RELATED LINK
Do Rabbits Chew A Cud?
Christian Evangelist Dr. Norman Geisler confirms he does not believe in rabbits chewing a cud in the literal modern sense, rather an observational viewpoint... and short, concise answer "No, they do not", with excerpts from dictionary.com defining what cud is, scientific research on digestion/refection in rabbits, and theologians themselves speak on hares and alleged cud chewing from the book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

"Rabbits also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten."
Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system designed for coprophagia. These herbivores do not have the complicated ruminant digestive system, so instead they extract more nutrition from grass by giving their food a second pass through the gut. Soft caecal pellets of partially digested food are excreted and generally consumed immediately. They also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten.
Source: Encyclopedia Coprophagia

So why are the Creation Scientists trying to compare this process with Rumination?

Edward T. Babinski: You would think that with the O.T. law that made male warriors have to walk outside the Exodus camp in order to go to the bathroom, that the Hebrews would be particularly appalled by coprophagia. There's even an obscure verse in the O.T. that contains a curse, about holding a "shit stick" up to one's nose. If the Hebrews knew that rabbits were eating something that came out of their rear end, I bet that would have made an impression on them worth mentioning. In effect, I don't think that the inerrantist attempts to try and justify the verse about rabbits being "ruminants" makes any sense. Especially since the Hebrew word means to "bring up," not poop out. More likely they simply noted the APPEARANCE that rabbits have of chewing grass for a long time, and some rabbits may have APPEARED to bring up their food again. One inerrantist mentioned a "throat pouch" in a rabbit in which it might store food and bring it up again, though I haven't found any scientific references to such a pouch, and it's far easier to store food in one's cheeks, rather than in one's throat which can choke a mammal!

---

premjan: Maybe they were talking about (...oh what's that north african small mammal which looks a bit like a rabbit...)?

...hyraxen...apparently they chew cud only about 30 minutes a day. But they are more likely to have existed in biblical lands than rabbits.

Sharon: The points I gave JP Holding are simple. The definition they're using for "chew the cud" has already been covered here (an erroneous attempt by Christian Apologists to explain refection means "cud chewing")

But as it turns out, according to Aquavet The rabbit does not chew at all. It swallows the pellet whole. This behavior cannot be called "chewing" the cud.

Further, the refection and coprophagia definition they're using for "cud chewing" can be extended to numerous creatures which consume their feces and vomit. Humans have been known to "chew their cud" under this erroneous Christian definition. JP Holding agreed to play along that honeybees re-ingest their own vomit (closer to ruminant cud chewing than refection) -- however, he says that Honeybees would not be considered for the Hebrew diet, because their honey was valuable.

Numerous creatures "chew the cud" under this refection definition --including swine.

The Bible is emphatic on that point. Moses specifically states:

Lv:11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Dt:14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)

But it does "chew a cud" like rabbits. These creatures are commonly known to eat partially digested feces for the same reasons rabbits do it.

At that point, we can deduce Moses was not referring to refection nor related behaviors classified under Coprophagia.

On 8/10/2005 2:56:07 PM, ed babinski wrote:

Dismissal of Holding's explanation:

The ancients probably saw rabbits and cows eating grass and both chewed the grass for a while before swallowing it. They also probably noted the way that cows regurgitate the bolus of food from their stomachs and chewed it some more, and probably assumed that rabbits did the same. They didn't know a lot about biology or how to divide creatures. They had few names for animals in the Bible period and the very word translated as rabbit might mean rock badger as well. What I find least likely is that the same ancient Hebrews who spoke of the serpent as "eating dust" [sic] also knew about "excrement eating," i.e., "refection" in hares (and/or coneys).

Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over) the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely "chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied hares or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition of "chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating one's own defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits, like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.

Of course the same folks who want to claim that they have discovered a modern "scientific" way to re-interpret such passages as "rabbits/coneys chew the cud" are also the same ones who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's "heart/blood/bowel" focus on human life and behavior (without mentioning the most vital organ that holds the most vital part of one's "life" and "direction," i.e., the brain and nervous system), and they are also the same folks who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's flat earth and geocentric assumptions concerning the cosmos and the firmament and the order of creation:
Hebrew Cosmology
Does the Bible Speak of the Brain
Heart in the Bible

Originally posted by jpholding
Excuse me? Your source is Wikipedia. Even so, "known to" is not the same as "it's what they normally do". This proves, what?

Try not to rely on Wikipedia. It's just embarrassing you.

"What they normally do"? --perhaps you'd provide some sources for that assumption. Swine "chew their cud". Case closed.

Try http://www.google.com --you're embarrassing yourself. There's tons of sites available on animals (rabbits, swine, dogs, elephants, etc) eating feces (coprophagy), lots of evidence (that is, if you're going to call refection "cud chewing") of swine "chewing their cud" (consuming their feces). . . domesticated and wild.

Lv:11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Dt:14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)

But it does "chew a cud" like rabbits. These creatures are commonly known to eat partially digested feces for the same reasons rabbits do it.

At that point, we can deduce Moses was not referring to refection nor related behaviors classified under Coprophagia.

John Kesler wrote:

Here is what some scholarly sources say about the hare.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of its constant chewing movements.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their jaws.

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean animal, but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to fact. Probably, as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the mouth and jaws have been erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.

Sharon: That's nice and all, but getting Answers in Genesis: Refection Question to acknowledge those facts . . .

John Kesler wote:The best you can do is make information available; you can't, and probably never will, get a determined inerrantist to admit to any biblical error.

In discussing this matter, I think it is better to use Deuteronomy 14 rather than Leviticus 11, because Deuteronomy lists more animals that were considered cud chewers:

Deuteronomy 14:4-7 (NRSV)
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. 6 Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof cleft in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 7 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cleft you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you.

The fact that the deer, ox, sheep, etc. are listed as examples of clean animals demonstrates that the ancient Israelites knew what cud chewing is. To suggest that eating feces, which the hare does, counted as cud chewing, is motivated not by logical inference but by a desire to exonerate the Bible.

Sharon: "The main thing to remember is that the ancients would not have thought that eating feces was "bring[ing] up the cud." Only a modern sees what little similarity exists between refection and rumination because of his knowledge of the chemistry of rumination. An ancient would not have had this knowledge, and for reasons I stated in the prior article, the ancients were probably not even aware of refective behavior. Therefore, this verse could not have been a reference to this behavior."

But it is likely the ancients were aware that swine consumes its own feces. Feces of any kind, period. It is my suspicion that was one of the reasons Moses and the Hebrews felt the swine was an abominable creature and not intended for human consumption.

I was just surfing Google to see what else exists on the subject.

Apparently John Stear / No Answers in Genesis had covered part of the issue in depth (the fact that rabbits do not "chew" at all). The pellets are found whole in the rabbit's stomach.

From: Answers in Genesis needs to "chew the cud" again
As English naturalist R M Lockley, author of the excellent book "The Private Life of the Rabbit", demonstrates on page 105 that rabbits DO NOT chew these pellets. AiG is wrong again. I repeat, rabbits DO NOT chew their cud!

...each soft pellet is separate and by the time it reaches the rectum is enveloped in a strong membrane ...these soft pellets pass down to the rectum in glossy clusters. They are swallowed whole by the rabbit, that is, without breaking the enveloping membranes. ...although the rabbit sometimes appears to chew this faecal "cud" after collecting it from the anus, with movements of the jaws, ... Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole. [my emphasis]

It would seem that the authors of Leviticus observed the rabbits' jaw movements and mistook this as evidence of cud-chewing. Not very reliable evidence on which to make a scientific pronouncement. Besides, the evidence for and understanding of refection in rabbits has only come to light in the last forty or so years, so if scientists who study rabbit physiology were ignorant of refection for hundreds of years, how much more ignorant were those ancient authors of Leviticus?
Source: No Answers in Genesis

A Christian Website containing numerous links on the digestive system of Rabbits, quotes:
"Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.
microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC443/notes/rabbits.htm

I found this link on the web

It relates to the Apologetical explanation of the "hare chewing the cud". I contacted them to inquire further.

Here is the response I received (with a few of my own notes interspersed)

On 8/11/2005 7:35:19 PM, Brand, Leonard (LLU) (lbrand/llu.edu) wrote:
Actually rabbits don't swallow their feces. At certain times of day, when resting, they excrete sophisticated little membrane-bound packets of material from their fermentation chamber, and swallow these. These packets are as different from feces as a lasagna dinner is different from feces.

What the Professor is not telling people: Sophisticated? Different? In that it is only a half turd?

My point on the swine eating half-digested feces stands.. the stuff the rabbit is eating is merely half-digested veggie-poop, and if I took a blender and stuck a pile of semi-digested horse plop in it and turned the power on then patted it into a pellet and wiped some oil on it -- you'd have your "sophisticated little membrane-bound packet". Many turds come out with vegetation in them and with oils naturally produced by the body.

He is making out as if this half-turd is sophisticated... "divine". Really!
Disgusting.

It's a pellet that is half-turd / with mangled green stuff in it, and he knows it is not fit for a cow to eat. It is not "cud". Cows, goats and sheep certainly would not eat this stuff! There's a reason it's coming out of the rabbits butt - it is nearly digested - they try to tell people that stuff is "cud" --and conveniently omit that it's turned partially turd by that time! Sophisticated packet my foot. It's half-turd when the rabbit swallows it.

