WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Questions
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
  (12-24-2018, 11:41 PM)Panther Wrote:(12-01-2016, 02:03 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown - Strength. Higher percentage of fat on the bear doesn't immediately dispute @ (12-26-2018, 01:21 AM)Polar Wrote: That is still debatable. Morphology should suggest that bears are better at pushing and striking harder while big cats are better at pulling motions. Morphology suggests that bears are better at digging and pushing, I'm not sure about striking. Stronger scapula is not to strike harder. It need stronger elbow, like in tigers. It's not that debatable at equal weights! (12-26-2018, 01:27 AM)Polar Wrote: Higher percentage of fat on the bear doesn't immediately dispute @brotherbear's arguments about the bear being on par with a big cat with strength at weight parity. There are plenty more factors. He doesn't said bears being par with bigcats. He said bears are pound for pound stronger than any other animal based on a opinion of a author. We need a lot more like scientific analysis to say something like that. Fat is simply not strength! 
At equal weight the tiger's body is noticeably longer. At equal body length the brown bear is noticeably bigger. Can it be due to the high percentage fat of the bear ? The fat doesn' t prevent the remarkable physical abilities of the bear. Perhaps too, this fat gives to the bear the impression to be a lump of meat very difficult to penetrate.
On the other side, the tiger, much slimer, thus nimbler and faster wouldn' t support as well the opposite fangs and claws. Thus more vulnerable. I speak about big felids and ursids with comparable weight. It's for this reason I have a problem with this "pound for pound" expression... I believe to be not agree with you @ After all, the fat, not useless, would have a role to play. 
Blaire Van Valkenburgh Continued...
SPEED AND STRENGTH All bears have a large head with small ears followed by massive shoulders and a short back and | tail, all of which are supported on thick limbs and broad paws. Compared with big cats, bears have longer snouts and shorter, stiffer backs. Relative to large dogs, bears have bulky legs and much more spreading feet. Unlike these other carnivores, and more like humans, bears walk on the soles of their hindfeet, with their ankle joint positioned just above the ground. This condition is called plantigrade, and differs from the digitigrade posture of cats and dogs, in which the “soles” of the feet are elevated, along with the ankle, and only the toes touch the ground. To understand why bears are built so differendy from cats and dogs, it is essential to explain the benefits of digitigrade feet. Running around on your toes in a digitigrade posture is advantageous if speed is important. Speed is the product of stride length and stride frequency. Raising the ankle adds length to the part of the limb that determines stride length, that is from the shoulder or hip to the point of contact with the ground. Longer limbs take bigger strides, and digitigrade posture is therefore typical of mammals designed to run. Digitigrade animals also tend to have relatively long bones, or metapodials, making up the sole of the foot, adding further to total limb length. In addition, their limb muscles are much thicker close to the hip or shoulder joint, and taper towards the toes as long, elastic tendons. This construction reduces muscle mass near the ankles and feet, where the limb travels farthest during locomotion, and thus reduces inertial effects. A The skeletons of a bear and a domestic dog illustrate the difference between plantigrade and digitigrade postures. The dog is digitigrade, standing on its toes with the soles of its feet (metapodials) off the ground. By contrast, the soles of the bear's hindfeet are flat to the ground, as in humans, giving it a plantigrade posture. If one imagines the additional energy required to walk or run with ankle weights or heavy shoes, then the drawbacks of heavy feet become clear. There are yet further benefits to runners in having long tendinous muscle attachments. Tendons are elastic and act as energy-saving springs when running. They are stretched as the limb is flexed under the weight of the animal and then rebound, propelling the body forward and upward. So, digitigrade posture, long metapodials, and compact muscles with stretchy tendons are typical of carnivores built for speed. 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. (12-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Panther Wrote: Bears aren't stronger than bigcats at equal weights actually! Who said that they are? Post above ( 142 ) just to show not just my opinion; but at equal head-and-body length, I believe the brown bear to be over-all stronger than a big cat although the cat may be stronger in some areas. As for pulling a heavy carcass, this too is debatable. Both have been known to pull extraordinary weights. Big cats have a more flexible spine which may give them some advantage. Big cats are hunters; professional killers. That's what they do. Brown bears are workers; spending long hours digging, ripping apart dead trees and stumps, over-turning logs and big rocks - exercise. Some will ( and do ) argue that equal head-and-body length is an unfair method of comparison. If two prize-fighters were put into a boxing ring, each weighing 200 pounds, with one man standing 6 feet tall and the other man standing 5 feet tall, I would not consider this a fair fight. At equal height/length, the bear is heavier due to greater girth - just the way it is. A big cat can probably lift or drag more comparable to his body weight, but does that make him stronger than the heavier bear? 
Wasn´t this herbivores or carnivores thread?
 Still I think, that this is quite difficult topic. Do anyone have some examples where some carnivore or herbivore shows extreme force and from which could be have some figures and calculations? There are some horse pulling contests where dragging horses pull very impressive weights and those weights aren´t with wheels.... so it is dragging in sand, not in some low friction terrain like wet grass. Also on leveled platform, so no downhill or uphill.
