Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?

[Polar]

So overall, carnivores should have probably evolved a way to get the most nutrients out of their meaty diets aside from shorter digestive systems. Herbivores evolved carbohydrate-searching enzymes for energy.

What the main question is (aside from the thread question), is why did the carnivores evolve a more powerful muscular system on the microscopic scale?

Yes, it is expected for animals that hunt other animals to evolve with greater muscle mass and more fast-twitch fibers, but why the difference in other muscle properties such as MHC value, muscle shape (more rounded), etc... Reply

[parvez]

@Polar that may be because carnivores are smaller in size compared to herbivores. So they have to evolve a way to hunt herbivores. That may be one reason. Other is they eat the faeces of their prey that is nothing but partially digested food that is easily digestible and AIDS in absorption as you said. So they are evolving to be stronger. Also what do you think is strength of polar bear compared to human? Reply

[parvez]

I know this was posted before, but I want the strength of every animal to be posted here, 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Polar]

Since I estimated a 500-pound grizzly to be between 12-15 humans strong when discussing pulling motions, I expect the polar bear of 1000-pounds to be around 30-32 humans strong when pulling.

The quote about "the tiger equaling the traction force of 30 men" is false as heck.

I remember there was a video back (now mind you, one of the tiger videos from a tiger enthusiast of Yuku: won't disclose his name) depicting an average-looking male tiger dragging a gaur of giant proportions into a thicket, with only his jaws. From what I saw, the gaur looked to be 2000-2500 pounds in total. So about 5-6 times the tiger's body weight with just its jaws and it didn't look like it was even struggling excessively. Dragged it for about 15 meters, then stopped and prowled away further into the thicket.

@peter, on the "Big Cat Strength" thread, mentioned an account of Sir Locke watching a tigress, a tigress, dragging the carcass of a fully-grown buffalo a short distance. It took a four-wheel drive truck with a winch to attach to the buffalo just to budge it. Probably 6-7 times her own weight with just her jaw. I don't know many herbivores (possibly aside from powerhouse horses, some bovines, and rhinos) that can do with even their whole body into it. It is easier to drag pushing forward than pulling backward with just a jaw. Reply

[parvez]

Can I say the gaur was no way 2000 pounds it was almost 2000 kgs. An average jungle man can pull around 150 kgs of carcass in woods with not much of difficulty. 13 jungle men could not move the carcass AT ALL. So the tiger was exceptionally large not an average one. It had easily the power of more than 13 men. The gaur was easily 13*150= 1950 kgs. U are clearly underestimating the strength of tiger as heck. Those are clearly measured quantities. Reply

[Polar]

(11-17-2017, 01:01 PM)parvez Wrote: Can I say the gaur was no way 2000 pounds it was almost 2000 kgs. An average jungle man can pull around 150 kgs of carcass in woods with not much of difficulty. 13 jungle men could not move the carcass AT ALL. So the tiger was exceptionally large not an average one. It had easily the power of more than 13 men. The gaur was easily 13*150= 1950 kgs. U are clearly underestimating the strength of tiger as heck. Those are clearly measured quantities.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there was ever a gaur that weighed near 2000-kg. I think the highest was just over 1500-kg maximum. So, either that account is somehow falsified or the gaur is normal-sized. I don't think any average jungle man can pull 150-kg (that's kind of exceptional), maybe more like 100-kg maximum just like a stronger human male in an urban setting.

It didn't mention what type of ground the gaur was being dragged upon: uphill, downhill, or perfectly flat? It should take about 11-12 strong-enough men to begin to budge it. The tigress portrayed from @peter's post dragged the buffalo through flat ground.

When did I underestimate the strength of the tiger? A tiger as strong as the "traction power" of 30 men should be able to keep 30 men from dragging the tiger with them, for a certain period of time. I don't agree with that statement Just the basic laws of physics. With just jaws, I think both the tiger and bear (400-500 pounds) are about 12-15 men strong. With arms, maybe it is much more. But for the sake of how carnivores naturally use their bodies, we can just assume that they are dragging with just their jaws. Reply

[parvez]

@Polar friend junglemen of those times we're strong. And also pulling is easier than pushing and lifting. Pulling 150 kgs mass is not impossible for any urban men of these days too. Trust me gaurs can reach 2-2.5 tons in weight though exceptional. From that account it really mentions both gaur and tiger are exceptional specimens. 

Also traction power may be the factor in which tigers are strong. Honestly I don't know what is traction power but we humans must not be having good traction power I suppose. That may be the case here if I am right. So the traction power of tiger must be really of that value compared to humans. Reply

[parvez]

Strength of asian elephant,

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[parvez]

Indian rhino,

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Panther]