No wonder the rabbit won't chew it! Would a cow chew on a half-turd?

Why do rabbits eat their own droppings?
Caecal pellets are soft, smelly, clumpy feces, and are a rabbit's only supply of Vitamin B12. ...
At the *end of their digestive system is an area called the caecum where cellulose and other plant fibers are broken down and ferment... After they have been broken down and passed, a rabbit's digestive system can finally extract the vitamins from them. Occasionally, the rabbit may leave these pellets lying about their cage; while smelly, this behavior is harmless. If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this may indicate either too little fiber, or too many starches in their diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay.
*This sounds thoroughly unrelated to rumination (cud chewing).

I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW -- THAT STUFF IS NOT "CUD".

The Bible not only is specific on "brings up" but the word for "cud" as well. Try to tell people that filthy dropping is something a cow or goat is chewing.

A ruminant is "chewing its cud" after it regurgitates from the first stomach. The cud hasn't even began to come near the intestines to begin the breakdown process into feces. Ruminants chew a cud, gerah -- a relatively clean substance.

I'm quite positive the rabbit is not swallowing "cud" if it's passed out the backside... there is a REASON it is classified among forms of Coprophagia (feces-eating) in animals.

Whether they chew them or not may not be the significant issue.

Just as the Hebrew words alah and gerah are not significant to Biblical literalists -- just as long as there's room to wiggle. Fact is, that stuff is not "cud", and further, it is not "brought up" from the throat. A rabbit does not chew a cud. It swallows a half-digested turd.

Cud chewing, or rumination is the process of sending swallowed food directly to a fermentation chamber where microbes do what vertebrates cannot do - digest plant cell walls.

FACT: A rabbit is not a ruminant and they do not share the same digestive system with cows, sheep, goats. It sounds like to me, he's just trying to make things sound more complicated than they need to be.

SO WHAT if the rabbit and cow share some common characteristic in digestion? This small similarity hardly qualifies as "cud chewing" or ruminant. The differences far outweigh the similarities.

Then the resulting mix of digested material plus microbes is sent back through the digestion process once more.

How often in rabbits? Occasionally. Sometimes. Only at night. Most of the food they eat is passed as solid waste and never touched again. Not so in true cud chewers who are witnessed chewing cud around the clock.

This time it bypasses the fermentation chamber.

It does most all the time. I suppose we should give all the glawry to God because nature endowed the rabbit with the ability to strip out some half-digested vegetation and separate it from solid waste. This still hardly qualifies as "cud chewing". There is a vast difference, this "green turd" is a "product of the rabbit's body" --it is not cud. I am not amazed at the bodies of animals producing food -- mammals produce milk -- another phenomena of evolutionary biology.

Whether chewing is a necessary part of the process depends on how literally one takes the layman's term "cud chewing."

I am under the impression Moses would have it no other way... starting with the definition of cud. (Not half-digested turds).

The only significant difference in this process between rabbits and cows is how they get the fermentation products back to the mouth for the second pass through the GI tract.

And the Bible is emphatic on how ruminants do it: "Brings up" the "cud".

Swine may eat feces, but they don't have the fermentation/rumination process I described above, so there is really no valid comparison between rabbits and swine in this case.

And rabbits do not "bring up" the cud as stated in the Bible... "so there is really no valid comparison between rabbits, cud-chewing and the Bible".

SOUNDS LIKE "CUD" IS UP FOR ANYONE'S BEST DEFINITION THESE DAYS. So, who's to say what "cud" really is. We can't trust the Bible on a simple word like 'alah' and 'gerah'... also. If a rabbit can chew a turd and its called 'cud' (half digested feces) --then we're free to call say swine chew cud.

*Swine do not chew cud.
*Neither do rabbits.

No link between rabbits and ruminants was established to discuss rumination in rabbits. The word rumination is derived from the Latin word ruminare, which means to chew the cud.

Rabbits occasionally eat a half-turd like swine do. That is why these pellets smell bad, that is why rabbits do not "chew" them. They're turds. He did not describe any rumination process in rabbits. If he did, I missed it.

Leonard Brand
Professor of Biology and Paleontology
Loma Linda University
lbrand/llu.edu

Two Questions that are gnawing at me:

On 8/11/2005 7:35:19 PM, Brand, Leonard (LLU) (lbrand/llu.edu) wrote: Actually rabbits don't swallow their feces.

It's not feces?
But refection is indeed classified among feces-eating behaviors?
And the reason why:
Caecal pellets are soft, smelly, clumpy feces . . .

If it sounds like "feces" and smells like "feces", it probably is "feces".

Is he knowingly lying or what am I missing?

Swine may eat feces, but they don't have the fermentation/rumination process I described above, so there is really no valid comparison between rabbits and swine in this case.

Sharon: Since when has science began classifying refection (feces eating) as "rumination"? Or better, has science re-classified rumination (cud chewing) under any form of Coprophagia? --as feces-eating behavior? Since when did they begin calling feces, a "cud"?

Mere pseudo-science.

A fermentation process he says?
Is it necessary? Does scripture call for any specifics about the intestines, fermentation chambers or other details involved with the process of digestion? No it does not. Rather simply, the only specific detail we have to define the type of digestion involved is "brings up" the gerah, "cud".

Where does it say in the Hebrew scripture that (fermentation) is even necessary to qualify in the production of "cud". Cud can be defined as about anything. As we all know now from Christian Apologists, the definition of "cud" is up for grabs, anything goes from regurgitation to feces, the definition of "brings up" (alah and gerah) was put up for re-definition as well. Who needs fermentation? Fact is swine get nourishment from their half-digested feces, just like rabbits do. And if we can go the stretch from cows chewing their regurgitation to the extreme of calling a swallowed half-turd "chewing cud" (totally disregarding the known translation of Hebrew scripture) -- then we can go one inch further and say swine chew their cud. No limits -- we're free to interpret scripture, rumination and cuds however our heart desires.

---

What creationists fail to understand, these behaviors (refection and rumination) may have 1 or 2 distant similarities --but they are not related. To compare vomit and feces as "cud" is like comparing apples and oranges.

Some time back on television they broadcasted a special about Evolution and the development of life -the creatures who first moved and then proceeded to move out on land. In this series they gave the example of the Seahorse and how strikingly similar it is in comparison with the horse (equus caballus). But, these two creatures came out that way by coincidence, a freak phenomena of natural selection. It was not a "sign" from a designer, nor miraculous, nor some evidence scripture is inerrant or inspired.

The undeniable truth is that rabbits do not chew a cud. They partake in an obscure PART-TIME feces-swallowing behavior which natural selection designed their body for. (Having more similarities with consuming half digested dung than chewing a cud as in "rumination" --just ask yourself what is inside that so-called "sophisticated packet"). I guarantee you its not the same stuff cows, sheep and goats are chewing... it's turd, and the rabbit will not chew it. In contrast, Ruminants chew their cud around the clock --their digestive system is not comparable with the rabbit in that regard. The digestive system of rabbits did not evolve "with" ruminants and they are not cud chewers.

Scripture specifies one tiny detail which sheds light on everything, "alah" for "bring up" the cud. All else is totally irrelevant.

---

They're not ruminants. I've read where some refer to them as Pseudo-ruminants.

It's funny. Some scientists are proposing to classify animals based on taxonomy.
These guys are trying to get them classified based on ancient Scripture.

I won't comment further.

---

On 8/12/2005 12:25:01 PM, Brand, Leonard (LLU) (lbrand/llu.edu) wrote:

Sharon: I will attempt to answer your questions, and you may publish our correspondence.

You say that it has long been confirmed that rabbits are not ruminants. I am not sure what you referring to, but it is not as simple as that. I wrote an article in Origins (published by GRI) on this topic in vol 4(2), 1977, p. 102-104. The papers referred to in that article, by physiologists, recognize that rabbits are ruminants, unless we wish to take a very restrictive anatomical description of what rumination is. There is one mistake I made in that article, however - I refer to eating one kind of feces - called soft feces, which I have since learned is not correct - these pellets should not be called feces, but they are special packets of food material prepared in the fermentation chamber.

There are groups of animals that eat mostly green vegetation. Vertebrates cannot digest green plants and get enough nutrition for life. They must have a fermentation system to get the nutrients out. This includes those mammals formally recognized as ruminants - the ruminating Artiodactyls (camels, cows, deer, and their relatives), but it also includes an entire subfamily of rodents - the Microtinae, the rabbits and hares, and a few birds. Of these, the Artiodactyls and the rabbits and hares bring the fermented food back for a second pass through the digestive tract - a very significant adaptation. At least some physiologists recognize this as rumination, no matter how they get the food back to the mouth. With the rabbits this is definitely not "eating feces." Swine may eat feces, as some other animals will do at times, but they do not have any of the equipment for fermentation or a second pass of food (not feces) through the digestive tract, and thus are irrelevant to this discussion.

I am not a Hebrew expert, but some considerations that do not require knowledge of Hebrew make me doubtful about making too many specific physiological conclusions from some Hebrew expressions. For example, in descriptions of types of animals Leviticus 11:20 refers to insects that walk upon all fours. This seems to imply that insects have four legs, when if fact all insects have six legs. Naturalists studying in cultures that are not educated in science have found that people who live close to nature may not know anything about biological theory, but they are careful observers of those things that can be seen around them. The idea that the Hebrews thought insects have four legs is, I think, simply not believable. Perhaps the expression "walk on all fours" meant walk on their legs, rather than swimming, jumping, etc. In like manner, I doubt if the details of the Hebrew expression for rumination should be used to make decisions about physiology.

Are the commercial food pellets for rabbits sent through the fermentation process? I don't know. It may depend on what those pellets are made of - are they green vegetation, like a rabbit's normal diet? Commercial food for various animals often ignores the normal diet of the animal, which can be very detrimental. An example is feeding cows on a commercial diet largely made of processed animal products. Cows digestive tracts are not designed for eating meat. Also, unless rabbit breeders watch their rabbits all night they may not see them eat the fermented food pellets.

Is it important for a Bible-believer to know whether rabbits "chew the cud?" Probably not. However, what is known about rabbits makes me unimpressed by some persons I have known who argue this issue as demonstrating that the Bible is unreliable.

The best to you in your Bible study
Leonard Brand

Here's another response that just came in:
(*One small note: "involves the collection of nutrients by a second digestion" -common sense tells us if a swine or any creature consumes feces, it will go through a second digestion, and further broken down and the nutrients asorbed. To restore? The swine sees its semi-digested droppings and restores it to its mouth (doesn't matter how it gets there, just that it does) and proceeds to eat it to fully digest its meal. And I agree, nobody seems to understand what alah gerah means these days.)

---

On 8/12/2005 3:05:54 PM, thestewarts/canada.com wrote:
Sharon,

Thanks for visiting our site. And thanks for your concern about the article in our Answering The Atheist section on whether the rabbit chews the cud or not.

There is no disagreement on whether cattle chew the cud. Both Bible believers and those who oppose the Bible can agree on this. The hare seems to be a hairy issue though. Why does Moses say that the hare chews the cud, but the swine does not? What makes the two different? The rabbit consumes it's own feces for nutritional benefit; the pig (an omnivore) eats the feces of herbivores for nutritional benefit. No mention is made in the article you quoted of any nutritional benefit derived for the pig from consuming it's own feces.

Could it be that Moses' phrase "'alah gerah" (rendered in English as "chew the cud") involves the collection of nutrients by a second digestion, whether it be the regurgitation process used by cattle or coprophagia, used by rabbits? In both cases, the animal is redigesting it's own food for nutritional benefit. It may be that our modern thought of what it means to "chew the cud" is different than what "'alah gerah" is.

You mentioned that the rabbit does not chew at all, but rather swallows the pellet whole. This argument is based upon the assumption that "chew the cud" is an adequate rendering of "'alah gerah". The fact is, neither word literally means to chew. "'Alah" has a variety of uses, but generally means to raise up or bring up. But in addition, it can mean to recover or restore. The rabbit surely is recovering or restoring it's food in the coprophagia process. It would seem that translators considered "chew the cud" to best accommodate Moses' meaning, though it seems to fall short in fully expressing what "'alah gerah" means.

In His Service,
William J. Stewart
Kingston, Ontario

On 8/12/2005 3:05:54 PM, thestewarts/canada.com wrote:
The rabbit consumes it's own feces for nutritional benefit; the pig (an omnivore) eats the feces of herbivores for nutritional benefit.

I've heard said there's always an exception to every rule.

"In some tests, animals are put on a diet that may be far beyond their range of natural diets, e.g., putting a natural vegetarian (like a rabbit) on a diet of, say, cooked bacon. As the gut morphology of a rabbit is not adapted to a pure meat diet, the results of such tests must be interpreted with caution."

So a rabbit is not "absolutely" herbivore.

Posted by Bryan on February 15, 2004
In Reply to: Rabbits can eat more efficiency on August 29, 2003

My rabbit loves to eat chicken. And I don't know why?
answer me this question. He doesn't seem too vegetarian too me.
I dunno what to think of it.
E-mail me back.
Peace
Bryan

Posted by Beth on April 12, 2005
In Reply to: MY RABBIT IS A OMNIVORE posted by Bryan on February 15, 2004

My rabbit is also an Omnivore. She likes eating beef. We discovered this when my cat was on the floor with our left- overs. My rabbit just went right over and started to eat it too. If you have other pets maybe it learned it from them. My rabbit also eats strange things like kraftdinner. Anyways I can't really answer your question but I just wanted to share that information.

I suppose we will never know the full story.

One thing continues to come to mind. While the Creationists are banging their own drum, --a turd which the rabbit swallows --how lucky they were -- (certainly if there is a God who inspired that scripture, God is getting a good laugh at their foolishness.)
The Bible is divinely inspired scriptured and can be proven by a TURD!

They found an obscure coincidence in nature to support a scripture?
All the more confirmed they're "100% right" and Darwin was wrong, goddidit . . . and the fossils that prove evolutionary theory is a fact continue to surface . . . and will continue to do so.

Lee Merrill wrote: Well, "alah" has a wide range of meanings, "yalah" means "let's be going" (which could be down or up or level) in Hebrew, so a Jewish person told me.

Now as far as the meaning, as I posted over here, let's read on:

Leviticus 11:20-22 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

Now grasshoppers and crickets etc. do not have only four legs! So either they could not count, or check the stomachs of rabbits, or else they meant something other than what we would think they meant here.

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard wrote: Got it!

When the bible looks wrong, it isn't really wrong, it just seems that way because the divinely inspired writers meant something else besides "what we would think they meant."

So we don't need miracles after all.

"Rabbits chew their cud," didn't mean that rabbits chew their cud, it simply meant "Horses ride the range."

It's easy, once one knows the rule for reading the bible.

Sharon:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill: So either they could not count, or check the stomachs of rabbits, or else they meant something other than what we would think they meant here.

Moses also wrote this scripture: Gn:3:14: And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (KJV)

Reading on in Isaiah, which is speaking prophetically of the future kingdom: Is:65:25: The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. (KJV)

Failed curse in Genesis. Moses stated the serpent would eat dust, and the prophet Isaiah clearly states the serpent will eat dust (in the future).

---

The problem I have is these guys would have children taught this non-science in school. Many Christians cannot even agree on how Hebrew scripture is translated and much less, how to properly interpret scripture (most admit they're not always certain even on the details of ancient viewpoints -- its been demonstrated in this thread, the confusion resulting from alah and gerah) and they want this stuff taught as "science"?

I am one person who does not want my children taught "rabbits chew cud". They do not chew cud. Science had it right when they classified this observed behavior under feces-eating.

I have something to show that is far more amazing than a discovery of a rabbit chewing its turd.

LeVar Burton holding a manatee flipper in hand. Notice the vestigial toenails. Sea cows, dugong and manatee share a common ancestor with elephants. These creatures evolved. In their own sweet way, evidence of this nature is for Evolutionists, what the rabbit turd is for Creationists. We have every reason to believe whole-heartedly in evolutionary theory as a fact. In fact, I find these toenails (and other similarities) between elephants and sirenians far more fascinating than a rabbit turd and a scripture in a book which nobody can even agree on meaning. Everyone can look at that photo and pretty well agree those are indeed "toenails".

Creationists seized upon turd-eating in rabbits as evidence for divinely inspired and inerrant scripture. This behavior in rabbits has not proven the Bible inerrant or inspired. They have merely brought attention to an observed behavior in rabbits. Nothing more. They can call it "cud chewing" if they like, but its not cud chewing and never will be.

Let's assume for one moment Moses knew of refection. If so, and Moses proceeded to classify refection as "cud chewing", then it only proves beyond doubt, how ignorant that culture was. Modern science knows better and classified this behavior in rabbits under feces-eating (Coprophagia) for a reason.

John Kesler wrote:

lee_merrill: Well, "alah" has a wide range of meanings, "yalah" means "let's be going" (which could be down or up or level) in Hebrew, so a Jewish person told me.

Lee, most words have "a wide range of meanings," and context determines which of these meanings is correct. Just because a Hebrew or Greek word can mean something different in another context doesn't mean that the meaning of the word is subject to whatever definition we find most advantageous.

As I mentioned in another post, Deuteronomy 14 lists several animals which "chew the cud": "the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep."

Here we have a list of ruminants said to be cud chewers, so doesn't it strike you as odd that an animal that eats its own feces somehow was considered in the same classification as the others? On the other hand, if the hare appeared to chew the cud, the classification makes sense.

Also in another post, I quoted scholarly works which consider the "hare chews the cud" statement to be in error. Add to this the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, page 404, which says that the hare, "was considered unclean...for an inaccurate reason, namely, the assumption that a hare chews the cud." The Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 6, page 1142, states that, "like the ruminants, rabbits and hares always seem to be chewing. It is possible that it was this superficial observation which led the creator(s) of the biblical dietary law (mistakenly) to classify the hare with the ruminants..."

One more thing to consider is that even though Leviticus 11:3 uses alah for "chew," verse 7, which tells why the swine is disqualified from being a "clean" animal, says that it does not "chew the cud," but the word "chew" is a different Hebrew word, garar. Christian scholar Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, page 1606, under "Lexical Aids to the Old Testament," defines garar thusly, emphasis mine:

scrape, sweep, saw, draw, collect, snatch away (Jer. 30:23); chew the cud; ruminate (Lev. 11:7)...

In other words, even if you want to claim that alah is so versatile in meaning as to be open to interpretation in Leviticus 11:3, the other Hebrew word used is properly defined in verse 7 as "ruminate," the very thing that a swine doesn't do that disqualifies it.

Sharon: Thank you for all the well-researched information.
Your contributions are much more insightful than JP Holding's. I am not an expert on theology or science -just a simple truthseeker, but conversing with Holding leaves me with the impression he himself (supposedly an apologist) didn't even fully understand the debate about cud chewing / alah gerah / or the Coprophagia and Refection relationship. That's excusable though to an extent, most Christians don't research the beliefs they're defending as inerrant.

I think it is very important they understand the composition of caecal pellets and think about it twice (feces) before casually calling it "cud" (as in what cows, sheep and goats re-chew).

I repeat myself from the previous post "Assuming for one moment Moses knew of refection: If so, and Moses proceeded to classify refection as "cud chewing", then it only proves beyond doubt, how ignorant that culture was. Modern science knows better and classified this behavior in rabbits under feces-eating (Coprophagia) for a reason." (Having more in common with swine feces-eating than cud-chewing). Creationists need to fully understand what they're defending.

---

BTW, just a brief note on the Professor's comment about cud in the Bible requiring "fermentation"?

"Swine may eat feces, but they don't have the fermentation/rumination process I described above, so there is really no valid comparison between rabbits and swine in this case."

What determines the definition of cud? Tobacco even qualifies as cud. I can visualize a clump of horse feces rich in semi-digested hay, or its own feces --and a swine finding it very appealing for chewing.

DEF #1
cud ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kd)
n.
Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant and chewed again.
Something held in the mouth and chewed, such as a quid of tobacco.
[Middle English, from Old English cudu.]

DEF #2
Main Entry: cud
Pronunciation: 'k&d, 'kud
Function: noun
: food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first stomach to be chewed again

DEF #3
cud
n 1: food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again [syn: rechewed food] 2: a wad of something chewable as tobacco [syn: chew, chaw, quid, plug, wad]
Dictionary - Cud

---

Christians are presuming "cud" is defined strictly as rumination in cows, goats, sheep, --the Professor mistakingly assumes the definition of cud is limited to "fermentation chambers" and would like to include rabbits in that narrow definition based on a small similarity between digestive system of rabbit vs. cow, --disregarding the vast difference between true rumination and pseudo-rumination -- relying on the restrictive sense you've pointed out in your sources.

...Then the resulting mix of digested material plus microbes is sent back through the digestion process once more... This time it bypasses the fermentation chamber... Whether chewing is a necessary part of the process depends on how literally one takes the layman's term "cud chewing."

Chewing is mandatory.

Moses was emphatic on the word gerah which Biblical translators have always defined as "cud". Cud does not include substances which are swallowed. Cud is strictly defined as a substance that is "chewed".

The word cud itself can include a wad of turd which is rechewed by a swine, however, the definition of cud does not allow for a caecal pellet which is placed in the mouth and "swallowed". It must be chewed on.

Christians are not only left with a question of what "alah" meant in the original Hebrew, but likewise, what exactly is gerah? All we know for certain, is that if a substance qualifies as "cud" it must be "chewed on".

Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Yes, I agree completely, we have to try and find out what they meant, not what we wish they meant. Now "chew" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew, thus the important aspect seems to be that the pig eats its food without recycling, not that it doesn't chew it.

Regards,
Lee

Yes, pigs are eliminated in the definition of "cud". Rabbits would never have been classified as cud-chewers.

The rabbit is not chewing on a "chewable wad" when it mimmicks the motion of the mouth a cow makes. (repeatedly chewing on a wad, [edible or not is not an issue] -- chewing is the issue). Moses further emphasized, the substance is "brought up" (alah). Science defined that as rumination.

I just posted to JP Holding: "The swine may "chew up" a chewable wad, but it doesn't stand there and chew and chew and chew on it. Does it? That "movement of the mouth" repeatedly chewing on a chewable wad. Right? Like chewing tobacco. It's never swallowed, it is repeatedly chewed and then spit out. The swine does not do that. However, the rabbit appears to chew on a chewable wad like the ruminants do. Now, we are back at the error Linnaeus made on "appearances" of chewing a cud like cows, goats, sheep..."

LOL! People who chew Chewing Tobacco, are "cud chewers".

I have no real problem with Moses. He specified between animals that make that motion of the mouth -separating the clean from the unclean.

That is all fine and good. A hungry ancient Hebrew might see a hare on the plain, and seeing the chewing motion of the mouth and thinking its chewing on a "wad" -- "Moses said gerah makes the hare clean", and eat it. I can give Moses the benefit of the doubt ... no big deal. Hebrew slang or something, only an expert in Hebrew language might be able to ascertain a conclusive conclusion on that --wiggle room --I have no real problem with Moses. And, there's just not too much left to discuss on the issue. If said Hebrew language expert ascertains "Moses literally assumed the rabbit brought up a wad in its mouth to chew," well, Moses made an error. We all know the rabbit does not "chew" a "cud". By the simple fact of the word, alah, Moses at least had the sense to recognize the wad it was chewing on, was coming up from inside the cow.

The REAL problem is with all those Christians who have sworn high and dry, the rabbit was "chewing" a "cud", and stretched to some far-fetched feces-eating behavior -- desperately trying to make a relationship between refection and rumination to prove the Bible inerrant, when it was never the issue to begin with.

August 13, 2005
END OF DISCUSSION

---

Excerpts from a conversation between August 3, 2005-August 10, 2005

Quote: Originally posted by jpholding
rabbit trails

SHARON: Speaking of rabbit trails. . .

Lv:11:6: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (KJV)

"Interesting hares and rabbits do go through a process that is very similar to what we moderns call chewing the cud. The process is called refection. As the hare rests, it passes droppings of different composition, which it once again eats."
Hard Sayings of The Bible, InterVarsity Press, 1996

Reminds me of your arguments, JP. I'm curious just how much this behavior differs from say, Chickens. I grew up on a farm, and it wasn't unusual to see the chickens pecking at their own poop but I'd hardly call it "chewing their cud." And ducks ... wow, they'll poop right in their pool and swim around in it, and ducking their head up under the water sifting for more to eat. I'm curious what Ed can find for creatures that consume their own feces?

For instance, Honey is bee vomit
-- worker bees (females) will toss out the drones (males) when the winter draws near, saving the honey for themselves to eat. Bees eat their vomit. Do we say the honeybee chews its cud?

Sharon: I'm curious just how much this behavior differs from say, Chickens. I grew up on a farm, and it wasn't unusual to see the chickens pecking at their own poop but I'd hardly call it "chewing their cud."

JP HOLDING: What with the words "cud" and "chewing" having modern meanings of their own, I expect not. What you would need to tell us is if they made the gerah to 'alah.

There'd be other factors to consider too, but I'll just let you two make fools of yourselves again trying to foment a problem rather than tell you what they are. It's fun.

What with the words "cud" and "chewing" having modern meanings of their own, I expect not. What you would need to tell us is if they made the gerah to 'alah.

SHARON: THAT explains nothing as usual.

Cud is food regurgitated from the stomach to the oral cavity via the throat (the foodpipe). The Hebrew for “cud,” gerah, is evidently derived from the same etymon as the Hebrew for “throat,” garon. In fact, in the early post-Biblical period the term gerah itself was used to designate the throat (Mishnah Tractate Yoma 2:3, 7; Tractate Tamid 3:1, 4:3). Thus, coprophagy cannot qualify for “chewing the cud” (literally, “bringing up the cud,” Heb. ma’aleh gerah, which is ascribed by the Pentateuch to the hare and the hyrax).

I found this amusing passage in "Hard Sayings of the Bible", on the hare and cud. "The Hebrew expression for "chew the cud" is literally "raising up what has been swallowed." But what does this raising up of what has been swallowed refer to? Surely there is the appearance of a cud-chewing process in these animals. In fact, so convincing was this appearance that Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), to whom we owe the modern system of biological classification, at first classified the coney and the hare as ruminants."

That is the fundamental difference between Religion and Science.
Upon further investigation, scientists correct their errors. This is called Progress.
To change an error in scripture is called Sacrilege.

Bees vomiting honey, "raising up what has been swallowed" and eating it again, is closer to "cud chewing" than the refection reported in some hares.

---

The original point I was making remains intact.
Bees vomiting honey, "raising up what has been swallowed" and eating it again, is closer to "cud chewing" than the refection reported in some hares. Yet, we would not call this "cud chewing" in Honeybees.

I questioned a farmer who sells rabbits, and she told me she has never witnessed her rabbits eating their droppings. She explained they buy prepared food for the rabbits. Refection is not a matter of life and death for rabbits. On the other hand, cows, goats, sheep, it (cud chewing) is part of their natural digestive system.

