WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
|
 (11-07-2016, 07:17 AM)Polar Wrote:(11-07-2016, 07:09 AM)parvez Wrote:(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean @parvez ? Yes ofcourse that is effective in absorbing nutrients but only from cooked meat not raw meat Imo. So in other way it lost the ability to digest raw meat. It lost its potential while its efficiency has been increased. So apparently it became weaker than other parts of him or In comparison to other animals and primates' digestive systems. So now how in some people the digestive system became effective again to be able to eat so much voraciously after getting weak during evolution. Something apparently did happen after that to be able to increase their potential by a fair margin in some populations. Also the heart and brain must be stress relieved as not to supply or pump heavily to the digestive system when man who was already under stress due to threat from all animals around during evolution used to eat raw meat that was difficult to digest. That stress on brain of facing difficult conditions which few animals around would have faced should have taught him many hard lessons. Now when the brain has decreased stress, it must have relaxed and must have recollected all stress that it undergone. Stress on brain followed by free room to relax must have sparked intellectual thoughts in him subconsciously. Ofcourse the absorption of nutrients must have increased the energy it gets. Both the factors must have contributed Imo in developing human intelligence. (11-07-2016, 10:49 AM)peter Wrote: Interesting debate, but I propose to include leopards. I mean, this thread is about leopards. What about their digestive system? And why their interest in primates? In western parts of Africa, largish monkeys are often hunted. The bigger the better, researchers concluded. Some leopards also hunt bonobos, chimps (adult males apparently included) and gorillas. Why is that? Could we be their ultimate prey? Is this why primates, apart from gorillas, live in trees?Thanks peter, felines must be stronger than apes and they have ability to kill prey that is even 5 times their size just like other big cats. They are ruthless beasts that are adorably athletic even more than tigers I suppose. That is a lethal combination. Now as for apes as polar said they are weaker than big cats infact very inferiorly built. They even don't seem to have claws. So a primate is easy target for leopards. In the areas you mentioned leopard is ultimate predator or apex predator. So it has no lions or even hyenas probably to fear. In other ecosystems it is seen to be a nervous predator fearing lions and hyenas as they may steal its kills. So it must have become helpless and less interested in hunting in general hunting just in case of severe hunger I suppose. So it must have preferred small prey. Also to be able to climb the tree with huge prey is difficult and risky too as it may slip down. But here it doesn't have to be nervous as there are no lions and probably no hyenas too. It is time for it to display its brute strength solely and like a true king. Monkeys are not as big too and also not as fast as other prey and weaker too. Also leopards can climb trees. So to be able to kill bigger monkeys should be no difficult for leopards they would even offer more meat than small ones. They would be even easier to digest as the flesh is tender than other animals'. This post may take time to digest. Take your own time. Don't hurry. Read it leisurely and enjoy reading this.
Here is the question i asked and reply i got from the expert
 *This image is copyright of its original author
 (11-07-2016, 09:28 AM)parvez Wrote: I have contacted experts regarding this. They said the process of aquiring intelligence through cooked meat is just a theory. It may or may not be right. I will post the screenshot once I get onto system. So we are free to discuss this in possible ways. The "expert" Isnt wrong with some points but he certainly doesn't disregard the "theory." A 4oz raw piece of meat will have less calories than the same piece of meat which is cooked and now weighs 3oz. We are talking about ancient man, they didn't have agriculture yet, they couldn't have a well balanced diet just yet so they needed to have a food source that was easily maintained... meat. Hence why they have high protein diets. Vegans now a days are highly educated, they know which foods like (tempeh, soy, tofu etc.) contain proteins they miss from not eating meats, this wasn't the case millions of years ago. Also note, the meats consumed today are injected with hormones and other poisons to our body which is why they lead to such horrid health issues, one of the main reasons I have been trying to be vegan for the past year. I have a challenge for you, since I have posted a few studies that show cooked meat to be superior, can you provide anything that would back what you are saying? I'd be interested in reading that. @peter Interesting questions, the "lion killer chimp" is actually the Bili Ape, but if it actually hunts lions remains to be proven.  (11-07-2016, 07:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:(11-07-2016, 09:28 AM)parvez Wrote: I have contacted experts regarding this. They said the process of aquiring intelligence through cooked meat is just a theory. It may or may not be right. I will post the screenshot once I get onto system. So we are free to discuss this in possible ways. Bili Ape itself is proven to be non-existant. No primate is strong enough bare-handed to hunt almost any predator. On a side note, I get plenty of my protein sources from both meat (flounder, boar meat shipped from Bulgaria, and plenty of chicken) and vegetation/legumes (kale, quinoa, lentils, etc...), with kale being the most numerous vegetation that I consume. Also, I always thought that raw meat had a greater nutritional yield than cooked meat, and cooked meat had a greater caloric yield than raw meat? At least, that is what I obtained from the past ten posts about this topic?
