is interesting because it would support the new scientific discovery. So we are left with the situation where some dogs can eat just anything, some dogs who have to proceed with caution and some dogs who really will only thrive on a raw diet - whether it be prey model, or BARF.

You said in your post:

"I found his quotes interesting because it has been said that predatory canines, when bringing down herbivorous prey, go for the stomach and its contents before devouring other body parts. Those stomach contents are packed with grasses and their seeds.

You need to remember that the stomach contents of the herbivorous prey will have been semi-digested by the enzymes in the stomach - thus rendering the contents more digestible. Wolves are not 100% carniverous like, say, cats. They have a very small need for vegetative material, which of course can be quite high in carbs - but when eaten as semi-digested vegetative material, the wolf can tolerate them much better. Indeed, the stomach contents of herbivorous prey is vital to the health of any wolf, they would not be able to thrive on a carniverous diet of muscle meat, organs and bone, just like we can live on a diet of Macdonalds but we won't be very healthy.

So I don't "buy into" that dogs are more reliant on grains now - that's like saying we are more reliant on processed food now, on ready meals, so therefore it's OK to eat it. It's not, if you want your dog to be 100% fit and healthy and to thrive and live to an old age without living in the vets, then the very best diet for him is the natural wolf diet, even though as the latest research has proved, many dogs are now producing the enzymes to digest certain starches. As I say, we can digest junk food - it doesn't mean that it is good for us.

A very interesting discussion ... over to you!!
Click to expand...

Good post and I agree, our JRT had awful skin when he had cereals in his diet.I feed raw and don't give any cereals at all.
Al my dogs are fine and healthy.
 
Nikki, I DO buy into the fact that dogs are now, many thousands of years in the making, more reliant on carbs, in the form of starchy grains, than wolves. Despite wolves and dogs being able to produce fertile young when crossed, and despite them sharing 99.2% of their DNA, genetic studies have found major differences in dog and wolf genomes to justify the this perspective. However, I believe that those dogs with a greater percentage of wolf, i.e. those like yours and several of the Nordic breeds, may have a reduced tolerance to starch. It was the evolution of the wolf in its quest for survival that precipitated its ability to tolerate starch and garner the goodness out of the waste foods he found next to human settlements. Humans acquired the ability to digest starch when they became less hunters and more farmers thousands of years ago. Using the MacDonald's analogy is a cheap shot...sorry, I don't equate some of the quality dry dog foods with junk take-away (and yes, I know there are some pretty crappy dry dog foods available). Just because humans and gorillas share something like 98.25% DNA, does that mean we should go out and start munching on giant lobelia and trees?

One of my worries is the fact that dogs have kidneys that can be compromised by too high a protein level in their diets. I'm not a scientist, but I would err on the side of caution when it comes to high levels of protein, especially in aged dogs.

Dogs are not wolves, despite evolving from them. I welcome these studies as they can only enlighten us as to the DNA sequencing of canis lupus familiaris and canis lupus, and demonstrate their similarities and differences.
 
Just as there are humans who cannot tolerate grains, dairy, nuts, there are dogs that cannot digest carb/starch. Fortunately, there are dietary alternatives for us and our canine friends.
 
RutlandH2O said:
Nikki, I DO buy into the fact that dogs are now, many thousands of years in the making, more reliant on carbs, in the form of starchy grains, than wolves. Despite wolves and dogs being able to produce fertile young when crossed, and despite them sharing 99.2% of their DNA, genetic studies have found major differences in dog and wolf genomes to justify the this perspective. However, I believe that those dogs with a greater percentage of wolf, i.e. those like yours and several of the Nordic breeds, may have a reduced tolerance to starch. It was the evolution of the wolf in its quest for survival that precipitated its ability to tolerate starch and garner the goodness out of the waste foods he found next to human settlements. Humans acquired the ability to digest starch when they became less hunters and more farmers thousands of years ago. Using the MacDonald's analogy is a cheap shot...sorry, I don't equate some of the quality dry dog foods with junk take-away (and yes, I know there are some pretty crappy dry dog foods available). Just because humans and gorillas share something like 98.25% DNA, does that mean we should go out and start munching on giant lobelia and trees?

One of my worries is the fact that dogs have kidneys that can be compromised by too high a protein level in their diets. I'm not a scientist, but I would err on the side of caution when it comes to high levels of protein, especially in aged dogs.

Dogs are not wolves, despite evolving from them. I welcome these studies as they can only enlighten us as to the DNA sequencing of canis lupus familiaris and canis lupus, and demonstrate their similarities and differences.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good post Rutland ... I would disagree about dogs having kidneys that can be compromised by too much protein ... but I have totally bought into the new research that some dogs are producing enzymes to digest starch. I do think though that dogs are still "wolves" ... just like we are still "hunter gatherers" - the quote marks representing the fact that both species have evolved over time into being able to digest slightly different foods from what their genetic makeup would dictate. We are different indeed from the Kalahari Bushman, the Aborigine or a native of the Amazon rainforest, and yet we are EXACTLY the same species, sharing 100% DNA - not the 99.2% that wolves and dogs share. However, the difference is only skin deep - we could live very well indeed on the diet of the Kalahari Bushman, the Aborigine and the Amazon native - not sure how well they would do on a junk food-based Western diet - but for absolute sure we would thrive on the more natural diet. Ipso facto, a domestic dog - even though he is more "removed" from his ancester - would equally thrive on a natural diet of raw meat, bones and stomach contents of herbivorous prey. For sure, this new research seemingly proves that modern dog has evolved to produce the necessary enzymes to digest starches, I buy that, but that does not mean that the modern pet dog diet of kibble is the best diet. I still believe that it is not. Many human beings produce the enzyme lactase - to be able to digest the lactose found in milk - but many humans do not, my daughter included. Therefore I would say that the milk from another mammalial species is not healthy for our species. Likewise, many humans suffer from coeliac disease, or at best are intolerant of wheat - myself included - but we have evolved to produce various enzymes such as sucrase, galactase, amylase to name but 3 to be able to digest certain sugars. This does not mean though that the very best for us is the hunter gatherer diet - which is probably the nearest thing to the perfect human diet.

So with dogs, I personally believe that the natural wolf diet is the very best diet - even though millions of dogs will thrive quite happily on a diet of kibble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top