Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?

Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Printable Version

+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Questions (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-questions)
+--- Thread: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? (/topic-which-are-stronger-pound-for-pound-herbivores-or-carnivores)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - parvez - 12-03-2016

(12-03-2016, 07:52 PM)brotherbear Wrote: One of my favorite animals; the Indian rhinoceros. I don't know about pound-for-pound; but he has a lot of pounds! Only an elephant or another rhino could take down a bull rhino ( excluding man-kind of course ).

There are instances of tigers targeting and killing adult rhinos though rare.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - parvez - 12-03-2016

(12-03-2016, 08:07 PM)brotherbear Wrote:
(12-03-2016, 07:57 PM)parvez Wrote: I believe gaurs horns are more built for combat than water buffalo. can you explain?

The buffalo's horns are wide-spaced, more of a design for bulls pushing against each other. Not a great design for hooking into a tiger ( for example ). The gaur's horns are about the perfect size and closer together; better for defense.

There are few cases of water buffaloes hooking into a tiger. Now can i say you have utter hatred for tigers and insulting them? Anyways, not all water buffaloes have wide spaced horns, a few to look at. They seem to be present in extremely large specimens. Even if present, they allow more control of defense over larger ranges while in confrontation with predator or other bulls and helpful for more control over wider ranges. It is not limitation IMO. They can effectively use them over wider ranges.

*This image is copyright of its original author

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - brotherbear - 12-03-2016

(12-03-2016, 08:31 PM)parvez Wrote:
(12-03-2016, 07:52 PM)brotherbear Wrote: One of my favorite animals; the Indian rhinoceros. I don't know about pound-for-pound; but he has a lot of pounds! Only an elephant or another rhino could take down a bull rhino ( excluding man-kind of course ).
There are instances of tigers targeting and killing adult rhinos though rare.

I have read of a few cases, rather recent in fact, of a tiger killing a few adult female rhino's. If there is any data on tigers killing mature bull rhino's, I am unaware of it.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - brotherbear - 12-03-2016

Post #62... there are exceptions to the rule, but I believe the gaur better armed. Size is similar: http://www.ultimateungulate.com/index.html
Water buffalo from 800 kg ( 1764 pounds ) to 1200 kg ( 2645 pounds ) - Gaur from 700 kg ( 1543 pounds ) to 1000 kg ( 2200 pounds ).

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Polar - 12-04-2016

For brute strength, though, I think an average, full-grown male Bengal Tiger can horizontally pull at most three tons of weight with his forelimbs, and a little over one ton with just his jaws. A gaur (2000-pound one), assuming it would pull in the mannerism that a draft horse or an ox would, can pull up to fifteen tons due to a greater muscle mass percentage than the ox and a larger size than the ox (a single ox weighing 1000-pounds can pull five tons). Also, I do think wild bovines are pound-for-pound stronger than their domestic counterparts, as with most wild animals and domesticated animals. The tiger uses his arms/jaws, and the gaur is holstered here.

If comparing pulling weight/body weight ratios between the two, it would compute this:

Tiger (jaws) = 5 - 5.2x body weight
Tiger (forelimbs) = 13.75 - 15x body weight
Gaur (holstered) = 15x body weight

Note how the tiger and the guar are similar in pound-for-pound horizontal pulling strength, but in different ways. As stated earlier, strength is difficult to assess, but I would easily give the edge to an equally-sized tiger.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Polar - 12-04-2016

(12-03-2016, 07:52 PM)brotherbear Wrote: One of my favorite animals; the Indian rhinoceros. I don't know about pound-for-pound; but he has a lot of pounds! Only an elephant or another rhino could take down a bull rhino ( excluding man-kind of course ).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Rhinos (all species included) are definitely the strongest herbivores pound-for-pound when it comes to neck strength, and against all other animals, it stands a great chance with the strong neck of bears.

Not to mention it can run just as fast as a medium-sized brown bear (40-45 mph).

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - brotherbear - 12-04-2016

Not to mention it can run just as fast as a medium-sized brown bear (40-45 mph).
Actually; the speed of the grizzly is often greatly exaggerated. A grizzly will seldom exceed 30 mph.
In the ancient Roman arena, there was once a huge European grizzly pitted against a rhinoceros ( either an African black or white ). There was no fight; simply a killing as the rhino demolished the bear.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Polar - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 01:25 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Not to mention it can run just as fast as a medium-sized brown bear (40-45 mph).
Actually; the speed of the grizzly is often greatly exaggerated. A grizzly will seldom exceed 30 mph.
In the ancient Roman arena, there was once a huge European grizzly pitted against a rhinoceros ( either an African black or white ). There was no fight; simply a killing as the rhino demolished the bear.

