It is too little for a dog to eat and it is too little for a cat to lick

[Skrej]

More importantly, does it have to be a chicken bone? Or will any bone suffice?

Incidentally, you shouldn't give cooked chicken bones to pets anyway - they tend to splinter, and the animals either get bone splinters in their throat or in their gut.

 

[JACEK1]

I think that this reply "A small amount of something might be small enough 'to starve a mouse' might be equal in meaning to 'my' "[h=2]It is too little for a dog to eat and it is too little for a cat to lick". I am always losing a battle with computers that are beyond my grasp (I cannot remove increased and bolded letters by any means).[/h].

 

[Raymott]

It is the absence of food, not small amounts of it, that will cause an animal to starve. A small amount of food, no matter how small, will stave off starvation.

I prefer the definition that allows for the cause of death of an African child who dies from only getting a few grains of wheat flour a day 'starvation'.


'Starvation' is generally defined by dictionaries as "dying from lack of food". 'Lack' means an insufficient amount.

"Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake, below the level needed to maintain an organism's life. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage[1] and eventually, death." (Starvation, Wkipedia).

 

[probus]

We do say someone who eats very little 'eats like a mouse'.

Subsequently, a small amount of something might be small enough 'to starve a mouse'.

Edit: I just remembered that we sometimes say 'eat like a bird' as well with the same meaning as 'eat like a mouse'.

This usage of subsequently seems wrong to me. Subsequently means afterwards.