Vegan Pets?

[Jumabaar]

The only study where raw egg whites have been shown to be an issue is when they were fed without yolks as part of an already low biotin diet. From that study the old wives tale that 'raw eggs are bad' developed via Chinese whispers with no reference back to that one original study!!! There are no studies showing issues with feeding whole raw eggs.

Cheers- I must admit my googling didn't even find the Chinese whisper.

[Are You Serious Jo]

That was my interpretation, they consumed the garbage because it either wrapped the food or had food stuck to it. I didn't think they just ate it, but the fact they weren't as selective with diet suggested that they were hungry enough to do it.

[colliehound]

Wow - what a lot of reading to get to this point..........

FWIW - i am vegan but my dogs get bones, meat, etc - all as part of a "complete" "as close to nature" as practical.

I don't particularly like preparing the meat, but hey - that comes with owning/living with dogs.

In terms of "health" of a vegan diet for dogs - at the end of the day - vegan / vegetarian / omnivore options for dogs are possible, and well managed, can be equally acceptable in terms of nutrition, health, well being etc.

However the veg*n diets do need a lot of work on the part of the owner to ensure appropriate balance (much like our own diet).

Some commercial foods may well do this for us - I haven't personally looked into it.

Most wouldn't choose to I expect, but don't have a problem with those who do as long as the dog is fit happy and healthy.

I have one dog who will turn down a bowl of meat off cuts in favour of fruit (watermelon, pears, kiwifruit, apples, mango etc).

Doesn't mean that I will only feed her fruit.

I have another dog who will "Catch his own chicken" any chance he can get..........doesn't mean I either let him, or assume he doesn't like his veggies.

I think like many things in life "everything in moderation".

While I choose not to use, eat, buy or otherwise have things that in some way involved the death, suffering or man imposed use of an animal I don't believe that should be imposed on anyone else. Your life, your body your choice. BUT if you want to know more or why - only too happy to educate. (NOT preach).

Interesting topic.

In terms of research - check with Maureen at Vegan / Veg Soc of Qld, she has oodles of reference materials and may be able to assist. (and no - not all biased).

[trojka]

If i could pick between vegies or gelati for dinner as a child it would be the gelati, doesnt mean anything just that a dog cant make an informed decision, no suprises there.

If someone knows what they are doing there is no issues having a vegan dog, and no one so far has come up with a legimate reason not to, other than they personally dont like it but we live is Australia so unless the dog is suffering thts not valid.

Well that's great that you would rather have gelati than basic nutrition but not really relevant to this discussion. A dog would not choose gelati over what's hard wired into their brain to eat if they are hungry. It's not rocket science and has nothing to do with what people personally dont like. Dogs are omnivores. Their gut is designed for that. Eat what you like but dont impose it on your dog or cat, which you have said you dont so good for you. Anyone who does is a boring hipster if they're just doing it for fad rather than health reasons, and I would call them an animal abuser.

It doesnt need a science project to understand why dogs and cats are not vegans! Just seems like more shit from animal 'rights' activists who, by their own philosphy, shouldnt even own pets. While they're bleating about how animals in captivity are abused by humans not only do they own pets but use pharmaceuticals tested on animals. Hypocritical much?

I am surprised no-one else has mentioned this. What part of owning pets is considered vegan?

And no, I am not ignorant in regards to veganism, I have a large number of friends who are vegans or vegetarians (for whom I have huge respect when it comes to their personal choices), all of which agree with this. One of them has a rescue dog, who is not fed a vegan diet. I have no problem with vegans choosing to have pets, but if they cannot handle feeding them meat as part of an appropriate diet, there are pets that are vegetarian/vegan.......

I believe killing is only ok for survival. Humans in the western world no longer need to eat meat so i dont beliee in killing anything for food. Certainly not for clothes or make up etc

I have already decided my kids will be vegan because there is no good reason for them to not be. They can chose to when they are old enough to understand what they are deciding

IMHO no one has provided no one has provided a good reason on here for dogs to eat meat.

I dont count because thats what nature intended a reason.

And how is that not a reason? It is what nature intended them to eat, and they can't make a choice as we can. They have to eat what is put in front of them, appropriate or not.

[chuckandsteve]

If i could pick between vegies or gelati for dinner as a child it would be the gelati, doesnt mean anything just that a dog cant make an informed decision, no suprises there.

If someone knows what they are doing there is no issues having a vegan dog, and no one so far has come up with a legimate reason not to, other than they personally dont like it but we live is Australia so unless the dog is suffering thts not valid.