(12-26-2018, 01:20 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Who said that they are? I didn't said "bears are built for speed" either. I had the same kind of impression about bears. They're evolved for digging. But just to let you know, not all bigcats are built for speed. There are two kind of predators in the animal kingdom, "ambush predators" and "pursuit predators". Tigers, leopards, jaguars and snow leopards, etc... comes under ambush predators. These are clearly not built for speed. While lions, cheetahs, wild dogs, wolves, etc.. comes under pursuit predators. These are built for speed with long legs. I don't know what bears are actually, I guess they're close to pursuit predators. So, a tiger (just like smilodon) not built for speed. Secondly, your sources doesn't prove anything about bear being stronger than bigcat at equal sizes. Both bigcats and bears have stronger bones than canids. Thirdly, it took a lot of strength in neck and spine to pull heavier objects than themselves. I had one question for you. What is the percentage of type I (slow twitch) muscle fibers in Brown bears as compared to tigers and lions?
An ambush consists of stalking ( stealth ) followed by a terrific burst of *speed. In that explosive burst of speed a lion or a tiger is estimated to hit between 50 and 60 mph.
Edit and add: A big cat is designed for stealth, speed, agility, and strength; all in equal doses. A cat is a contortionist. He can twist and turn almost like a reptile. He is an athlete. A bear ( especially a brown bear ) is built more for strength with speed and agility secondary. He can afford the extra pounds. 
Here is one example about bovine power, thank´s for Jimmy, that this was noticed on wild yak thread.
But before this goes from bear-tiger thread soon to tiger-lion thread or something else.... Maybe we should remember this herbivore-carnivore situation.... Has someone here maybe footage where a lion, tiger or bear throws another lion, tiger or bear like this?? There is some formidable strength in that neck! I think, that instead going to debates, where no-one can prove too much, it would be nice to have some concrete examples, figures etc. What is the most impressive proven act, where some animal has shown strength?
I have also watched a video where a Cape buffalo kept messing with a rhino. When the rhino decided enough was enough, he gored the buffalo, lifting it into the air. I honestly don't believe that being either a predator or a vegetarian determines strength. But vegetarians and omnivores can in many cases be much larger and heavier than a predator. Also, muscle mass does not mean stronger. There is a lot more involved in strength than bulging muscles.
(12-26-2018, 03:37 PM)brotherbear Wrote: An ambush consists of stalking ( stealth ) followed by a terrific burst of *speed. In that explosive burst of speed a lion or a tiger is estimated to hit between 50 and 60 mph. You're dead wrong, brotherbear. The explosive burst of speed has nothing to do with building for speed. For example, a cheetah can't be as explosive as a leopard. Because cheetah built for speed and leopard built for ambush. You can't rank all bigcats in the same way. They built differently. And no, neither a lion nor a tiger reach 60mph. A lion can reach top speed of 50mph. While a tiger can reach top speed of 40mph. "Lions are powerful animals that usually hunt in coordinated groups and stalk their chosen prey. However, they are not particularly known for their stamina – for instance, a lioness’ heart makes up only 0.57 percent of her body weight (a male’s is about 0.45 percent of his body weight), whereas a hyena’s heart is close to 1 percent of its body weight. Thus, although lionesses can reach speeds of 81 km/h (50 mph), they only can do so for short bursts so they have to be close to their prey before starting the attack." Source: http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/lion "Despite weighing hundreds of kilograms -- up to 500 pounds -- tigers can reach top speeds of 49 to 65 kilometers per hour (35 to 40 miles per hour). They can sustain this speed only over short distances. In addition, they can leap 9 to 10 meters (30 to 33 feet) which makes their leap size just short of a mountain lion's." Source: https://sciencing.com/how-fast-does-tige...90011.html Tigers are clearly not built for speed. And I'm not sure bears built for "strength"! I've asked you a question, you still haven't answered to me @ (12-26-2018, 05:22 PM)Panther Wrote:(12-26-2018, 03:37 PM)brotherbear Wrote: An ambush consists of stalking ( stealth ) followed by a terrific burst of *speed. In that explosive burst of speed a lion or a tiger is estimated to hit between 50 and 60 mph. If getting real here, then there is no point to argue about irrelevant issues. Tigers, lions and bears all hunt big bovines, like moose, buffalo etc. So they have to be strong able to do that. They have to be fast able to do that. If any of these animals would be weak, they simply wouldn´t be able to hunt anything big. So all of these animals are built for strength and also in speed to some level. If not, they would be hunting smaller and slower animals. What comes to speed, there are no big differences, bears can run also up to 60 km/h, about 37-38 mph, so quite comparable with tiger. Lion too isn´t so far away. There are cases, where bears have run after horses and able to maintain almost same speed as a horse with rider in full speed. Bear can maintain quite high speed for some time, so it has better stamina, than big cats though. What comes to big cats, cheetah is maybe only one, which can be considered as pursuit hunter. Able to run about 400 meters before it has to give up. Other big cats like tigers, lions, leopards etc. usually have short chases like 20-40 meters.... if really motivated like lion after hyena up to 100 meters. But if comparing to wolves and wild dogs able to run after prey for kilometers... only cheetah is in some way comparable, other big cats are robust animals and not long distance runners. They need that ambush/surprise advantage to be able to hunt successfully. No-one here has solid proof which one is stronger, bear, lion or tiger, so that is pointless to argue about that nonsense all the time if nothing concrete and solid to put on table. I have never heard about any test, which would have done to all of these animals, which would have been comparable. That is the reason why debates about these things are mostly debates about opinions and hopes, not debates based on undeniable facts. It would be far more interesting (IMO) to see real cases and what information can be found from those than debating about only opinions. This thread is about carnivores and herbivores and now debate is going to sidetrack and fast. Aren´t here enough threads for tigers and bears already or what is the reason to bring that issue everywhere? Especially when no new information, just old information all over again. Give some real cases to look, there are bulls, gaurs, water buffalos, leopards etc. There is life outside bears and tigers too
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |