Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 1 of 11
Venus’s flytrap red meat experiment
Abstract:
Mainstream knowledge and experts claim that the Venus’s flytrap (Dionaea Musipula),
also known as the Venus flytrap, should not be fed meat. In this paper, I present an
experiment which demonstrates that feeding red meat to Venus’s Flytrap plants results in
increased health, increased leaf length and size, increased leaf number, and faster growth
in the Venus’s flytrap. I had two pots, both containing Venus’s flytrap plants purchased
from a Bunnings warehouse store in Melbourne, Australia. One pot was labeled the
“Control group”, the other the “Experimental group.” I fed the experimental group raw
red meat, while the control group were free to catch insects as they normally would. It
was found that feeding red meat to the Venus’s flytrap was better for them than an insect
based diet.
Theory:
I have always been fascinated by the Venus’s Flytrap. According to Loewer, Peter
(1991), “found in the bogs of North and South Carolina, the Venus’s flytrap was first
discovered by the governor of North Carolina, Arthur Dobbs, in 1759.”
If the Venus’s Flytrap has evolved to catch insects, then a red meat diet would not be
expected to be beneficial to the plants. Also, if the Venus’s flytrap has evolved on an
insect based diet, not a red meat based one, it would not be expected to have the
capability to digest red meat. Thus, I was curious about whether or not a red meat diet
would be beneficial to the plants.
Method:
Two pots, along with potting mix, were purchased from a Bunnings Warehouse store in
Melbourne, Australia, along with Venus’s Flytrap plants. Plants were planted in each of
the two pots, with one being labeled the “Control group”, the other the “Experimental
group”
The experimental group were given red meat about four times a year. I would take some
of the red mince meat I feed to the family dog, and place a very small portion in some of
the traps using tweezers. I would make sure the meat portion was small enough to allow
the trap to close around the meat. To stimulate the trap to close around the meat, I would
move the meat around on an open trap, and wait for it to start closing. I then quickly
removed the tweezers from the plant, and let the plant take the meat. The control group
were left “as is”, and were not fed any meat, or anything else. The control group were
only permitted to catch what they could on their own.
Figure 1 shows the plants at the beginning of the experiment. All pants appeared to be of
equal health, and of equal or similar size, with the exception of some smaller, younger
plants. The experiment was commenced in the summer of February 2016, in Melbourne,
Australia. The plants were kept outside for the duration of the experiment, and were
watered often to keep soil moist.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 2 of 11
Results:
Figure 1: Photo taken February 2016: Summer. This is the initial condition of the plants.
Top pot= Control group. Bottom pot = Experimental group. Both groups appeared identical at this time.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 3 of 11
Figure 2: Photo taken July 2016: Winter.
Pot = Control group. These plants appear smaller than they were in February.
Figure 2 above shows a photo of the control plants in July, 2016, during the middle of
winter. A significant difference was noticeable. Many of the leaves of the plant had died,
and the plants appeared smaller.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 4 of 11
Figure 3: Photo taken July 2016: Winter.
Pot = Experimental group. These plants appear larger than they were in February.
Figure 3 above shows a photo of the experimental plants in July, 2016, during the middle
of winter. A significant difference was noticeable. The plants had more leaves than
before, and many had grown to become much larger. Longer leaves and larger traps were
present, a feature that was totally absent from the control group.
It would appear that red meat was beneficial to the plants. Toward the end of October, I
did not water the plants as often as normal. As a result, many of the leaves on both the
control and experimental groups died. I resumed watering both pots, and the leaves grew
back. To my surprise, the experimental group grew back faster, with longer flowers and
larger leaves. Refer to figure 4 below.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 5 of 11
Figure 4: Photo taken December 2016: Start of Summer.
Top Pot = Experimental group, Bottom pot = Control group.
These results clearly indicate that feeding red meat to the Venus’s flytrap plant is
beneficial to the plant. The control plants appear much smaller than the experimental
plants, and I am concerned for their health.
Unexpected Results:
During this experiment, I noticed that flytraps that caught insects would not fully digest
them- the trap would reopen in about 5 days, leaving the dead insect inside, and
structurally intact. The head, legs and torso of insects that were caught remained
undigested when the trap reopened.
On the other hand, traps that were fed red meat closed and remained closed for about 4
weeks. When these traps reopened, the meat had been digested, with only a fine powder
left on the leaves. It would seem that when the plant catches insects, it soon reopens in an
attempt to catch something else, and the insect remains structurally intact. When the plant
is given meat, however, the traps remain closed for a much longer time, and when they
reopen, only a fine powder remains, indicating the plant has the capability and preference
to digest red meat over insects.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 6 of 11
Figure 5: Control group.
