|Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 6:35pm PST |
|I love you guys
I have run into this study 3 times so far on different forums today, and everyone is all "I don't care what anyone tells me, I 'm going to keep feeding my dog raw". Here, everyone has actually realised that so far as raw feeding for dogs goes, it doesn't actually make much difference. SENSE! on the INTERNET!
Copy pasted is my response on a previous site:
"Firstly, it doesn't surprise me. Natural selection dictates that the animal that does best in the environment it finds itself in will survive and reproduce more, leading to decendants that also do well in that environment. Wolves have the same amylase gene, it is noted to be a copy number variable gene, so it makes sense that when humans started throwing out starchy waste, the proto-dogs that survived best were the ones that could utilise that (i.e. have more copies of the amylase gene), leading to those with higher copy numbers surviving at the expense of others.
However, what the paper does NOT say is that there are ingredients in starchy foods that dogs need that they can get nowhere else, only that they CAN use it as a source of energy. I think the authors have gone too far in concluding solely from this study that dogs do not benefit from on a meat based diet (nutrients as well as energy needs to be considered).
Therefore, I will continue to feed my dogs a meat-based diet, and I will continue to drop potato peelings on the floor for them. Another interesting thought, as the gene for amylase is copy-number variable, that means there will be some domestic dogs who can get more energy out of starch than others, and thus do better on starchy diets, just saying"
|my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|