JP HOLDING: All right, if you are going to humiliate yourself by posting that here, I'll play along.

And if JP Holding is going to humiliate himself by claiming rabbits chew a cud (refection) I will play along. By the same definition JP Holding is using for "cud chewing", swines chew cud, and Moses said swines do not chew cud. Therefore, we can deduce Moses was not speaking of refection in rabbits. (Moses was certainly not speaking of consuming feces ..in neither rabbits or swine).

SHARON: I questioned a farmer who sells rabbits, and she told me she has never witnessed her rabbits eating their droppings.

JP HOLDING: That's nice. I really don't care and it really doesn't change things one way or the other. It remains that they do it, and that you're doing nothing more than trying to force the terms to mean things they could not possibly have meant to an ancient pastoralist of the Levitical period.

SHARON: Now, back to the simple issue: All Biblical Scholars say to chew the cud means to literally "raise up what has been swallowed". They point to Carollus Linnaeus' making the same error Moses made.

1) When you see a cow making that chewing motion with its mouth -- it's chewing its cud. Right?

2) When the hare does it --it's not chewing its cud. Is it? It merely makes the appearance of it. Right? Moses and Carollus Linnaeus made the same error, but Linnaeus corrected his. Right or wrong?
The refection issue is irrelevant. As pointed out, even bees vomit and re-ingest their spill in the form of honey but its not called chewing their cud.

Quote: Originally posted by jpholding
Who cares? "Chew the cud" is not the same as making the gerah to 'alah. Refection is just as well another way to make the gerah to 'alah. Period. Save yourself further embarrassment, eh?

No embarrassment here.
I posted the same thing Biblical scholars say. No need to repeat myself again. Try explaining all gibberish that to a rabbit farmer... tell them their rabbits chew cuds. They'll think you're nuts.

Oh and you miss the simple of simplest points.
Bees spew and eat their vomit at a later time. Who'd compare it with chewing a cud? But its closer to cud chewing than eating turds. Imagine Moses instructing '..the honeybee, because it chews the cud, but divides not the hoof' --oh, but they didn't have microscropes back in those days to even know if bees had cloven feet, did they . . . no more than they ever thought to disect a hare's digestive system.

Reminds me of an Ingersoll article I had a lot of fun transferring "Mistakes of Moses".

SHARON: Imagine Moses instructing '..the honeybee, because it chews the cud, but divides not the hoof'

JP HOLDING: Honeybees were too useful a source for honey for anyone to consider eating them as they did locusts. They'd never be on the list to begin with.

Here's a thought JP --
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.

---

In other words, JP, according to you and other Christians, Honeybees also chew their cud. Any creature that spews or excretes feces and consuming it again, are classified as "cud chewers" according to Moses' biological classification system? How enlightened these folks were!

One particular tribe in Africa was interviewed a couple decades ago about their peculiar tradition of eating their own feces. The Tribe leader explained to Sixty Minutes if you eat your feces over a long enough period of time it will turn white, and in his hospitality, offered some.
I'm curious if JP Holding feels this behavior qualifies as "Humans Chewing their Cud".

What you're saying basically is there's no real difference between ruminants and almost every other species on earth. Cud chewing is not unique and Moses and his people did not have a clear understanding of how the ruminant digestive system works. A lot of creatures consume their spew and droppings.

Posted August 8th 2005
SHARON: Of all the vast number of (Christian definition) "cud chewers", including honeybees, chickens, humans -- but Moses chose *only* the cud-chewer that "makes the false appearance" of re-chewing its half-digested regurgitation like cows, goats, sheep.

Why didn't Moses mention any other cud-chewers?

Could it be, that Moses actually believed a hare was "doing the same thing" as the cow, goat, sheep? The same mistake Linnaeus made.

In other words, cut through the bologna and exercising common sense:
Occam's Razor (also spelt Ockham's Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy. In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says The simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Since the definition of "chewing the cud" is so very very broad, I'd like to see Holdski produce some Bible verses where it refers to other creatures who chew the cud, besides ruminants and creatures who "make the false appearance of chewing a cud". But I doubt Holding will find any, because Moses made the same mistake Linnaeus did.

That's one heckuva way to distinguish clean meat from unclean meat -- it's okay if eats its own turds, --just as long as its hoof is cloven.

Here's news for you: Hares don't have hooves nor do they chew a cud. Moses was simply a very confused man.

POSTED AUGUST 9, 2005

JP HOLDING: No need to provide any names of scholars either, for that matter.

SHARON: Do you need any names?

JP HOLDING: I'd rather ask them if their rabbits make the gerah to 'alah. I'll tell them what the words mean and they'll agree that their rabbits do that.

You mean the same thing Gorillas do?

Ed Babinski wrote: Gorillas are vegetarians who eat their own feces sometimes in the early morning (it's even on film in a Nat. Geog. special I saw years ago), probably since it's warm and easily available. Kind of like downing a hot cup of java.

So are Gorillas clean to eat? They chew the cud, and they divide their tootsies, ah, alas no "hoof", or were Biblical translators confused as much on the word hoof as they're supposedly confused on the word "chew the cud" -- Strange that Moses would name one "cud chewer", out of so very many, including, but not limited to primates -- completely omitting other cud chewers of all kinds... gee, JP, how would the Hebrews know whether or not they could eat Gorilla meat? (incidentally the same mistake Linnaeus made, but not because of refection, rather simple observation of chewing motions... like duh-ng, a total no brainer.)

SHARON: Why didn't Moses mention any other cud-chewers?

JP HOLDING: Moses did not need to give an exhaustive list, just a few examples or even one or two. It's only stupid moderns like you who demand this level of paranoid detail, especially when you need an excuse to call ancient people stupid.

It's also a logical fallacy, since the simplest explanation is far from always true. But in any event, you make the assumption that Ancient People Are Stupid ™ which is quite needless.

SHARON: I'd like to see JP Holding produce some Bible verses where it refers to other creatures who chew the cud,

JP HOLDING: What for? Go look up gerah (a very specific word) and then 'alah (a very, very broad word of movement) just like I did.

SHARON: That's one heckuva way to distinguish clean meat from unclean meat -- it's okay if eats its own turds, --just as long as its hoof is cloven.

According to the teachings of the WWCG which I practiced from around 1975-1991 (old orthodox Jewish meat laws), the reason we did not eat oysters, clams, lobster, catfish, (anything without fins and scales were prohibited in the diet)... my mother told me way back when we were in the church, those things were created in the water, as scavengers to eat the pollution and keep the waters clean. She said people were committing a sin by taking those "filters" (scallops and other shellfish) from the waters.

*Why* would Moses then say, "we'll consider the hare, it eats its own pollution (qualification #1) but it doesn't have a divided hoof".

Something just doesn't seem right with that picture. Contradictory . . .

The last thing I'd think would come out of Moses' mouth (the connoisseur of picky eating) -- was saying "if it eats its turds, it's clean to eat".

i.e., the verses in Ezekial?

Ez:4:12: And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
Ez:4:13: And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
Ez:4:14: Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
*Though this has been questioned:
1) Was Ezekial being instructed to eat turd in his bread --
2) or, as Apologists have it, merely cooking with it as fuel for fire? If it were common custom to cook with cow dung --then what curse remains?*

To cook using man's dung, and it would be considered abominable? Though cow's dung was commonly used for cooking ( so is my understanding of ancient near east customs? )

Still, it hardly seems they'd deem a "turd-eater" as an ordinance for distinguishing "clean meat" from "unclean meat", when pollution-eating (I assume) is what made water-filter/ water scavengers like shellfish unclean.

#1 -- The Pig Consumes its own half-digested feces. (Like the rabbit does) --for the same purpose a rabbit re-consumes its feces --nutrition.

#2 -- Doc confirmed the pellet is not chewed at all, but swallowed whole.
Therefore it is not by any means comparable with "chewing" a cud.

Hebrews considered dung-eating offensive and insulting

DUNG OFFENSIVE AND CURSED
2Kgs:18:27: But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (KJV)

Is:36:12: But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (KJV)

Jer:16:4: They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. (KJV)

Moses' lack of knowledge.
Speaking of Linnaeus...
So where in the evolutionary tree are rats, mice and rabbits and hares related? By genus, by order?

Seems Moses would have noticed the similarity of "red eyes" with mice, quicker than the false "chewing motion" of the mouth. Because it chews the cud???
Because it is related to the abominable mouse!

Lv:11:29: These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, (KJV)

Is:66:17: They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord. (KJV)

Genes shared between rabbits and mice?

The rat, the mouse, the field-mouse, the water-rat, the short tailed [275] field mouse, the fat squirrel, the garden squirrel, the dormouse, the shrew-mouse, and several others, whom I mention not, because they belong not to our climate, form so many distinct and separate species,

Of this species, as in all those which consist of numerous individuals, there are many varieties. Beside the common rat, which is blackish, some are brown, others gray, reddish, and even totally white. The white rats have red eyes, like the white rabbit, the white mouse, and all the other animals which are perfectly white. The whole species, and its varieties, appear to be natives of the [279] temperate climates, and are more diffused over the warm than the cold regions. There were no rats originally in America;* but those imported from Europe multiplied so prodigiously, that they were long the scourge of the colonies, where they had no enemies but large serpents, who swallowed them alive. They have been carried by ships into the East Indies, and all the islands of the Indian Archipelago;+ and are found likewise in Africa.3 But, towards the north, they have never multiplied beyond Sweden; for what are called Norwegian and Lapland rats, are animals of a different species.
Source

*Incidentally, the rabbit was imported to America .. like the rat.