Well that's great that you would rather have gelati than basic nutrition but not really relevant to this discussion. A dog would not choose gelati over what's hard wired into their brain to eat if they are hungry. It's not rocket science and has nothing to do with what people personally dont like. Dogs are omnivores. Their gut is designed for that. Eat what you like but dont impose it on your dog or cat, which you have said you dont so good for you. Anyone who does is a boring hipster if they're just doing it for fad rather than health reasons, and I would call them an animal abuser.

It doesnt need a science project to understand why dogs and cats are not vegans! Just seems like more shit from animal 'rights' activists who, by their own philosphy, shouldnt even own pets. While they're bleating about how animals in captivity are abused by humans not only do they own pets but use pharmaceuticals tested on animals. Hypocritical much?

I am surprised no-one else has mentioned this. What part of owning pets is considered vegan?

And no, I am not ignorant in regards to veganism, I have a large number of friends who are vegans or vegetarians (for whom I have huge respect when it comes to their personal choices), all of which agree with this. One of them has a rescue dog, who is not fed a vegan diet. I have no problem with vegans choosing to have pets, but if they cannot handle feeding them meat as part of an appropriate diet, there are pets that are vegetarian/vegan.......

I believe killing is only ok for survival. Humans in the western world no longer need to eat meat so i dont beliee in killing anything for food. Certainly not for clothes or make up etc

I have already decided my kids will be vegan because there is no good reason for them to not be. They can chose to when they are old enough to understand what they are deciding

IMHO no one has provided no one has provided a good reason on here for dogs to eat meat.

I dont count because thats what nature intended a reason.

And how is that not a reason? It is what nature intended them to eat, and they can't make a choice as we can. They have to eat what is put in front of them, appropriate or not.

Because nothing about the domestic dog is as nature would have it. If you live in an apartment is that not ok for a dog as nature would have them live outside? If they are happy and healthy whats the problem?

[The Spotted Devil]

espinay, whilst I would agree that wolves and dogs have a number of similarities they are definitely separate species - since about 100,000 years ago.

Current dogs are thought to have been domesticated about 19,000 years ago (after an earlier failed attempt about 30,000 ya)

As a zoologist I consider them the same species, and the taxonomy in most common usage does too

We must be reading different literature :laugh: The DNA studies I've read indicate delineation 100,000 years ago but put domestication at 10,000 years. Can you PM me some authors please as I would like to read further. Thanks!

Aw man, you mean I can't just talk crap on the internet without sources? Dammit :p :laugh:

On my lunchbreak so don't have my referencing skills up to snuff, but - http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2011/08/110819-dogs-wolves-russia-domestication-animals-science-evolution/

Under the Biological Species Concept dogs and wolves fail at the first hurdle, by gettin' busy and having fertile pups :)

Edit - this looks interesting (but inconclusive) too - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/15/1203005109

Not a chance - especially when I'm in the middle of writing my thesis :laugh:

The references I have indicate that the dog became genetically different from its immediate ancestor, the wolf 10,000-15,000 years ago and it was the genome of the dog that finally confirmed that wolves (not other canids) were the ancestor. There's no doubt dogs were the first species to be domesticated. Before that it was the "proto-dog" - and there were likely multiple opportunities for domestication from several sub-species of wolves and repeated genetic exchanges with the wolf population. I have also heard recently that the ability to have fertile offspring no longer means that two animals are automatically considered the same species. Domestication involves a reduction of fear (like the fox study - selecting for tameness) but it is much more complicated. Researchers believe there are other behavioural changes with dogs e.g. the attachment process with humans.

[Weasels]

Not a chance - especially when I'm in the middle of writing my thesis :laugh:

The references I have indicate that the dog became genetically different from its immediate ancestor, the wolf 10,000-15,000 years ago and it was the genome of the dog that finally confirmed that wolves (not other canids) were the ancestor. There's no doubt dogs were the first species to be domesticated. Before that it was the "proto-dog" - and there were likely multiple opportunities for domestication from several sub-species of wolves and repeated genetic exchanges with the wolf population. I have also heard recently that the ability to have fertile offspring no longer means that two animals are automatically considered the same species. Domestication involves a reduction of fear (like the fox study - selecting for tameness) but it is much more complicated. Researchers believe there are other behavioural changes with dogs e.g. the attachment process with humans.

:laugh: okay I might be able to dig some stuff out tomorrow. The most recent one I read is not published yet tho

Multiple species concepts have been around for some time, but the main reason they were developed was for elusive or weird critters where we can't observe their mating, identify different life cycles or if they have some asexual reproduction etc. With straightforward, sexually reproducing mammals like canids I can't see any reason to resort to more complicated concepts. I'm pretty sure they pass the test under the phylogenetic species concept too by being a distinct and reciprocally monophyletic clade

[Weasels]

Last thing I read the genetic difference between dogs and wolves was about 0.01%? My dim memory also remembers the fun fact that this diversity is about the same as that between breeds? I don't know I'll have to wait for weasels to out nerd me on that one :laugh:

Either way as far as I'm aware they've been considered the same species for ages, I think they made dogs a subspecies but that was just to make people feel better rather than any significant differentiation.

