At 10:01 PM 9/6/98 -0700, Ray Audette wrote:
>As for breeding to consume less meat, domestic dogs have been eating a
>largly vegetable diet for many more generations than any humans and any
>dog will still do better on a wolf diet just as any human will do better
>on a Neanderthal(a non domesticated Hominid) diet.  Modern humans and
>dogs are almost identical in their degree of DNA differences when
>compared to wolves and Neanderthals respectively.

I agree with you, but you should see the flak I get on my breed list when I
try to suggest even the possibility of this. What I'm told is that
generations of selective breeding has brought about very rapid change and
this likely has included nutritional tolerances to foods like grains since
many genes are linked and are inherited together. (The idea being that
while we've been selecting for traits like upright ears and long coats,
we've also been selecting for grain tolerance.) So, since dogs don't look
much like wolves (the thinking goes), they can't be fed like wolves. Part
of this thinking is that dog's digestive tracts/juices are "weaker" than
those of wild canids, though I haven't found any studies on this either way.

My understanding is this: dogs could not have eaten grains in any great
amount until *we* - the humans - domesticated and grew them for our own
purposes. Prior to that, I think the seeds of grasses would have only been
available on a seasonal basis from the GI tracts of prey, and even then,
would have comprised only a small amount of that. After the domestication
and cultivation of grain by humans, I doubt dogs ate *only* grain or even
as much grain as they eat today. In fact I have seen it theorized that,
having worked so hard to grow, harvest, mill and cook/bake grains and grain
products, the humans weren't about to share that in any great amounts with
the dogs! The dogs probably settled for scraps at best. 10,000 or even 200
years ago, I presume dogs were still free to scavenge/hunt other foods, as
well as subsist on other leftovers from humans - which probably included a
few other items besides porridge or bread. Things like meat and vegetable
scraps as well as bones. Is my scenario too far fetched?

Commercial dog foods as we know them were only invented about 130 years
ago, but did not really "catch on" until maybe the late '50's or early
60's. From that point on, sales of dog foods increased until today,
something like 95% of American dogs eat commercial convenience dog foods.

Still, any suggestion that many dogs (particularly those of certain breeds)
may not yet have adapted to a diet of 40, 50 or 60% domesticated grains is
met with great animosity and resistance. For example, Hill's Science Diet
Canine Maintenance (the food all the vets sell) is 53.3% carbohydrate
(mostly from corn and soy) on a dry weight basis. Dogs eat this stuff every
single day, month after month, year after year. For many dogs kept in
houses, apartments and fenced yards, it's the *only* food they get, unless
they share in the SAD scraps their owners toss to them - more carbs. My
feeling is that *this much* grain/carbs is probably unprecedented in canine
evolutionary history and a mere 40 (or even 100!) years of this kind of
diet is likely not enough time for *all* dogs to have adapted to such a
diet. My feeling is that there has probably been some varying degrees of
adaptation in different breeds, depending on where they originated and the
particular grains native to that area. But, I believe we need to be very
careful about sweeping statements that *all* dogs should be able to do just
fine on the current commercial formulas.

BTW, the breed in question was Goldens which originated in Scotland, about
the same time the first early dog food was invented (1860's).

Any thoughts?

Bottom line: my dogs have been grainless since last November and they've
never looked so good.


Kathy Partridge
mailto:[log in to unmask]