This plant captured a mosquito, but soon reopened, leaving the undigested mosquito inside. Notice that
even the fine wings and torso of the mosquito have not been digested.
Figure 5 above shows a plant that has captured a mosquito, but reopened without fully
digesting the mosquito. I noticed that none of the insects captured by the traps were fully
digested. The mosquito’s insides also appeared intact.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 7 of 11
Figure 6: Control group.
This trap captured fly, but soon reopened, leaving the undigested fly inside. Notice that the fine wings, legs
and torso of the fly have not been digested.
Figure 6 is another example of a plant that has captured an insect, but not fully digested
it. This is not seen in traps that received red meat- traps that were fed red meat did show
evidence of extensive digestion. The insides of the fly in figure 6 did not appear to have
been digested by the plant.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 8 of 11
Figure 7: Experimental group.
This trap eventually reopened after a longer time compared to traps that had caught insects, having been fed
red meat instead. Notice the brown residue on the inside of the leaf in the centre of the figure- this is
undigested remains of the red meat it was fed. Thus, The Venus’s flytrap has evolved the ability to digest
red meat.
Figure 7 above demonstrated that the Venus’s flytrap can digest red meat. Every trap that
had been fed red meat displayed evidence of extensive digestion. No trap that had caught
an insect demonstrated evidence of extensive digestion, exoskeletons were left behind,
and the insides of the insects appeared to have not been fully digested either, or at all.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 9 of 11
Figure 8: Experimental group.
This closed trap was fed red meat, and is digesting it. The trap would remain in this state for a much longer
time than traps that had caught insects.
Figure 8 shows what the traps look like when they are either digesting, or are about to
reopen. Traps that were fed red meat remained in this state for about 4 weeks, as
digestion was occurring. Traps that had caught insects remained in this state for only
about 5 days before reopening.
Copyright ©
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 10 of 11
Figure 8: Experimental group.
This was a trap feeding photo. Notice the portion size of the red meat- it was made as large as possible to
allow the trap to close around it.
Discussion:
I noticed that sometimes the leaves of the Venus’s flytrap would die, regardless of
whether they were fed red meat, or whether they had caught an insect. This process may
be a natural one- perhaps each leaf or trap has an expiry time, before being replaced with
a fresh new leaf. The control plants demonstrated higher levels of leaf death, as can be
seen in figure 2 when compared with figure 3.
I was surprised to learn that the Venus’s flytrap plant does digest red meat, and takes its
time in doing so. The Venus’s flytrap plant does not extensively digest insects to the
same degree to which it digests red meat. In fact, the increased growth and extensive
digestion displayed by plants that were fed red meat indicates a red meat diet is preferred
by the plants, when compared to an insect based diet.
This work therefore demonstrates that the Venus’s fly trap can be fed red meat, and that
the Venus’s flytrap shows increased health, increased leaf length and size, increased leaf
number, and faster growth when fed red meat, when compared to plants that only catch
insects.
Mr Casey Ray McMahon, B.Sci (Hons), B.MechEng (Hons)
Copyright ©
Version: 20th January, 2017
Page: 11 of 11
The results of this experiment leave us with unanswered questions. Clearly the Venus’s
flytrap is too small to be able to catch red meat prey, and yet it has evolved the capability
to digest red meat. Such a capability could not have evolved unless the plant has been
catching red meat prey for thousands of years, which would give the plant time to evolve
the ability to digest red meat to the degree that it does today. If the Venus’s flytrap has
evolved to catch insects, and has been catching insects for thousands of years, we would
expect to see extensive digestion of insects, but we do not.
This would indicate that the plant has not evolved to catch insects, but has evolved to
catch red meat prey, and that the plant has been catching red meat prey for thousands of
years in order to have evolved the capability to digest red meat to begin with.
Could the Venus’ flytrap have been much larger in the past, which would have allowed it
to catch red meat prey? Or perhaps its prey of the past, which may have had a red meat
based composition, become extinct? Could this plant have evolved on another planet with
tiny red meat based prey and the seeds of the Venus’s flytrap arrived here via a
meteorite? These questions remain unanswered.
I find it interesting that other literature on the Venus’s flytrap state that feeding red meat
to the plant can harm or kill the plant, which is completely untrue. This experiment
clearly demonstrates the benefits of feeding red meat to the Venus’s flytrap.
References:
Loewer, Peter (1991). The Wild Gardener. Stackpole books.