Deadly Equines: Meat-Eating and Murderous Horses

[Dinwar]

Ummh, pigs are very omnivorous.

A valid point. And a complicating one--there aren't a whole lot of mammals that can be definitely put into "carnivore" or "herbivore" boxes.

Glancing through the skull book I have (Elbroch's "Animal Skulls: A guide to North American species") I'm struck by how much the dentation of mammals is dictated by the higher-order taxa they're in, particularly in terms of which teeth they have where. For example, rodents include predominant herbivores (say, Neotoma), insectovores (shrews, predominantly), and the ultimate in omnivors (rats and mice)--yet all have a battery of molars and premolars, then two very large incisors (I'm going to almost exclusively talk about the lower jaw, just for consistency's sake). Black bears, which are omnivores with pretty heavy herbivore leanings, have teeth more like a dog, with molars, premolars, canines, and incisors, reflecting their ancestory (both bears and dogs came from the same line). Horses, deer, elk, and the like have molars and premolars, then typically a large open space, then incisors. Camels are similar, but have canines (see here for details).

In short, I'm less and less convinced that you can look at whether or not a mammal has canines and determine whether it eats meat based on that trait alone. Which makes a certain amount of sense--my impression was that the original mammals were omnivores/insectovores, and had canines. Some lineages would have lost those, while others would have retained them, simply by random genetic chance.

Speaking as a paleontologist, the teeth CAN say what a mammal eats, however--you just have to look at the whole mouth, not individual teeth. Canis lupis certainly has teeth designed for efficiently dismantling a carcass (and for breaking the bones--while Canis dirus engaged in osteophagy more frequently, any dog will gnaw a bone in my experience). Same with any cat, more or less (though my impression is that cats are less frequently osteophages). Bears have teeth that are slightly different, and better at handling vegetation. Insectovor mammals tend to have really nasty looking teeth, with lots of spikes and sharp bits, which efficiently shatter the carapace of insects. And herbivores tend to have broad, relatively flat teeth meant for grinding plant material.

In Equus there's even more significant adaptations: their teeth are very thick, and as the horse grinds them away they remain sharp. These adaptations allow the teeth to remain essentially rasps for shredding very, VERY tough plant material throughout life. And what's among the toughest plant materials?

Grass.

Seriously--grass is TOUGH. It includes bits of silica in its "skeleton", as a defensive mechanism. Eating a few blades here and there like some dogs (and children) do doesn't do much to your teeth, but eating it constantly over a lifetime will grind your teeth to dust. Horses, camels, and other grazers evolved very thick teeth with self-sharpening mechanisms that rivel anything humans have thus far developed specfically as adaptations to deal with that fact.

There is no advantage to a horse tooth in carnivorous feeding. Horse teeth cannot break bones, nor can they effectively strip the flesh off of them. What they CAN do, extremely well, is eat foods with low nutrient densities and very, very tough bits.

None of this of course should disuade anyone from researching what horses actually eat. Osteology can give us a very good idea of what happens, but we have to always remember: Goats can climb trees. Osteology would indicate that while not impossible, goats climbing trees would be akin to a human attacking a deer with his bear hands--inefficient, stupid, and most likely suicidal. Yet there they are, in the trees laughing at us. I'm just trying to present some of the lines of evidence which have nothing to do with any sort of mythology of horses, which I alluded to previously. The challange for the omniverous horse hypothesis is explaining why an omniverous organism has adaptations which appears, both at a casual glance and after intense research by many experts (again, I'm going off paleo guys here--and some of these people are known to disagree just because no one has for a while), to be an almost perfect example of an adaptation to herbivory, specfically to herbivory focused on grasses (grazing).

 

[Drewbot]

Chuchullaine's website

http://www.lrgaf.org/deadly_equines.htm

 

[CuChullaine OReilly]

Deadly Equines - Further Thoughts

Dear Friends,

Let me preface my statements by thanking all of you for taking the time to study the material with so much obvious enthusiasm and careful attention to detail. I was hoping that the JREF forum readers would be able to provide an intelligent location to discuss the project, and this has certainly proved to be the case.

While I will do my best to answer the most relevant points raised in recent postings, allow me to say that this dialogue is in extreme contrast to the reception being given the book by the horse whisperers, who, despite growing evidence persist in promoting a Disney like view of horses. As any of you who have witnessed the Bombay horse attack video can confirm, horses are not the timid prey animals which Hollywood would have us believe.

“First and foremost, you've over-estimated the amount of the change in diet caused by climate changes.”

You are almost certainly correct. I am an equestrian explorer and an investigative reporter, not a scientist. My goal was to present as much evidence as possible, in as objective manner as I could, all the while making it an entertaining read for the average person.

