Non-caloric essential nutrients big vs small animals

In summary, the conversation explores the idea that the nutritional content of prey, specifically essential nutrients, may play a role in predator foraging strategies. The example of iodine deficiency in predators is used to illustrate this concept. It is also suggested that the rise of herding may have led to a decline in cannibalism in human ancestors, potentially due to a decrease in the availability of high-essential prey. The possibility of prion diseases being linked to ritual cannibalism is also discussed.
  • #1
Martin Sallberg
20
0
It is true that big animals contain more calories than small animals. However, are the figures for the content of essential nutrients that are not calories different? Such nutrients may be limiting factors and require foraging strategies that would be suboptimal from a simple calory point of view.

Are there also differences between parts of the body in the content of essential nutrients other than calories? Is it possible that the presence of more of those may favor hunting of animals of small overall size but with more of an organ that contain higher levels of some essential nutrients?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Interesting question.
Trying an example:
Let's use a micronutrient all mammals require - iodine. Also let's limit it to mammalian predators. It works the same for other clades of animals. Some soils are deficient in iodine, so all of the vegetation and animals grazing on it will have a sub-optimal supply. "Everybody" is short on iodine. No matter what animal the predator consumes gives a suboptimal amount of the micronutrient. The thyroid gland concentrates iodine, so if the predator was somehow aware of that would it limit feeding to just eating the thyroid gland?

Energetics says no. Predators are successful in capturing prey circa one success per 10 tries. Since the thyroid makes up less than 1% of the prey body mass, the predator would have to go into super-overdrive (whatever that is) to capture enough prey to provide sufficient calories, consuming only thyroid glands of prey. So instead of 10 to 20 hunting forays per day, the predator would have to expend at least 100 times more energy getting enough food to live. Thousands of hunts per day. Cannot happen.

What happens in the real world is population levels of prey are much more limited in those areas of low nutrient availability, because they have nutrient problems, too. The predator that has that nutrient poor territory is essentially doomed to very poor survival and reproductive success.

BTW before human agricultural practices depleted iodine from large areas (example: India, which is fixing the problem see below) the pockets of low nutrient soils were geographically small.
Not any more. See:
800px-World_map_iodine_status_2007.jpg
 
  • #3
Martin Sallberg said:
Is it possible that the presence of more of those may favor hunting of animals of small overall size but with more of an organ that contain higher levels of some essential nutrients?

There is some (very scant) evidence that some forms of pica, specifically geophagia, may be related to an iron deficiency. Animals are known to engage in geophagy as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11001006
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2005.00002.x/abstract
 
  • #4
jim mcnamara said:
Interesting question.
Trying an example:
Let's use a micronutrient all mammals require - iodine. Also let's limit it to mammalian predators. It works the same for other clades of animals. Some soils are deficient in iodine, so all of the vegetation and animals grazing on it will have a sub-optimal supply. "Everybody" is short on iodine. No matter what animal the predator consumes gives a suboptimal amount of the micronutrient. The thyroid gland concentrates iodine, so if the predator was somehow aware of that would it limit feeding to just eating the thyroid gland?

Energetics says no. Predators are successful in capturing prey circa one success per 10 tries. Since the thyroid makes up less than 1% of the prey body mass, the predator would have to go into super-overdrive (whatever that is) to capture enough prey to provide sufficient calories, consuming only thyroid glands of prey. So instead of 10 to 20 hunting forays per day, the predator would have to expend at least 100 times more energy getting enough food to live. Thousands of hunts per day. Cannot happen.

What happens in the real world is population levels of prey are much more limited in those areas of low nutrient availability, because they have nutrient problems, too. The predator that has that nutrient poor territory is essentially doomed to very poor survival and reproductive success.

BTW before human agricultural practices depleted iodine from large areas (example: India, which is fixing the problem see below) the pockets of low nutrient soils were geographically small.
Not any more. See:
View attachment 204160
I never claimed that it was about predators categorically never eating anything other than one body part. I was thinking of some hunters needing more of a nutrient hunting animals with a higher percentage of some nutrients but with lower overall energy. Especially in the case of animals that evolve a higher need for some nutrients that puts non-caloric limiting factors that force them to search for prey in strategies that favor specific essential nutrients over empty calories. For example, humans evolving bigger brains that require more of specific nutrients. May this have something to do with the archaeological correspondence between the rise of herding of select meat animals and the decline of brain-eating human cannibalism?
 
  • #5
Okay. Then predator population levels cannot go for very long above scarce available prey - prey limited by deficiency - if predators exceed the carrying capacity their population crashes. Classic example - Lynx hare cycle. http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/node/3052

May this have something to do with the archaeological correspondence between the rise of herding of select meat animals and the decline of brain-eating human cannibalism
Can you provide a citation for this?
How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
If you read this it appears to be a counterexample of your claim: disease transmission from ritual cannibalism in the Fore people. (now prevented by outsiders). The study documented prions and won a Nobel prize for Carlton Gadjusek.
 
  • #6
It is possible that the selective hunting may indeed have decreased the stocks of the high-essential prey, and the downswings accompanied by "calory hunting" of other species may have forced our ancestors into cannibalistic brain eating. This would explain why big-brained human ancestors before herding was invented all over the then-inhabited world often cannibalized brains, while it was much rarer both among the earlier small-brained australopithecines (possibly nonexistent among them) and among the later herding and/or farming humans.

Also, prion diseases often take a long time to become manifest, which gave many brain-eating cannibals time to procreate before they became truly sick. Is there any research on whether a drop in the frequency of "slow down prions" genes show a general tendency to coincide with the rise of herding?
 

1. What are non-caloric essential nutrients?

Non-caloric essential nutrients are nutrients that are necessary for proper functioning of the body, but do not provide any energy or calories. These include vitamins, minerals, and water.

2. What is the difference between big and small animals in terms of non-caloric essential nutrients?

The main difference is the amount of non-caloric essential nutrients needed. Larger animals require more of these nutrients compared to smaller animals, as they have a higher metabolic rate and therefore need more nutrients to support their body functions.

3. Is there a specific ratio of non-caloric essential nutrients that is ideal for both big and small animals?

No, there is no specific ratio that is ideal for all animals. Each species has its own unique nutritional requirements, and these can vary based on factors such as age, activity level, and health status.

4. Can non-caloric essential nutrients be harmful to animals if consumed in excess?

Yes, just like with any other nutrient, consuming too much of certain non-caloric essential nutrients can be harmful to animals. For example, an excess of certain vitamins or minerals can lead to toxicity and health issues.

5. Are non-caloric essential nutrients necessary for animals that are on a strictly calorie-restricted diet?

Yes, even though these nutrients do not provide energy, they are still necessary for proper functioning of the body. Animals on strict calorie-restricted diets should still consume a balanced diet that includes non-caloric essential nutrients to ensure they are getting all the necessary vitamins, minerals, and water they need.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
643
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
806
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
21
Views
2K
Back
Top