I'm not sure where you heard the bili ape never existed?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...lions.html I think I already posted this but here is a comprehensive study on cooked vs raw meat and how it changed us. http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/11...s-raw-meat Cooked meat will yield more energy/calories than raw meat. (11-07-2016, 07:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:If you read my reply to polar carefully I accepted that he gets more energy from cooked food. It also must have contributed to intelligence. So, there is no point in proving otherwise. I ACCEPTED it.(11-07-2016, 09:28 AM)parvez Wrote: I have contacted experts regarding this. They said the process of aquiring intelligence through cooked meat is just a theory. It may or may not be right. I will post the screenshot once I get onto system. So we are free to discuss this in possible ways. (11-07-2016, 08:20 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not sure where you heard the bili ape never existed? I seldom trust news sources, especially latest "fashion/gossip" news sources like Daily Mail, Huffington Post, LiveScience, or other major article publications: too many "studies show" and not enough actual citations to the study or the scientific studies themselves. This is why I look for direct, first-hand evidence such as scientific studies/literature. There is an extreme abundance of evidence to prove that chimpanzees, even within a much smaller group number, have much more genetic diversity than all the human population combined. Here is a scientific study explaining this: Divergence Population Genetics of Chimpanzees (Won et. al 2005). Perhaps this could explain why these supposed "lion-eating chimps" could have vastly different physiological traits from other chimps? Regardless, though, I don't see a primate hunting a predator anytime soon, nor do I believe that a chimp can somehow grow to sizes near that of a fully-grown female Eastern Lowland Gorilla (~220-pounds). I didn't see any indication that "more energy" equated to "more nutrients" in the article, all I saw was how the greater energy output from cooked meat let the Homo genus grow larger in both body size and brains (but doesn't protein already do this job?). To me (and this is only my personal opinion), raw meat gives off better-preserved animo acid chains, which results in a better protein absorption, a better iron absorption (due to fresh blood on meat), and possibly a better saturated fat absorption (if the raw meat is of a fatty animal such as wild boar). (11-07-2016, 09:00 PM)parvez Wrote:(11-07-2016, 07:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:If you read my reply to polar carefully I accepted that he gets more energy from cooked food. It also must have contributed to intelligence. So, there is no point in proving otherwise. I ACCEPTED it.(11-07-2016, 09:28 AM)parvez Wrote: I have contacted experts regarding this. They said the process of aquiring intelligence through cooked meat is just a theory. It may or may not be right. I will post the screenshot once I get onto system. So we are free to discuss this in possible ways. Apologies, I thought you didn't, my mistake. (11-07-2016, 10:05 PM)Polar Wrote:(11-07-2016, 08:20 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not sure where you heard the bili ape never existed? I have no problem with skepticism but it certainly hasn't been "proven false" like you stated. In regards to the "nutrients," I think you're focusing too much on that word. The cooking of food improves digestion and increases absorption of nutrients. "Nutrient Content is Often Altered During Cooking Cooking food improves digestion and increases absorption of many nutrients (1, 2). For example, protein in cooked eggs is 180% more digestible than in raw eggs (3)." "Yet there were signs that cooking did affect the calorie counts of some foods. Starches, for instance, like those in wheat, barley, potatoes, and so on, are composed mostly of two sugar-based molecules, amylopectin and amylose, which, when raw, are tightly packed and inaccessible to digestive enzymes. Studies have found that cooking gelatinizes starch, which means that amylopectin and amylose are released and exposed to enzymes. Thus, cooked starches yield more energy than raw ones. To study how cooking (and processing, like pounding or chopping) affected calories, we turned to mice. They are a good species for this because their diet choices are rather similar to human food preferences. They like grains, roots, fruits and even meat; in the wild, there are populations of mice that get most of their food by eating live albatrosses [video]. Rachel Carmody led a study in which mice were given regular mouse pellets for six days at a time, interrupted by four days of eating sweet potatoes or beef. Half the time the sweet potato or meat was presented raw, and half the time cooked; half the time it was also pounded and half the time unpounded. She and Gil Weintraub carefully measured the exact amount of food eaten by the mice, and then calculated the animals’ gain or loss of weight over four days as a function of the weight of food eaten, using both wet weights and dry weights of food to check the results. For both meat and sweet potato, Rachel found that when the food was cooked the mice gained more weight (or lost less weight) than when it was raw. Pounding had very little effect. We suspect that there are two major reasons for cooked beef providing more calories than raw beef. In cooked beef, the muscle proteins, like the sugars in cooked starch, have opened up and allowed digestive enzymes to attack their amino acid chains. Cooking also does this for collagen, a protein that makes meat difficult to chew because it forms the connective tissue wrapped around muscle fibers. However, we do not know the exact mechanisms. What we do know, though, is that the mice had a spontaneous preference for eating cooked meat over raw meat, and their choice made sense, given that they fared better on it." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...CC20cmozeE However, cooking can decreases SOME water soluble vitamins and fat soluble vitamins and some minerals But overall, the benefits for man eating cooked meat over raw is probably the building block to the modern man. 
From National park "Land of the Leopard":
"Several hundred thousand years ago African leopards crossed the Isthmus of Suez and started to inhabit the vast territories of Eurasia from the Caucasus to India. Those of them who made their way to the Pacific Ocean, had the most amazing journey and destination of all. Long accustomed to the heat of savannah, those graceful cats managed to master the snowy taiga of Ussuri."  *This image is copyright of its original author
Human-carnivore conflicts over livestock depredation are increasingly common, yet little is understood about the role of husbandry in conflict mitigation. As shepherds and guarding dogs are most commonly used to curb carnivore attacks on grazing livestock, evaluation and improvement of these practices becomes an important task. We addressed this issue by studying individual leopard (Panthera pardus) attacks o sheep and goats in 34 villages near Golestan National Park, Iran. We obtained and analyzed data on 39 attacks, which included a total loss of 31 sheep and 36 goats in 17 villages. We applied non-parametric testing, Poisson Generalized Linear Modelling (GLM) and model selection to assess how numbers of sheep and goats killed per attack are associated with the presence and absence of shepherds and dogs during attacks, depredation in previous years, villages, seasons, ethnic groups, numbers of sheep and goats kept in villages, and distances from villages to the nearest protected areas. We found that 95.5% of losses were inflicted in forests when sheep and goats were accompanied by shepherds (92.5% of losses) and dogs (77.6%). Leopards tended to kill more sheep and goats per attack (surplus killing) when dogs were absent in villages distant from protected areas, but still inflicted most losses when dogs were present, mainly in villages near protected areas. No other variables affected numbers of sheep and goats killed per attack. These results indicate that local husbandry practices are ineffectual and the mere presence of shepherds and guarding dogs is not enough to secure protection. Shepherds witnessed leopard attacks, but could not deter them while dogs did not exhibit guarding behavior and were sometimes killed by leopards. In an attempt to make practical, low-cost and socially acceptable improvements in local husbandry, we suggest that dogs are raised to create a strong social bond with livestock, shepherds use only best available dogs, small flocks are aggregated into larger ones and available shepherds herd these larger flocks together. Use of deterrents and avoidance of areas close to Golestan and in central, core areas of neighboring protected areas is also essential to keep losses down.
https://peerj.com/articles/3049.pdf |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |