Feeding pandas meat?

Question

I understand that pandas were carnivores, who evolved to be herbivores because of the availability of bamboo; however, the change seems to have been something of a mistake, since their digestive systems have not adapted well and they are still inefficient at digesting bamboo, and suffer from severe reproductive and health problems. I'm wondering if there's a parallel with the health problems caused by "artificial" diets for dogs and cats, which many pet owners claim are resolved by "natural" feeding.

Does anyone know if attempts have ever been made to return pandas their "original" diets?

Answer 1

actually, Pandas are omnivorous like most bears. They eat what they can get. They need both meat and plants, bulking up on berries and rich foods like fish etc.

Answer 2

As others have already mentioned, pandas (both in the wild, and in captivity) are a lot more omnivorous than most TV nature programs make them out to be. Although a fair proportion of their diet is bamboo, it is definitely supplemented with other material.

I just wanted to add some... well, not clarification exactly, since the zoological status of the pandas is anything but clear, but some more information on the taxonomy of pandas.

Genetic testing of the giant panda has shown them to be closer to bears than raccoons. Testing of the red panda shows them to be closer to raccoons than bears. However, testing of red panda and giant panda shows that they are definitely related, and closer to each other than either is to bears or raccoons.

However, there are traits that are missing from the pandas that make them poor candidates as the ancestors of both Procyonids (raccoons), and Ursids (bears), which would have nicely explained the divergence.

This is very confusing for scientists trying to fit them into a nice pigeon-hole. Some scientists put the red panda into Procyonidae, and the giant panda into Ursidae. Others place them both into their own Family Ailuropodidae, and try to ignore the Procyonid/Ursid connection. Some scientists try to use various unwieldly amalgams of both classifications.

Basically, we're still not really sure how pandas fit into the whole Carnivore family tree.

Answer 3

They do still have the digestion of a carnivore and don't do terribly well eating bamboo, you might say they're chasing down an evolutionary dead-end.

Apparently they can eat meat, fish and eggs when available - its likely pandas in captivity get much better food than those in the wild.

I don't know how much meat they try to give giant pandas in zoos. I guess you could contact one and ask!

Oh and they're not related to raccoons as one guy said - people used to think the giant panda (which is a bear) was related to the red panda - which isnt, thats the one in the raccoon family.

Answer 4

Wild pandas have been known to attack and eat sheep, as well as feed on small rodents, so a panda is an omnivore even with eating bamboo.
Pandas are classified as Ursidae, which is bear. Though Raccoons are also related to bears though more distantly.

Answer 5

I haven't heard that. I thought they were related to the raccoons who eat ANYTHING. If the change was a mistake, they should be extinct. So, the better bet is that their digestive system would evole to be more efficient at converting bamboo to useful nutrient.

Answer 6

I have no idea but they really shouldn't be doing that