It won't exceed 35 mph when simply striding or hunting an animal, but when threatened for dear life, a grizzly can run up to 45 mph (even the larger ones) due to pure adrenaline.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - parvez - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 12:37 AM)Polar Wrote: For brute strength, though, I think an average, full-grown male Bengal Tiger can horizontally pull at most three tons of weight with his forelimbs, and a little over one ton with just his jaws. A gaur (2000-pound one), assuming it would pull in the mannerism that a draft horse or an ox would, can pull up to fifteen tons due to a greater muscle mass percentage than the ox and a larger size than the ox (a single ox weighing 1000-pounds can pull five tons). Also, I do think wild bovines are pound-for-pound stronger than their domestic counterparts, as with most wild animals and domesticated animals. The tiger uses his arms/jaws, and the gaur is holstered here.

If comparing pulling weight/body weight ratios between the two, it would compute this:

Tiger (jaws) = 5 - 5.2x body weight
Tiger (forelimbs) = 13.75 - 15x body weight
Gaur (holstered) = 15x body weight

Note how the tiger and the guar are similar in pound-for-pound horizontal pulling strength, but in different ways. As stated earlier, strength is difficult to assess, but I would easily give the edge to an equally-sized tiger.

Equally sized tiger? I don't think so. Gaurs are much bigger than tiger on average almost twice atleast. Being herbivore there must be some limitation in the gaur which the tiger must have known hunting it through generations. I honestly do not feel a tiger must be stronger pound for pound though I am a hardcore fan. Or at least not as strong as rhino pound for pound.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - parvez - 12-04-2016

polar I am interested to know study of tiger's forearm strength. Can you please show me the links? Thanks,

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Polar - 12-04-2016

(12-04-2016, 05:13 PM)parvez Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 12:37 AM)Polar Wrote: For brute strength, though, I think an average, full-grown male Bengal Tiger can horizontally pull at most three tons of weight with his forelimbs, and a little over one ton with just his jaws. A gaur (2000-pound one), assuming it would pull in the mannerism that a draft horse or an ox would, can pull up to fifteen tons due to a greater muscle mass percentage than the ox and a larger size than the ox (a single ox weighing 1000-pounds can pull five tons). Also, I do think wild bovines are pound-for-pound stronger than their domestic counterparts, as with most wild animals and domesticated animals. The tiger uses his arms/jaws, and the gaur is holstered here.

If comparing pulling weight/body weight ratios between the two, it would compute this:

Tiger (jaws) = 5 - 5.2x body weight
Tiger (forelimbs) = 13.75 - 15x body weight
Gaur (holstered) = 15x body weight

Note how the tiger and the guar are similar in pound-for-pound horizontal pulling strength, but in different ways. As stated earlier, strength is difficult to assess, but I would easily give the edge to an equally-sized tiger.

Equally sized tiger? I don't think so. Gaurs are much bigger than tiger on average almost twice atleast. Being herbivore there must be some limitation in the gaur which the tiger must have known hunting it through generations. I honestly do not feel a tiger must be stronger pound for pound though I am a hardcore fan. Or at least not as strong as rhino pound for pound.

A rhino could actually compete with the tiger for pound-for-pound strength: short back, strong shoulders, robusticity/bulk, and a tough neck.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - Polar - 12-05-2016

(12-04-2016, 09:47 PM)parvez Wrote: polar I am interested to know study of tiger's forearm strength. Can you please show me the links? Thanks,

I don't have any links to the forearm strength of a tiger, but I do have a suggestive scientific study relating to the pushing and pulling force of young brown bears: it is on the "Bear Strength" thread.

And about your muscle fiber comment from post #88, tigers do, of course, contain mainly fast-twitch fibers in all parts of their arm, not just the upper arm (hence why their forearm is quite thick), and bears somewhat. Fast-twitch fibers, at the same mass, are more voluminous than slow-twitch fibers. This fact can even be seen in humans.

At the same weight, a powerlifter will normally have a thicker arm than a normal human. This is because:

- They have slightly more muscle mass (slightly increased muscle volume).
- More of their muscle mass is fast-twitch fibers (extremely increased muscle volume).

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - brotherbear - 12-05-2016

There is more involved in strength than mere muscle-mass. Bones. Skeletal framework. Muscle is a big part of it, but the total package is more complex.

*This image is copyright of its original author

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - parvez - 12-05-2016

Polar do you mean tigers have more fast twitch muscle fibres in forearm than that of a grizzly bear? But the pictures on anatomy seem to show otherwise. Even the behaviour of tigers while fighting and walking I have observed indicate as if they have fast twitch fibres only till elbow but anyhow they are CATS always ready to OUTSMART every animal around them.

RE: Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores? - brotherbear - 12-05-2016

they are CATS always ready to OUTSMART every animal around them.
Well, the big cats are accomplished at stalking, ambush, and have a number of highly effective killing techniques, depending on the prey. But, there hunts are not 100% successful.