Jonathan Hay, a British journalist who is completing a story on the work, realized my intentions. He wrote to make this suggestion. “Deadly Equines ought to be a springboard for further research on the matter.”

With that thought in mind, I’ve corresponded with a well known Oxford zoology professor and have sent him the book. I’m sure that, like you, he will instantly see where the science is lacking, and will hopefully be able to make suggestions on how to strengthen the work.

What I wish to stress is that I have no preconceived notions about equine diet or extreme aggression. Nor do I hold a dogmatic belief on either subject. Like you, I’m asking questions and searching for answers.

“I suggest you get hold of the work of Dr. Eric Scott..”

Many thanks for this excellent suggestion ! I would be extremely grateful if you could provide me with a title of his work, which I will review before contacting him.

“The raging filly literally goes for the jugular. No, it bites the shoulder.”

It is tempting to get distracted by the You Tube video, which depicts the Bombay horse nearly tearing her attacker’s throat out.

When the book was completed, history demonstrated that equines attack mammals by seizing them on the shoulder, then shaking them violently, before throwing them in the air and/or disembowelling their victim. Historical research provided evidence of this type of equine attack. In both cases the hyena and human were under equine attack in the method described. I can supply these images to the forum if you wish.

Yet within two hours of the book being released the Guild began receiving reports of how horses had killed, or severely injured, humans, not by grabbing them by the shoulder, rather by tearing out their throats. There are now five confirmed modern cases of this type of equine attack, which happened in diverse parts of the planet.

Of course we all knew that a horse could kick or bite you. And we are aware that fighting stallions attempt to seize their opponents by the neck or throat.

But no one seems to have documented the attacks on human throats. This is a type of equine aggression which none of the equestrian experts known to the Long Riders’ Guild in 44 countries had discussed or even suspected existed. Nor was there any previous knowledge that it was a worldwide behaviour.

A Swiss Long Rider speculated that horses may have evolved this type of attack as a defence against humans. Though the throat of a four legged animal is protected by the head and faces the earth, the throat of a human is it's most vulnerable spot, and is within easy reach of a horse's teeth.

So the question is, did horses develop this type of attack specifically against humans?

Here again, I am not publishing a statement of fact, merely sharing with you the type of questions that are being discussed by interested parties worldwide.

“it seems you are trying to say this is common behavior that any horse could display….”

No, I have never stated nor implied that this is common behaviour. In fact, while the book provides evidence of dietary deviance and extreme equine aggression in thirty countries over a space of nearly four thousand years, the book states from the opening page that these episodes are anomalies. What is important to understand therefore is the need to recognize the existence of the evidence.

“are you aware of anyone who is testing your claims?”

A Swedish horseman wrote to ask, “Has anyone at all - ever - made a study into the horses ability to digest meat?”

I had to answer that to the best of my knowledge no such study has been undertaken. Frankly, I’m anxious to get back to writing the “Horse Travel Handbook,” and will be only too happy for the scientific community to investigate the matter.

“the best way to handle this would be horse scat.”

This excellent point was also raised by a military horse expert. He wrote to the Guild to share this thought.

“Modern domestic horses are reputed to have an inefficient digestive system.

A part of this problem is connected with the fact that most horses do not chew their grain ration slowly and carefully masticate it. All horsemen have observed un-chewed grain which has passed through the horse's digestive tract and can be seen in the faeces.

Because of this danger, cavalry manuals warned the mounted trooper to always water the horse before feeding grain, so as to reduce the chances of grain becoming impacted in the horse's intestines.

Thus, large amounts of un-chewed grain, lodging in the equine intestines, could become impacted, ferment, and cause fatal colic.

Could it be that if a horse is fed meat, which needs careful chewing, it would pass through the equine digestive system without impacting? Evidence would seem to suggest this is a possibility.

Just as diet is a contributing factor to human diabetes, it has been suggested that the increased rate of equine laminitis may be linked to the higher sugar content found in modern grasses.

Might there be an undetected link in a modern horse's grain favoured diet and the risk of incurring colic?

Could colic be reduced if horses were fed more protein and less grain?

Could it be that the inherent fat content of meat be the very thing that keeps it from impacting in the bowels?”

Once again, this is an open-ended question, indicative of how people are engaging in a vibrant discussion, not a statement of fact.

“wild herds are not being fed hay”

That point was also noticed by a noted British equestrian inventor, who wrote to say, “CuChullaine has persuaded a lot of people to look at their pony or horse's diet of choice. The fact that a horse eats all its hay is not a guideline to what it likes, it eats the hay because it is locked in a 12X12 box with nothing else to eat and nothing to do. Under the circumstances I might eat hay.”

This in turn inspired one of North America’s leading female equestrian explorers to make this uncommon observation.