(12-01-2016, 02:03 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown - Strength.
Bears possess enormous strength, regardless of species or size. The strength of a bear is difficult to measure, but observations of bears moving rocks, carrying animal carcasses, removing large logs from the side of a cabin, and digging cavernous holes are all indicative of enormous power. No animal of equal size is as powerful. A bear may kill a moose, elk, or deer by a single blow to the neck with a powerful foreleg, then lift the carcass in its mouth and carry it for great distances.
"The strength... is in keeping with size," describes Ben East in 'Bears'. "He is very powerfully built, a heavy skeleton overlaid with thick layers of muscle as strong as rawhide rope. He can hook his long, grizzly-like front claws under a slab of rock that three grown men could not lift, and flip it over effortlessly..." "...a brown bear took a thousand-pound steer a half mile up an almost vertical mountain, much of the way through alder tangles with trunks three or four inches thick." 
Strength and power are not only the attributes of large bears but also of the young. The author observed a yearling American black bear, while searching for insects, turn over a flat-shaped rock ( between 310 and 325 pounds ) "backhanded" with a single foreleg. The bear was captured the following day in a management action and weighed 120 pounds. 
( in my own words )... I'm sure that when the author says: "No animal of equal size is as powerful" he was referring to land-based mammals. Unlike these online blog-sites, such explanations are unnecessary as common sense applies. In my own opinion, no land-based mammal of equal size is stronger than a bear and no other bear species is pound-for-pound as strong as a grizzly. Understand though that measuring strength among different animal species is ( like measuring intelligence ) not an exact science. All any of us can do is to voice our opinion - which should however be backed by at least some sound reasoning.

I'm actually not agreeing with this for the following reasons..

Brown bears contain 30-40% of body fat! Especially Alaskan Brown bears,, as i shown in other thread!

“In bears, the study found, they don’t. In fact, just before hibernation, our ursine friends can reach a measurement of 30–40% body fat without developing diabetes.
How do they manage it? Researchers discovered that throughout the hibernation cycle, bears’ fat cells change their response to insulin. During summer and fall, they’re insulin sensitive, and during hibernation, they’re insulin resistant.”

https://www.prevention.com/health/health...-diabetes/

Fat isn't strength. Fat is neither bone nor muscle but just a soft tissue. Sorry brotherbear, I'm not looking for fight. But this is too much. You can't conclude a animal pound for pound stronger than any other animals without providing scientific research or explaination. You can't do it lonely with a opinion of a random author.. Reply

[brotherbear]

http://shaggygod.proboards.com/ 
 
Bears are clearly not built for speed. Although their forefeet are semi-digitigrade, their hind-feet are plantigrade. Moreover, their metapodials are short and their muscles thick throughout the length of the limb. In many ways, bears are built more like badgers than other similar-sized carnivores, such as tigers, and it shows in their speed. The top speed recorded for both black and brown bears is 50 kilometers (30 miles) per hour, whereas the range for the fully digitigrade lion and wolf is 55 to 65 kilometers (35 to 40 miles) per hour.


If bears are not built for speed, then what does the combination of massive limbs, plantigrade hindfeet, cumbersome paws, and a short back provide? Strength and mobility of limb movement are the answers. The stout limbs of bears are capable of producing large forces over a much greater range of motion than those of dogs or even cats. Bears use these capabilities when digging for food or shelter, fishing for salmon, climbing to escape danger, and battling with members of their own species as well as other predators. Imagine a wolf trying to perform a bear hug or climb a tree. Dogs have forfeited these abilities in favor of speed. Cats are more like bears in their range of possible movements, but lack strength. Bears may not be able to outrun danger, but can successfully defend themselves through brute force. Reply

[Spalea]

(11-17-2017, 12:46 PM)Polar Wrote: @peter, on the "Big Cat Strength" thread, mentioned an account of Sir Locke watching a tigress, a tigress, dragging the carcass of a fully-grown buffalo a short distance. It took a four-wheel drive truck with a winch to attach to the buffalo just to budge it. Probably 6-7 times her own weight with just her jaw. I don't know many herbivores (possibly aside from powerhouse horses, some bovines, and rhinos) that can do with even their whole body into it. It is easier to drag pushing forward than pulling backward with just a jaw.

On an other side when the prey is very big, the big cats have no choice but pulling it backward. Can't be any other way.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[Styx38]

Carnivores like Leopards can easily lift more than their own weight up a tree:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply

[brotherbear]

Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?

Pound for pound doesn't matter much when the herbivore is many times heavier than any predator - rhinoceros, hippopotamus, or elephant.
Big cats, to be efficient predators, must hold a fairly even combination of speed, agility, and strength. They cannot afford to become too massive - too heavy.
Bears are basically a combination of herbivore and carnivore, and are built heavier and bulkier than big cats. Though surprisingly quick and agile, strength is paramount. At equal head-and-body length, a brown bear is normally much heavier than a big cat. Down-size the brown bear to pound-for-pound compared with a big cat, and you have a bear much shorter in head-and-body length. Down-sizing does not make for a fair comparison.
As for prey animals, most are either faster or bigger and stronger than their predators. Diet - meat or vegetation - does not decide which animal is the strongest. Reply

[Shadow]

This is quite difficult question and how to compare. I mean, that even though we could get results, that some animal is able to move, let´s say 4 times it´s own body weight when weighing 200 kg, it doesn´t mean, that if it would weight 800 kg, that it could still move 4 times it´s own body weight, it could drop to 2-3 times when weight rising. Maybe someone has better information about this, but maybe fairest comparisons are when animals are relatively close what comes to size, not like tiger and gaur for instance, where other one is so much smaller and has advantage in this kind of comparison. 

I just have this mental image, that the bigger the animal is, it is weaker in pound to pound comparison, but that doesn´t necessary mean, that it would have weaker muscles than some smaller animal. Reply