MOSES AND LINNAEUS MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE . . .
Moses had the sense to know a mouse was unclean. Strange how he observed the similarities between cud chewing ruminants, but failed to take note of the similarities between rabbits and rats, i.e., red eyes and similarities in coats, etc.

Again, why only the "rabbit and coney" and not all those other "cud chewers" like Gorillas, honeybees and even a dog will return to its vomit I've heard (not sure if it'll eat it though).

Darwin's theory makes sense of the confusion.

This is an intrigueing issue. WHY did Moses put a relative of the rat on a list of clean vs. unclean meats? It should have never been in question! (That is if he understood a thing about biological classification.)

Pigs eat feces. So they do refection, PLUS have a cloven hoof. Amen.

The pig eats its own feces. Therefore refection is not chewing the cud.

Unless...
Moses (paraphrased): "The swine... because it divides the hoof, but chews not the cud it is unclean to you" Moses made an error?

120. Re: dietary laws
davidpalter: Actually farmers do not feed hay to pigs, hay is suitable for cows, horses, and sheep. Pig eat slops (kitchen waste), any kind of vegetable or meat, and yes, they will eat poop too, although that is not what farmers feed them. —dp

by chlim01: That's disgusting! Why on earth would pigs eat feces if they've been given proper food?

by davidpalter: Pigs like to eat as much food as they can get, they are notoriously gluttonous and indeed, have become the basis for the standard metaphor for human gluttony as well.

I might add that although you (and many others) may find the dietary proclivities of pigs to be disgusting, they are hardly the only species that eats feces. Rabbits, for example, eat their own feces because that is part of their digestive process; they can't fully digest their fibrous vegetable diet with just one pass through their digestive system (amazing but true!). Other species such as dung beetles live on feces exclusively. To some species, excrement is the very finest delicacy, the best food there is. Human beings think otherwise. But don't expect pigs to think like people. — dp
Source

Encyclopedia: Coprophagia
Pigs also known to eat their own feces and even human feces as well, which is among the reasons of pork tapeworm epidemies among pigs. ...

Marty the CyberPig - Guinea Pig FAQs
Guinea pigs often eat their own droppings. Guinea Pigs and other rodents are known as coprophages. This means that they eat their own droppings. ...

Potbellied Pig Behavior Problems, Pot Belly Behavior
Answers to potbellied pig behavior problems. ... To answer your question she wasn't eating the Mazuri food, but when I saw her eating her feces I thought

WorldNetDaily: Did SARS mutate from duck, pig feces?
from duck, pig feces? China's old-world farming practices possible culprit ...
"We make a joke that they eat everything that flies except for airplanes, ...

Moses: "Because it divides the hoof, but chews not the cud, it's unclean." The rabbit eats its turd. So does the swine.

Do animals get nutritional value from eating feces? Evidently they do. The dung beetle thrives on it exclusively, so who is to say it's not a nutritional meal? Some humans have been known to eat feces, among many other animals. How is this any different than so-called "refection"? Consuming what comes out of the rectum ... if you eat a highly vegetable diet -- you're liable to get some greenish turds, and tempted to eat them again.

Google Will A Pig Eat Feces

Will rats eat their droppings? (Perhaps you can find something like a rat that does consume its own droppings, or the droppings of its relatives).

Naked mole rat
They also allow other mole rats in the colony to eat their droppings, another way in which they help each other out (although we might not agree that this ...
Source

Pest Control: Rats and Roaches: The Sustainable Washington ...
Rats eat garbage, leftover dog food, bird food and even dog excrement that is... that live on rats, through their droppings and urine and by biting people. ...

Eating the droppings (faeces)
Rabbits produce both hard and soft droppings. It is natural for the rabbit to eat the soft droppings it produces because they contain nutrients and water. When the soft droppings pass through the gut for a second time the nutrients and water can be absorbed (taken into the body). The droppings produced then will be hard.

Rabbits are classed as Lagomorphs, a group whose distinguishing characteristics include paired incisor teeth in the upper jaw, feeding without the use of fore limbs and the habit of pseudo-rumination, which means swallowing their own droppings. Rabbits like to have nice clean, cages, but when they eat their droppings, they are just doing what rabbits do.

Ranger Rick: Animals Eat The Weirdest Stuff!
Plenty of animals eat poop. And why not? The droppings from one creature contain food that ... Some animals eat their own skin. If it's peeling off anyway, ...
By sucking a sweaty sneaker, butterflies get a salty drink. They also sip from soupy dead animals, moist poop, and pools of pee. Many other animals drink and eat some really weird things. Just look! Plenty of animals eat poop. And why not? The droppings from one creature contain food that other creatures can use. What's more, poop is plentiful, easy to find, and it doesn't run away or fight back. Some insects, such as the cottonstainer bug and its young in the photo below, feed on the juicy droppings of birds. Dung beetles prefer mammal poop. They even lay their eggs in it. When the young hatch, dinner is waiting. Several kinds of fish devour poop daily, and many birds eat it at least now and then. For example, very hungry ivory gulls may gobble polar bear and seal dung.

Poop Tarts
Many rabbits, hares, and pikas gulp down their own droppings. Sounds disgusting, but it works. By eating the same stuff twice, they get more vitamins and other good things from their food.

Mice eats feces --like its relative the hare

Conditions that Encourage Rodent Infestations
Easy access to food: Things that rodents consider food include not only all kinds of human and animal food, but also garbage, unfinished compost, animal feces, insects, and plants.

Formerly classed as "Rodentia". Rabbit considered a pest, like rodents.

Rabbit usually refers to the European Rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, a native of southern Europe. It has been widely introduced elsewhere often with devastating effects on local biodiversity.

THE TEETH ARE DISSIMILAR TO RODENTS. (But compared nonetheless, to rodents). The European Rabbit is a small grey-brown mammal, ranging from 34–45 cm in length, and are approximately 1.3–2.2 kg in weight. As a lagomorph, they have 4 sharp incisors (2 on top, 2 on bottom) that grow continuously throughout their life, and two peg teeth on the top behind the inscisors, dissimilar to those of rodents (which have only 2 each, top and bottom). Rabbits have long ears, large hind legs, and short fluffy tails. Rabbits move by hopping, using their long and powerful hind legs. To facilitate quick movement, rabbit hind feet have a thick padding of fur to dampen the shock of rapid hopping. Their toes are long, and are webbed to keep themselves from spreading apart as they jump.

NEST-BUILDING LIKE MICE
They are well-known for digging networks of burrows called warrens, where they spend most of their time when not feeding. Unlike the related hares (Lepus), rabbits are altricial, the young being born blind and furless, in a furlined nest in the warren, and totally dependent upon their mother.

SHARON NOTE: Interesting note. When I kept mice some years ago, they'd make a nest (a burrow of sorts) and they had their babies in it --- they had no hair on them, they looked just like tiny little pigs.

RODENTIA??
Related species and classification
A number of other species within the family Leporidae are also called rabbits, but usually with an additional distinguishing name, notably the cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus), a closely related American genus with thirteen species, the Amami Rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi), and the jackrabbits, which are actually hares, in the genus Lepus.Rabbits and hares were formerly classified in the order Rodentia until 1912, when they were moved into a new order Lagomorpha. This order, in addition to containing rabbits and hares, also includes the pikas. Rabbits as an exotic pest Rabbits have been introduced as an exotic species into a number of environments, with baleful results to vegetation and local wildlife. Locations include Laysan Island (1903) and Lisianski Island in the Hawaiian Islands; Macquarie Island; Smith Island, San Juan Islands (around 1900) later spreading to the other San Juan Islands; Australia and New Zealand. Rabbits were introduced to Australia in 1859 by Thomas Austin an estate holder in Victoria. They soon spread thoughout the country, see rabbit (ecology). During the 1950s experiments with introduction of a virus, Myxomatosis cuniiculi provided some relief in Australia but not in New Zealand where the insect vectors necessary for spread of the disease were not present.
See also: Rabbits in Australia for details of it as a pest species in that country.

Eating Semi-Digested Material
"In certain cultures it was common to collect horse feces rich in undigested grain by poor families to feed their pigs."

Using the Christian definition of "chewing the cud". . .
Pigs "chew their cud". And they'll chew the "cud" of horses too.

But Moses said, the swine does not chew a cud, --or? Perhaps Moses was not speaking of refection afterall? Perhaps he made the same mistake Linnaeus did?

caecal --does not mean cud, means "blind", leading nowhere.

Do rabbits really eat their own droppings?
Usually a rabbit will eat the pellets straight from their anus, and as such, many people do not know of this aspect of a rabbit's diet. They are often referred to as "night pellets" or "night droppings", since the rabbits tend to eat them a few hours after their evening meal.

Why do rabbits eat their own droppings?
Caecal pellets are soft, smelly, clumpy feces, and are a rabbit's only supply of Vitamin B12. Due to the design of the rabbit's digestive system, they cannot extract some vitamins and minerals directly from their food. At the end of their digestive system is an area called the caecum where cellulose and other plant fibers are broken down and ferment. After they have been broken down and passed, a rabbit's digestive system can finally extract the vitamins from them.

SHARON NOTE: NOTICE THEY CALL IT "FECES"...
RABBIT'S ONLY SUPPLY TO B-12 ?
(THAT IS HARDLY THE REASON RUMINANTS CHEW THEIR CUD). OR?
WHY DO COWS AND GOATS CHEW THEIR CUD?
Occasionally, the rabbit may leave these pellets lying about their cage; while smelly, this behavior is harmless. If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this may indicate either too little fiber, or too many starches in their diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay.
Source

Definition of Caecal
Caecal definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular ...
Online Medical Dictionary and glossary with medical definitions.

Caecal: Pertaining to the caecum (also spelled cecum), the first portion of the large bowel, situated in the lower right quadrant of the abdomen. The caecum receives fecal material from the small bowel (ileum) which opens into it. The appendix is attached to the cecum. The word "caecum" comes from the Latin "caecus" meaning "blind." This refers to the fact that the bottom of the caecum is a blind pouch (a cul de sac) leading nowhere.

Refection is a form of "coprophagia".

Is cud chewing as in goat, sheep, cow a form of coprophagia?
Is coprophagia a form of cud chewing?

Then dogs must do it too...

Behavior - Coprophagia - feces eating behavior Explains faeces-eating and suggests ways of stopping it.

C - Coprophagia or Eating Feces
Coprophagia. Coprohagia is the technical term for eating feces. This has been studied in dogs by several people with no definitive answer for "why" being ...

Coprophagia - Tomball Veterinary Clinic Coprophagia is the ingestion of feces. After giving birth, a mother dog ... Coprophagia in pups may persist beyond an acceptable phase or the pups may ...

Expert Source: Dogs 'n refection - Dogs chew cud like rabbits.

Rabbits eat stool to asorb nutrients? So do dogs.
The lady I spoke to, said she has never seen her rabbits eat their turds. She buys them ready-made pellets. Evidently they get all the nutrition they need from them. By nature, dogs and rabbits are drawn to their feces.

Meanwhile -- cows and sheep and goats CAN NOT digest food without cud chewing.

The difference between refection and cud chewing of ruminants is far and wide.
It's like comparing apples with oranges.

COPROPHAGIA IN DOGS (STOOL EATING)
Why do dogs eat stools?
While most cases of coprophagia appear to be purely behavioral, there are indeed numerous medical problems that can cause or contribute to coprophagia. These problems must first be ruled out before a purely behavioral diagnosis can be made.

What are some of the medical causes?
Any medical problem that leads to a decrease in absorption of nutrients, causes gastrointestinal upset or causes an increase in the appeal of the dog's stool, could lead to coprophagia. In addition to a complete physical examination, the puppy's diet and its stool frequency and consistency should be evaluated. Stool testing for parasites would be the minimum level of testing. If the stool is unusually soft or appears to be poorly digested, additional stool or blood tests may be warranted. Feeding a poorly digestible diet, underfeeding, and medical conditions that decrease absorption such as digestive enzyme deficiencies or parasites, could lead to malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies and therefore an increased appetite and possibly stool eating. In addition, if the stools contain large amounts of undigested food material, there is an increased likelihood that the puppy would eat the stools.

When adult dogs begin to eat stools, it may also be due to mal-absorption of nutrients or nutritional deficiencies. In addition, any condition that might cause an increase in appetite or an unusual appetite, such as diabetes, Cushing's disease, thyroid disease, or treatment with certain drugs such as steroids, may lead to an increase in stool eating. Some dogs that have been placed on a highly restrictive or poorly balanced diet may also begin to eat their stools. It should also be noted that if a dog develops a taste for a particular dog's stool, that dog should be tested for any type of condition that might lead to poor digestion of the food (and therefore excessive food elements remaining in the stool).

What are some of the behavior reasons that a dog or cat might eat its own stools?

Coprophagia is a common problem in some puppies, which usually clears up by adulthood. There have been many explanations suggested for this behavior. When left unsupervised, puppies may simply begin to investigate, play with, and even eat stools as a playful or investigative activity. Since coprophagia may attract a great deal of owner attention, the behavior may be further reinforced. There may also be an observational component (copy behavior) since the bitch cleans and ingests the puppy's excrement in the nest, and puppies may learn to mimic the behavior of their mother or playmates who perform this behavior. The owner that uses the outmoded, inhumane and useless training technique of "sticking the dog's nose" in its stool when it has soiled the home, may be further encouraging coprophagia.
In adult dogs the innate behavior of grooming and cleaning newborn puppies and eating their excrement, along with the well documented fact that dogs tend to be attracted to sniff and lick infection or discharge of their pack-mates, may explain some of the motivation for coprophagia. Early intervention can help reduce the possibility that the behavior will become a long-term habit.

Why do dogs eat the stools of other animals?

This behavior is akin to scavenging. It is not unusual for dogs to steal food items, raid garbage cans, and chew on, or eat non-food items that most humans would consider unusual or even disgusting. Cat feces and those of some other animals often have enough appealing attributes (odor, texture, taste), to overcome the fact that they are stools. In fact, stools themselves are seldom unpleasant to dogs. It is one of the odors that they are constantly attracted to when investigating their environment.

How can coprophagia be treated?

Coprophagia can best be corrected by preventing access to stools, by thorough cleaning of the pet's property, and by constant supervision when the pet is outdoors. At the first indication of stool sniffing or investigation the dog should be interrupted with a firm command, punishment device or a quick pull on the leash (this is particularly effective for dogs wearing head halters). If the dog is taught to come to the owners and sit for a special food treat immediately following each elimination, the new behavior may become a permanent habit.

Dogs with medical problems should be treated to try and correct the underlying cause. A change in diet to one that is more digestible, or one with different protein sources may be useful. Dogs on restricted calorie diets may do better on a high bulk or high fiber formula. Some dogs may be improved by adding enzyme supplements to improve nutrient digestion or absorption. Specifically, the digestive enzymes in the form of meat tenderizers or food additives, may help increase protein digestion, resulting in a less palatable stool. Other published remedies that have never been proven to be effective are to add papaya, yogurt, cottage cheese or certs to the dog's food, which in some way are supposed to impart a less pleasant taste in the stools. When adding some items to dry dog food, it may be necessary to moisten the food first and allow the product to sit on the food for 10 - 15 minutes to increase effectiveness.

Unpleasant tastes are unlikely to be successful unless the product is suitably noxious as well as odorless (so that the pet cannot detect its presence in the stool). While the dog is out of sight, the stool should be opened with a plastic utensil, the taste deterrent inserted into the center and the stool closed and replaced for the dog to find. Most dogs however, either develop a tolerance to the taste, or learn to avoid those stools that are pretreated. Experimentally, the only form of taste aversion that is consistently effective is when a food type is associated with nauseousness. Since most dogs seem to prefer a well-formed stool, adding sufficient quantities of stool softeners or bulk laxatives will usually deter most dogs.

Difference between cud chewing and coprophagia

cows and goats throw up their food and chewing it again... does it do it to ALL of its food (excluding possibly water)??

100% of the stuff is regurgitated in cows and sheep and goes through several stomachs, ? Right or wrong?

Rabbits have droppings they never will eat again, right?
Rabbits can survive without refection, right?

They're saying that refection is done to "reasorb nutrients" -- while cows do it to thoroughly chew up the stuff, right --it's not about "asorbing nutrients" --it's about chewing up the stuff to get it through several stomachs... right??? the food has to go through several stomachs, or am I wrong?

These things are not even comparible in that regard. One is a matter of chewing up the food -- the other is a matter of asorbing nutrients. I saw many cow patty with hay stuck in it and the cows wouldn't touch it.

The cow, sheep, goat cannot even pass the stuff until they've rechewed and rechewed, can they? When I was growing up, I saw a lot of cow patties laying around in the cow and goat pen -- I saw undigested stuff in their poop. I do not recall cows eating their flop... not once, not never.

Refection and cud chewing are totally dissimilar.

Maybe I am wrong about that... goats will eat about anything, but I do not recall them eating their pellets.

MORE ON MOSES' MISTAKE -Wikipedia -- Swine and Rabbits

Pigs, both domesticated and wild boars, being omnivorous are known to eat feces of certain herbivores that leave a significant amount of semidigested mater. Pigs also known to eat their own feces and even human feces as well, which is among the reasons of pork tapeworm epidemies among pigs. In certain cultures it was common to collect horse feces rich in undigested grain by poor families to feed their pigs.