Nope you've got me there :laugh: I would expect the level of genetic difference to vary according to what kind of DNA was looked at, but the relative differences (across subspecies cf. across breeds) is interesting :) Yes dogs are a subspecies Canis lupus familiaris alongside Canis lupus dingo, Canis lupus hallstromi (New Guinea Singing dog - although it could be argued these are a type of dingo) and a bunch of local subspecies of wolf

Edited November 1, 2012 by Weasels

[The Spotted Devil]

I have seen dogs referred to as Canis familiaris in the literature. Maybe it's the behavioural vs zoological literature? Wouldn't surprise me.

[LisaCC]

Wolves and dogs, different subspecies but definitely the same species.

Off topic but I wonder if the domesticated types of Silver Foxes have yet to be classified as a separate subspecies of Fox... Hmm Google Scholar is my friend.

Silver fox is the very same species as red fox. Not subspecies, but a form. Something like a panther and black panther, same species.

I know that, I'm talking about the domestication that has happened with the silver form.

It's been a very interesting experiment of you want to look it up.

But like with Domestic dogs, I wonder if they will get the subspecies classification at some stage. Not the silver strain, but the domesticated version of the silver strain.

[Donna]

I don't think I said I found it great, I said I prefered it to the ingredient list and contents of commercial dog food. Barf or commercial comes from the same contaminated animals.

I said raw egg can cause blood dyscrasia's which s why we cook them, the biggest issue is raw egg white binds to biotin . Biotin is necessary for cell growth, the production of fatty acids, and the metabolism of fats and amino acids. It plays a role in the citric acid cycle, which is the process by which biochemical energy is generated during aerobic respiration. Biotin not only assists in various metabolic reactions, but also helps to transfer carbon dioxide.

No I understand metabolism and digestion, it was your bracketing of the word cooked that led me down a different path as to what you meant.

As for contaminated animals I'm not understanding really your point as to not feeding a commercial dry food or making your own raw diet from animals you know have been humanely dispatched. Basically it's just coming down to the fact you dont like animal products in your house or is it a genuine health choice for your dogs?

Ahhhh don't assume to know what I think and the basis for our decisions :) Contaminated with including but not limited to IGF-1, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, pentobarbitone and last line anti-biotics. The protein content in commercial dog biscuits is often from items like beaks, feathers, feet, other dogs, road kill, maggots, faecal matter, heavy metals and anything else that may or may not go into human food production and the bar is already set very low there. Human bodies are designed to cope with small amounts of the above contaminants, not the concentrated amounts found in animal products. So yes from a health perspective we prefer to feed something knowing what is in the food we feed those we are responsible for and we have met the manufacturer in person. Vegan pet is $170.00 for 15kg.

[Crisovar]

Can you name an Australian product that uses dogs or roadkill please?

[LizT]

Can you name an Australian product that uses dogs or roadkill please?

Indeed. I too would be quite interested to know.

Personally I feel most canine Vegan foods are too grain oriented for a dogs digestion.

[LizT]

Thanks for the welcomes. No problem LizT, I get what you mean and have ordered a flame suit from ebay.........

[espinay2]

I have seen dogs referred to as Canis familiaris in the literature. Maybe it's the behavioural vs zoological literature? Wouldn't surprise me.

Canis familiaris (the original classification given by Linnaeus) was reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammologists in 1993.

The Dingo is classified as Canis lupus dingo.

The genetic difference between dogs and wolves based on DNA is not really a good argument for different dietary requirements given the genetic diversity existing even within wolves (and dogs) themselves: http://www.wolf.org/...canissoupus.pdf (it is a bit like saying that because one haystack has a needle in it and the other doesn't that they are not both haystacks).

To date there is no evidence found or presented that the gastrointetinal tracts and major internal organs of dogs and wolves are different.

This also presents an interesting read: http://www.bconnex.net/~langevin/assets/applets/The_Wolf_s_Natural_Diet.pdf

Edited November 1, 2012 by espinay2

[Diva]

That's interesting Espinay. I read a while back a paper that compared the milk of dogs and wolves and found that dog's milk had a different fat/protein composition, although I'd stress that the differences were not large.

Have you ever come across that research? I can't find the paper now, it's been a few years.