“Could the partnership between horse and human involve a previously undetected portion of their emotional makeup, which allowed them to wish to partake of meat after the hunt. Shackleton’s horses preferred meat to corn. As humans change, have horses changed with them? Could it be that mankind has bred this vital element of equine nature out of modern horses, thus in fact turning them into the frightened 'prey animals' the horse whisperers are always talking about?”

“Horse teeth cannot break bones…”

While I’m sure you are academically correct, that information would not have tallied with what the owner of Dragon Lady, an American Saddlebred mare, observed. That horse eagerly consumed a large helping of barbecued goat meat, bones and all.

Here again, I believe that what we may be considering is the fact that horses are far more adaptable, and dangerous, than modern mankind gives them credit for.

“Goats can climb trees.”

Thank you, but my life is complicated enough without considering the concept of a meat-eating, tree-climbing, predatory equine lurking in the woods.

Again, thank you all so much for sharing your time and expertise. There have been some pretty tough moments during the last month, when people with closed minds have blasted the very idea of an aggressive or omnivorous equine.

Luckily, people like Dr. Ruth Carter, of Georgia State University, have defended the research. She wrote, ” I am amazed at how long it takes people to move forward when their preconceived notions are undermined. The book is outstanding. But people like the safety of living in a world where the boundaries are already determined. Whatever threatens that parameter is often discounted, because it causes individuals to have to live in a world of uncertainty. Those of us who try to live outside mental conditioning are forever going to have to deal with, in Emerson's words, the " hobgoblins of little minds."

Many thanks for your hospitality, patience and excellent suggestions.

 

[William Parcher]

“The raging filly literally goes for the jugular. No, it bites the shoulder.”

It is tempting to get distracted by the You Tube video, which depicts the Bombay horse nearly tearing her attacker’s throat out.

When the book was completed, history demonstrated that equines attack mammals by seizing them on the shoulder, then shaking them violently, before throwing them in the air and/or disembowelling their victim. Historical research provided evidence of this type of equine attack. In both cases the hyena and human were under equine attack in the method described. I can supply these images to the forum if you wish...

Yeah, it is tempting to get distracted and start talking about ripped throats after seeing a bitten shoulder. If that guy's neck was located where his shoulder is he might have been in worse shape. This horse briefly bit the shoulder and didn't shake.

 

[Dinwar]

I would be extremely grateful if you could provide me with a title of his work, which I will review before contacting him.

Probably the best work to start with would be "Fossil Treasures of the Anzo-Borrego Desert", edited by Jefferson and Lindsey. Eric Scott wrote Chapter 15: Extinct Horses and their Relatives. The book itself discusses some of the topics I mentioned in my last post, including the paleontological evidence for horse ecology (and how paleontologists process such evidence).

While I’m sure you are academically correct, that information would not have tallied with what the owner of Dragon Lady, an American Saddlebred mare, observed. That horse eagerly consumed a large helping of barbecued goat meat, bones and all.

Perhaps I should have said "cannot effeciently break bones". Thinking more on it, I'm sure they can break bones on occasion, and certianly cooked bones (of course, I've used a fork to shatter chunks of good barbecued bone in Alabama--the cooking process removes the collegin, which weakens the bone consierably). The issue isn't whether they can do it once or twice, however--the issue is whether their mouths can handle the diet over the long-term. A dog can eat grass on occasion, but if they tried to eat it constantly they'd lose all their teeth due to the silica content. Similarly, horses can probably break a few bones with their teeth without problems, but over time the thin enamle of the tooth would break off in ways that would decrease the efficiency of the tooth for eating anything.

Thank you, but my life is complicated enough without considering the concept of a meat-eating, tree-climbing, predatory equine lurking in the woods.

My point wasn't to say that goats eat meat--it was more a caution when using morphology to determine ecology.

When the book was completed, history demonstrated that equines attack mammals by seizing them on the shoulder, then shaking them violently, before throwing them in the air and/or disembowelling their victim.

Such an attack (shaking the prey) isn't uncommon in predators. In fact, many don't have very strong jaws--the killing blow is snapping the prey's neck. This has certain morphological implications, however--such a motion requires strong muscles in the neck, which would leave distinctive attachment scars on the bone. Both the muscles and the bones should be clearly visible on a living horse, and the bones are visible on ancient ones.

You are almost certainly correct. I am an equestrian explorer and an investigative reporter, not a scientist.

A word of caution, then: Science isn't a nice, happy, friendly place. You're proposing a major shift in a prety well-established paradigm, and doing so through unorthidox chanels (outside of peer review, predominantly). None of this makes you wrong--however, it does mean that you're going to catch a lot of flak. We all do; it's part of being a scientist. And discussing the ecology and diet of an animal IS science. You seem surprised that people are objecting to your ideas. Really, that's to be expected--it would be far, far more surprising if they didn't object to it.