QUESTION
MOSES: BECAUSE THE SWINE "CHEWS NO CUD".
Really?? I mean if that's the definition they're going to use, pigs do it.
See Coprophagia

Young elephants eat the feces of their mother and obtain the necessary bacteria for the proper digestion of the vegetation found on the savannah. When they are born, their intestines do not contain these bacteria. Without them, these elephants would be unable to get any nutritional value from plants. Hamsters eat their own droppings; this is thought to be important as a source of vitamins B and K. Apes have been observed eating horse droppings for the salt. Monkeys have been observed to eat elephant droppings.Rabbits, cavies (guinea pigs) and related species have a digestive system adapted for coprophagia. These herbivores do not have the complicated ruminant digestive system, so instead they extract more nutrition from grass by giving their food a second pass through the gut. Soft caecal pellets of partially digested food are excreted and generally consumed immediately. They also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten. Pigs, both domesticated and wild boars, being omnivorous are known to eat feces of certain herbivores that leave a significant amount of semidigested mater. Pigs also known to eat their own feces and even human feces as well, which is among the reasons of pork tapeworm epidemies among pigs. In certain cultures it was common to collect horse feces rich in undigested grain by poor families to feed their pigs.

In regards to JP's question on "gerah and `alah" --that has already been covered --however, it remains to be answered (since we will use the Christian definition of cud chewing) why the pig chews its cud, and divides the hoof, yet Moses deemed it unclean?

And the bonus question, the rabbit does not "chew" its pellet . . it swallows it whole.

Difference between cud chewing and rabbits.

"Rabbits also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten."

Rabbits, cavies and related species have a digestive system designed for coprophagia. These herbivores do not have the complicated ruminant digestive system, so instead they extract more nutrition from grass by giving their food a second pass through the gut. Soft caecal pellets of partially digested food are excreted and generally consumed immediately. They also produce normal droppings, which are not re-eaten.

Cud Chewing? Why won't they eat half-digested plop?

GOATS WILL NOT EAT ANYTHING
Is it true that goats eat anything?
Goats are very particular about what they eat, they will not consume food of poor quality or food that is dirty or has been trampled on. They require the best quality hay, green stuffs and concentrates (oats, barley, soya, linseed, etc. generally sold as a goat mix). However goats will eat a wide range of food, preferring more fibrous food to lush grass. They will eat young thistles and brambles, as well as twigs, they also like bark from trees. Goats are inquisitive and will nibble and investigate most items (including the proverbial washing off the line!), but they are selective about what they actually eat.

My point is, when I was growing up --I saw many cow patties laying on the ground with hay in them. I never saw a cow eat its own patties. These animals -- cows and goats are very picky about what they'll eat. (above). If cud chewing and refection were remotely similar, the cow would redigest its plop to finish up digestion of the hay -- horses, as the one article pointed out, sometimes produce richly semi-digested plop --which was purchased for pigs to "refect".

Isn't that what they're saying -- it's re-digests the stuff, to asorb nutrients? Also, if rabbits eating turds to fully digest food qualifies as "cud chewing" --then pigs chew cuds.

One way or another, Moses was in error. Either he mistakingly assumed the rabbit / hare was chewing a cud like a cow (Linnaeus' mistake)... or,
(the apologist excuse for his mistake) -- refection -- eating turds? Well, pigs do that. So they chew the cud and the swine is not unclean afterall!

You may can call refection "cud chewing" but you can't call cud chewing refection.

MORAL: You may can get away with calling refection "cud chewing" but you can't get away with calling cud chewing "refection"!

Cows, sheep and goats --Buffalo -- will not touch their poop -- strict picky vegetarians --that includes having no behavior resembling "refection". (None that I've ever seen or read about). (see excerpts below).

---

Droppings ... or, much ado about doo-doo
Call them what you may—droppings, scat, doo-doo, meadow muffins, horse apples, sign, manure, feces or poop—if it weren’t for certain insects of the world, we would be into our armpits in the stuff. When I was a kid listening to “The Lone Ranger” on the radio, the Lone Ranger and his sidekick Tonto would pull up their horses and Tonto would emote, “Ugh, Buffalo sign!” He was looking at fresh droppings of a herd of buffaloes and could tell by the activity on the droppings just when it had been deposited. Either that or he was looking at horse manure of the party they were chasing and, from this, could tell just how far away they were. I never understood what “buffalo sign” was, until recently.

Anyone hiking in the Old Borges Ranch area knows what cow manure is—but, rest easy, there is more to this story. You have also noticed the many flies hanging around both horses and cows—they are there for a purpose and that is to raise their kids. When a cow or horse defecates, these flies immediately buzz down from the rump of the animal to this warm “nest” and deposit their eggs. The residual warmth from the cow, the un-digested food in the droppings and many kinds of bacteria provide shelter, initial warmth and then food for the emerging larva. Soon thereafter, a fly emerges and finds another cow and the cycle goes on. These activities reduce the volume of manure and weathering also dries it to further reduce the volume. Soon, the entire patty is incorporated into the scheme of things.

Another thing about the cow and horse is that they are both vegetarians. Their droppings do no harm to the landscape as does a meat-eating dog’s droppings, for example. Dog droppings on a lawn can “burn” the lawn.
Source

Doc says rabbits do not "chew" cud. (And Darwinian Evolution of Rabbits)

Occasionally, the rabbit may leave these [Caecal] pellets lying about their cage; while smelly, this behavior is harmless. If their caecal pellets are consistently wet and runny, this may indicate either too little fibre, or too many starches in their diet. This probably means that they need to be fed additional hay.

---

So, the rabbit chews its cud "only part of the time".
Cows, goats, sheep tend to chew their cud, "all of the time".

And... is the vet saying that these pellets are not even chewed???

NO CHEWING INVOLVED? SWALLOWED WHOLE?
"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the anus triggers a reflex licking of the anus and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole and not chewed."

---

With domestication came the development of different breeds and varieties (colours). All domestic rabbits are the same species as the wild European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). In 1995, 61 breeds and 531 varieties of rabbit where recognised in the United Kingdom, and more are constantly evolving by selective breeding and mutation. Many pet rabbits are cross-breeds.
Digestive tract. Rabbits are hind-gut fermenters, adapted to digest a low quality, high fibre diet consisting mainly of grass. However, unlike other hind-gut fermenters, for example the horse, the rabbit has a very rapid gut transit time and eliminates fibre from the digestive tract as soon as possible. This permits body size and weight to remain low, which is advantageous in a prey species. In the wild feeding takes place mainly in the early morning, evening and at night.

The gastrointestinal tract makes up 10-20% of body weight. The stomach is thin-walled, and poorly distensible with a well-developed cardia and pylorus. Vomiting is not possible in the rabbit. Food and caecal pellets are always present in the stomach. The duodenum and jejunum are narrow, and at the end of the ileum there is the sacculus rotundus, rich in lymphoid follicles, and also known as the ampulla ilei or ileocaecal tonsil. The caecum is very large, thin-walled and coiled, and has many sacculations (or haustrae) . It terminates in the vermiform appendix, which is also rich in lymphatic tissue. The caecum lies on the right side of the abdomen. Caecal contents are normally semifluid. The colon is sacculated and banded. Colonic contractions separate fibrous from non-fibrous particles, and fibre moves rapidly through for excretion as hard faecal pellets. Antiperistaltic waves move fluid and non-fibrous particles back into the caecum for fermentation. Three to eight hours after eating, and thus mainly at night, soft, mucus-covered caecal pellets are expelled and eaten directly from the anus (a process known as caecotrophy, coprophagy, refection, or pseudorumination). Arrival of the caecotrophs at the anus triggers a reflex licking of the anus and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed whole and not chewed. A muscular band of richly innervated tissue with a thickened mucosa, the fusis coli, lies at the end of the transverse colon and acts to regulate colonic contractions and controls production of the two types of pellets.

The most prevalent caecal bacteria are of the anaerobic gram-negative genus Bacteroides, Proprionobacteria and Butyrivibrio bacteria. Gram negative ovals, fusiform rods, large ciliated protozoa (Isotrichia) and yeasts (Cyniclomyces guttulatus) are also present. Coliforms are not present in normal animals.

The mucus covering protects the caecal pellet bacteria from the low pH of the stomach. Caecotrophs remain in the stomach for up to six hours with continued bacterial synthesis, and eventually the mucus layer dissolves and the bacteria are killed. This process of caecotrophy allows absorption of nutrients and bacterial fermentation products (amino acids, volatile fatty acids and vitamins B and K), and the redigestion of previously undigested food. A food item can thus pass twice through the digestive tract in 24 hours.

So, the rabbit "chews" its cud "only part of the time".
Cows, goats, sheep tend to chew their cud, "all of the time".

-which are swallowed whole and not chewed. -Aquavet

---

---

RELATED ARTICLES
Bible Errors
Contradictions within the Gospels, the problem with Assyria and Ninevah, contradictions in the books of Hosea and II Kings, and early views on Heaven.

Mistakes of Moses
Ah, but they say the Bible is not inspired about those little things. The Bible says the rabbit and the hare chew the cud. But they do not. ...

A Hill-Billy Book
Essay from 1945, by Woolsey Teller, responding to a Fundamentalist, who published "The Bible Defeats Atheism", after the Rimmer Trial, on science and religion.

Sea Gulls and Christian Gullibility
An Atheist questions the 'miracle' that a Seagull was delivered by Providence during World War II to save men stranded at Sea.

Article last updated October 22, 2005
Certified error free by http://htmlvalidator.com