(apologies if this is too off topic, it's a far way off the vegan question)

Edited November 1, 2012 by Diva

[Jed]

Donna

yes from a health perspective we prefer to feed something knowing what is in the food we feed those we are responsible for and we have met the manufacturer in person. Vegan pet is $170.00 for 15kg.

I guess this is a kibble? How do you know what is in it? The content may well be contaminated by pesticides and faecal matter, herbicides, dust, and fumes, or be genetically modified - and if they comes from ground sprayed with a herbicide it is carcenogenic.

I like to see what my dogs eat. Yes, they get dry food, but their entire diet is not dry food. Once you can't see the ingredients, they could be anything.

At that price, one would suspect that the ingredients are pure and healthy. Donna, I am not criticising you, I am just cynical :)

And I am not sure when dogs became omnivores from carnivores, but I would like to see some scientific evidence that they have become omnivores.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Jed

[Nekhbet]

Ahhhh don't assume to know what I think and the basis for our decisions :) Contaminated with including but not limited to IGF-1, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, pentobarbitone and last line anti-biotics. The protein content in commercial dog biscuits is often from items like beaks, feathers, feet, other dogs, road kill, maggots, faecal matter, heavy metals and anything else that may or may not go into human food production and the bar is already set very low there. Human bodies are designed to cope with small amounts of the above contaminants, not the concentrated amounts found in animal products. So yes from a health perspective we prefer to feed something knowing what is in the food we feed those we are responsible for and we have met the manufacturer in person. Vegan pet is $170.00 for 15kg.

I didn't assume anything at all I actually asked a question about what your thought process was. Why are vegans so defensive all the time?

As for lack of contaminants, grains are actually one of the most contaminated products on the planet compared to meat to ensure they 1) actually grow to maturity and are not smothered in weeds and 2) whilst stored to not be decimated by moulds, bacteria and insect pests. I sell a lot of these chemicals at work and they are horrific. Your dog food is not certified organic and only where possible does the company add organics.

Again I was asking would you have a problem feeding your dogs a home made diet if you saw the animals were raised humanely and killed humanely. You keep chickens and take their eggs so really you're not totally living the vegan ideal.

I think too many people forget that without food, an animal will die. WHen you are starving, desperate and have no other option you eat what you get or you fade away. Many animals will resort to eating food on the path of least resistance, so when wolves, coyotes, wild dogs etc scavange at dumps and eat all manner of SALT, SUGAR and FAT filled foods to keep them going they will. It doesnt mean if they suddenly spot a limping screaming rabbit they will glaze over and turn back to a few berries or roots. Food is about survival, and our modern dogs are like that as well - they have no option but to eat what you give them or die. No normal animal will starve itself, so they will eat it, they may not like it or it may not be really that good for them but they deal with it or risk death. The body has ways of preserving itself on some absolutely shitful diets people insist their dogs are doing well on, which is again where the mistake comes in that the dogs do 'fine' on crap.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Nekhbet

[JulesP]

I actually asked a question about what your thought process was. Why are vegans so defensive all the time?

Again I was asking would you have a problem feeding your dogs a home made diet if you saw the animals were raised humanely and killed humanely.

Vegans and vegetarians get defensive because they get questioned and challenged constantly. And teased a lot. In the 20+ years I was a vego I didn't once tell someone that they shouldn't eat meat but had to deal with people constantly trying to trip me up. Did I use leather etc etc

I wouldn't eat a humanely raised and killed cow. I feed meat to my dogs. And I fed meat to the hubby. A friend used to give me bones from her cows, humanely raised and killed. I struggled more feeding those bones than I did the ones from the supermarket. As I knew the cows. I was a vego because I am a sook though not because of any environmental issues. You are going to get different answers to your question depending on why the person is a vego/vegan.

[espinay2]

That's interesting Espinay. I read a while back a paper that compared the milk of dogs and wolves and found that dog's milk had a different fat/protein composition, although I'd stress that the differences were not large.

Have you ever come across that research? I can't find the paper now, it's been a few years.

(apologies if this is too off topic, it's a far way off the vegan question)

As far as I can remember, there is one study conducted in the late 60's which sampled one arctic wolf with a comparison made to two dogs, and a variation was found between them. More studies have been done just on dogs and there have been a variation in results between them as well. I would note that in this context no real comparison has been done on the effects of maternal diet on these results. Though there are other studies looking at individual effects on milk composition of maternal diet, for example in relation to long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid content. Mech does mention that some commercial dog milk replacement formulas are too low in arginine for wolves and pups may develop cateracts without additional arginine supplementation. However, this issue is not restricted to wolves: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/6/1688S.short