On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:28:09 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >She mentions that chimps get only about 4% of their food from
> >animal sources (that's by weight, not calories).  But they spend
> >about 38% of their food-gathering time getting this 4%.  This
> >suggests, as Stahl also infers, that there must be something of
> >great importance in that animal food, for the chimps to spend
> >such a disproportionate amount of time securing it.
>
> If they spend so much time on *hunting* then it may be that it's not the
> nutrients, but the competition factor that drives them.
> Just like the natives of neuguinea Jared Diamond describes. They hunt and
> it's veeeeeery important and brings reputation, they talk very much about
> their glorious deeds - but in the end it's not important for nutrition, due
> to the very small volume.
>
> For chimps like for hunting/gathering humans i think it can be assumed that
> they have a lot of leisure time. After beeing fed adequately (on plants).
> They can just fill their free time to aquire some "specialities" or goodies.
> At the same time competing in the sexual/mating game.

You seem to be suggesting that obtaining animal food is a *hobby*
for the chimps, and a way to impress prospective mates.  I think
this is a stretch.  For one thing, chimps are very promiscuous;
they copulate more or less at will, when females are in heat.
This mating system is not very competitive.  As Jared Diamond
points out, this may explain why male and female chimps are about
the same size.  Males *don't* have to compete with each other to
get laid, so I doubt that they would spend that much time
catching monkeys for that purpose.

> Or, as you suggest, there is something in the animal which is of particular
> importance. I've eagerly studied the references i got from list postings and
> web sites what this could be (after all i conciously deviate in avoiding the
> 4% for myself).
> So far i didn't find a striking point, provided a adequate amount and
> variety of plants.

In my view, you tend to base your protein intake on the minimum
that you can get away with, which may be less than the amount
that you would thrive upon.  My explanation for the 38% of time
spent on getting 4% of the food is that the chimps, and humans,
try to thrive if they can.

Since you do eat some cheese, you do in fact add animal protein
(and animal fat) to your diet.  My guess is that you feel better
doing so than you would feel on a completely vegan regimen.  If
the cheese were not available, or only infrequently available, I
think you would experience a greater desire to eat meat.

> If it's protein, I would think not of protein amounts, but rather protein
> quality: Access to certain amino acids - like the sulphur amino acids.
> Such a small part as 4% weight from animals can greatly enhance the
> effectivity of some protein compositions.

Yes, I think this is a factor as well.  At some level the chimps
and humans know that they are better off if they get even a small
amount of animal protein, even if they can get by without it.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]