Study: Starch Digestion Adaptation in Dogs

Discussion in 'Dogs - General Dog Chat' started by Shai, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Fran101

    Fran101 Resident fainting goat

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    12,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Boston
    This.
    Do your own research..feed what your dog seems to do best on and what you can afford and easily deal with.

    BAM.
    Dogs are much hardier than we give them credit for.. Merlin (perks of working at a pet-store) eats everything. So let's guess I've got my bases covered :rofl1: Raw, pre-made, very high quality kibble (Acana) all the way to medium quality (Blue)
    He is doing very well.
     
  2. JacksonsMom

    JacksonsMom Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    8,694
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Maryland
    THIS! I've very much turned into a sourcing/company snob. Ingredients don't bother me as much as they previously used to.
     
  3. CatStina

    CatStina SBT Lover!!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    5
    Location:
    USA
    Ugh!! C'mon people! This study is fascinating and a jumping off point for future research. This study doesn't mean that people should feed their dogs on a diet of potatoes it means that dogs can digest starch.

    Ok, raw feeders, your dog does well on raw food. Congratulations! I'm happy you found a food that works for your dog. Guess what? My dog does well on a high protein, grain free kibble that contains starch. I'm going to keep feeding him that no matter what you say.
     
  4. Flyinsbt

    Flyinsbt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    3
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    :rofl1: I hear you there! It has gotten kind of amusing to me, the vigorous opinions people have on this subject. We really do overthink it. And people are crazy judgmental about other people's choices. Me, I'm getting too old for that. I mean, not the overthinking, the judgmental stuff. Or caring about the judgments other people make about my choices.

    I think the dogs I have now would do well on raw, maybe a bit better than they do on quality kibble, I'm just not well situated to feed it. I think the dogs I had previously, it wouldn't have mattered. I also think the dogs I have now are well able to thrive on kibble, anyway. I'm not sure I'd be willing to breed dogs that couldn't do well on most diets, since I think the natural, healthy state for a dog is to be flexible in their diet.

    But hey, that's just my opinion, and I'm not going to judge what anyone else chooses to do. And if people want to tell me I'm killing my dogs with my feeding choices, well okay. Feel free. Though I'm probably not going to be willing to pay you money for that opinion.
     
  5. rudysgal

    rudysgal New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yikes. I never said that they didn't die of other things at all. I know they do, having studied wolves myself.

    Oh man... I was going to explain myself but sounds like it might not be worth it tbqh. Have a nice day :)
     
  6. Shai

    Shai & the Muttly Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I both agree and disagree with this (how's that for taking a position? ;) ). I do think it's easy to overthink it all and most dogs will do well on anything reasonable...but on the other hand modern dogs are often wholly dependent on humans to consciously hand them every morsel of food they eat. There's much less scrounging around and eating a bit of this or a bit of that. I'm pretty sure I have family members whose dog has never, ever eaten anything other than a single brand of kibble and milk bones. Not exactly making use of the "variety over time" safety net.
     
  7. Shai

    Shai & the Muttly Crew

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for this...I think a lot of griping is going on over an argument that isn't actually being made lol
     
  8. Laurelin

    Laurelin I'm All Ears

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    30,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    a lot
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Home Page:
    My dogs eat whatever these days. I feed like Fran does. We usually have at least 2 brands of grain free kibble, several brands of canned food (both grain free and with grains), real raw, premade raw, and I'll admit they get food I eat as well. They've been doing really well this way for a long while now.

    I think it is important to feed food that is good quality to your dog and that your dog does well on. I also think variety no matter what the diet is a very important thing. I think there are some kibbles that are pure crap. (Have you ever looked into I think it is called 'Feed Bag' at Tractor Supply? Blegh)

    But once you get past that... eh. Is there really any scientific data to back this all up? Reading 'stuff' on the internet really mean it's all factual. There are very few scientific studies on dog nutrition (well that aren't funded by a dog food company). People are almost fanatically religious about how much better X diet is versus Y. and people get angry over things that I will be honest, I don't think really matter.
     
  9. Raegan

    Raegan Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Giant Miniature Schnauzer & International Toller o
    Location:
    Fond du Lac, WI
    Actually that's not what evolution predicts. And if that DID happen, THAT would disprove evolution definitively and be much stronger evidence for some kind of spontaneous generation. Speciation isn't as cut and dried as it's often made out or presented to be. Don't think of it as a horse giving birth to a pegasus, it's more like compounded genetic differences driving a gulf between populations. Think of a gradient from blue to orange, on the far left you're definitely in blue territory, on the far right you're definitely in orange territory, but the closer you get to the middle it's harder to figure out.

    Here's a video on ring species that explains it pretty well:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

    Both potholder54 and Aronra are worth watching if you're interested in understanding evolution better. Specifically AronRa's Falsifying Phylogony and Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism. They are slanted specifically to anti-Young Earth Creationism, because that is usually the most vocal anti-evolution contingent but the science is really well presented.

    Nope! Dogs ARE wolves. They really are still wolves. They're a wolf that's adapted to living with humans, but they're still wolves. At BEST, they are a subspecies. The plasticity of the dog genome is pretty unique, but that does not override their genetic history. But "wolf" is a much broader category than many people in North America might know. The popular image of the Timber Wolf is a specialized wolf too, just like the dog. They're specialized to hunt large game in packs. Dogs more likely originated with the Middle Eastern Wolf, but there's a lot we don't know about the process of domestication (and I personally am not up to date on what the current research is). Mark Derr's book is supposed to be pretty good. He was on Science Friday this week! http://sciencefriday.com/segment/01/25/2013/canine-conundrum-how-dog-became-man-s-best-friend.html

    But saying dogs are not wolves is as incorrect as saying humans are not mammals or birds are not dinosaurs.
     
  10. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olympia, WA

    Dude. Birds are not dinosaurs. Dinosaur encompasses a MASSIVE group of extinct animals, including sauropods, that have very tenuous genetic connections to modern birds (if any, because there are plenty of well documented cases of convergent evolution). Birds =/= dinosaurs. They have probable ancestors among the dinosaurs based on the fossil record, but there is no DNA evidence where we've definitely looked and said, "huh, these two are genetically the same group of creature". Also, some dinosaurs had fur. No birds have fur.

    Just because an extinct group of animals are ancestors to a living population does not mean they are the same creature. That's like saying there's no such thing as foxes and wolves and dogs and black bears and grizzly bears because they're all just variations of amphicyon.

    Humans are mammals. That comparison has nothing to do with anything, because nobody is saying dogs are not mammals. It would be more like saying humans are not chimps. Which is true. Humans are not chimps.

    Dogs are not wolves. There is less in common between dogs and wolves genetically, phenotypically, and behaviorally than there is between Canadian greys and coyotes. Feral dogs never revert back to a wolf-like phenotype after living in the wild for several generations. Most domestic animals revert back to a wild phenotype that is nearly identical to their closest ancestor. Dogs revert to reddish yellow, prick eared dogs (see dingos as a well established example of this).

    Dogs originate from several points of domestication, including non wolf canids. There are some extinct domestic canids that have no wolf blood at all. Some lines of dog (like GSDs) had wolf recently added (in the past 120 years). Canines in general seem to have a lot of plasticity between species, coyotes, wolves, jackals, etc. producing fertile hybrids with each other and with dogs. Does that mean golden jackals are wolves as well? No.

    The idea of species is a human one, because we like putting things in little boxes and drawing little charts and naming things. Really, that's not how things work. You can hybridize rat snakes from the genus elaphe with king snakes from the genus pantherophus and get very fertile, vigorous hybrids.

    What a lot of people regard as evolution, I see as adaptation. Changing beak shapes to fit different flower shapes is an adaptation. It doesn't create a new species of hummingbird. Blurry spots becoming predominate in one leopard frog population where another has sharply delineated spots doesn't mean they're two different species now. How many adaptations does it take to make a new species? If you go by the definition of whether or not they can hybridize and produce fertile offspring, then we've really screwed up somewhere if different genuses can do it.

    ETA: Graargh! My browser is so screwed up!

    ETAETA: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687.short

     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  11. Red.Apricot

    Red.Apricot Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,985
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Southern California
    Saying that birds are dinosaurs is not the same as saying that all dinosaur are birds. Current thinking is that 'dinosaur' encompasses two main radiations of animals, and one of those had an off-shoot which led to birds; so the bird clade is nested inside the dinosaur clade. Hence, birds are dinosaurs, in the same way that birds are reptiles, if we're trying to use the terms in a cladistic fashion.

    Evolution includes adaption of the type you're talking about, Romy. :] Evolution is more than just speciation; it's the process, driven by selective pressures, by which populations change in gene frequency over time.
     
  12. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Birds never have fur and always lay eggs. Some dinosaurs have fur, so right there that puts them in a different category than birds. They can still be ancestral, but they're not the same thing. Also, based on the extreme size of some dinosaur species it's extremely likely some were live bearers.

    Using the term in a cladistic fashion is all well and good, but it's not very relevant to dogs vs. wolves in this context. Thrushes have very different needs than ducks, than peregrine falcons, than velociraptors, and then if you want to branch over to reptiles, than iguanas.

    I think it's very likely that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but until someone comes up with DNA (which I think will happen at some point) I'm going to reserve a little skepticism. Tuataras are total weirdos out of left field, but superficially they closely resemble agamids and some other lizards.
     
  13. Psyfalcon

    Psyfalcon Fishies!

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Dog, Dog, Cat, Fish
    Location:
    Oregon
    So which dinosaurs have fur?

    Real fur, not furry looking feathers.
     
  14. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Sordes pilosus for one, though there are a lot of pterosaurs described as having "hairlike" and "furlike" coverings, with stress placed on it not being feathers. There are dinosaurs with hairlike feathers, but when I look them up sometimes they describe it as being "feather-like", so not true feathers there in every case either.
     
  15. Linds

    Linds Twin 2

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    7,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Illinois
    All I have to say is that sometimes the way threads twist and turn on chaz amazes me. One of the many reasons I love this place.
     
  16. CharlieDog

    CharlieDog Rude and Not Ginger

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,420
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    Georgia
    Right? I WAS reading about starch adaptations, then raw feed/grain feeding, then theories vs laws, including something about the laws of thermodynamics, then evolution got dragged into, then dogs and how they are/not wolves, then how a bird is a dinosaur but not.

    Weird.
     
  17. Dekka

    Dekka Just try me..

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,779
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    8 dogs and 6 horses.
    Location:
    Ontario
    Home Page:
    Jumping back to the OP...Very interesting. Though I wouldn't rush out to add starches to your dog's diet on the basis of this. Just because a dog CAN digest this doesn't mean its the best option metabolically. We digest simple carbs, ie sugar, just fine... doesn't mean we should start adding it to our diets for heath's sake.

    It should be fairly obvious that dogs CAN digest starches, or we would have a lot of dogs with upset stomachs eating the typical kibble. But can and is a healthy option are not the same things.
     
  18. Romy

    Romy Taxiderpy

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    We're doomed anyway.
    [​IMG]

    ETA: DEKKA YOU'RE HERE!!! I've literally been waiting for your input on the OP for the entire thread! :)
     
  19. Beanie

    Beanie Clicker Cult Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    14,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Illinois
    Home Page:
    Mitochondrial DNA is the key here. Again, dogs and wolves share a common ancestor. They are NOT the same thing, and dogs did NOT evolve from wolves. Mitochondrial Wolfdog evolved into Dog and Wolf separately.

    (Mark Derr seems to hate mtDNA because it makes what he has argued for so long just... wrong. He likes to give interviews and mention the "flaws" of mtDNA, but never really expands on why he thinks the flaws from the initial beliefs on mtDNA changes anything as far as tracing back to a common ancestor goes. I guess because people initially thought mtDNA was passed on only through the mother and that has turned out to be false that just makes it all entirely bunk? Meh.)
     
  20. Saeleofu

    Saeleofu Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    9,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    :hail: :hail:

    That sums up my thoughts pretty well.
     

Share This Page