
Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats - abpavel
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301
======
jaclaz
Clickbaity title.

Original: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

Anyway,it's not like the article seems like being a particularly good one,
while it cites the concept that meat fed to pets is (largely) not suitable for
human consumption, doesn't take into account the actual related impact and
vaguely talks of post-processing the non-suitable parts.

The IMHO terrible part is this one:

>And much pet food probably is already edible and serves as a potential source
of protein as a food of last resort; there are reports, both official and
unofficial, of impoverished Americans eating pet food as a necessary
supplement to their diet [55–57, 58, 59]. At any rate, the trend toward
premium pet food with more animal products that Americans would recognize as
edible indicates that pets are eating animal products that could also be eaten
by humans and that there is direct competition with the human food system for
ingredients in some of these products [10].

TL;DR: Your cat and/or dog is probably too fat, and you should somehow feel
bad about it.

~~~
randomThoughts9
> meat fed to pets is (largely) not suitable for human consumption

30% unsuitable for human consumption? This choosiness is a just one more sign
of affluence and one of the habits we have to get rid of if we want to improve
our ecological footprint.

Go to a rural village in a developing country and you will see them using 95%
easily.

This is just

~~~
yorwba
The choosiness is also culture-dependent.

I have eaten pig feet, pig stomach, shark fin, unidentifiable organs and very
bony meat at somewhat upscale restaurants in China. I'm sure there are some
foods that are seen as basically inedible in China, but those do not
necessarily coincide with Western tastes.

A lot of this is probably influenced by perceptions of "poor-people food"
(like lobster) instead of being based in human nutritional needs. My Chinese
friend was surprised when I remarked on the great taste of grilled pig liver,
since it was the least expensive of the dishes he had me try out.

~~~
otp124
> A lot of this is probably influenced by perceptions of "poor-people food"
> (like lobster)

Since when is lobster considered a "poor-people food"? That is the exact
impression I get when it's the most expensive entree on most menus.

~~~
Rockslide
It was until the mid-19th century.

 _Prior to this time, lobster was considered a mark of poverty or as a food
for indentured servants or lower members of society in Maine, Massachusetts,
and the Canadian Maritimes. It has been suggested servants specified in
employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice per
week, however there is no evidence for this. Lobster was also commonly served
in prisons, much to the displeasure of inmates. American lobster was initially
deemed worthy only of being used as fertilizer or fish bait, and until well
into the 20th century, it was not viewed as more than a low-priced canned
staple food._ [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster)

~~~
askvictor
Oysters too

------
jgbond
Having worked in a meat processing plant, I can assure you that no humans
would want to eat anything that goes into "rendering" for use in pet food.

I'm not talking about offal, tripe, small goods, etc., all of which have
markets for human consumption. Some of those items are high margin, too.

There are markets somewhere in the world for just about every last bit of an
animal. The only stuff that goes into pet food is stuff that has been
contaminated or that has no higher margin use in other applications.
Basically, pets get the waste.

Fun fact -- The highest margin product in a beef house is fetal calf blood. It
typically goes for about $400/liter and can sometimes spike up to $1000/liter.

~~~
retox
Interesting fact, thank you. I didn't know anything about the use of animal
blood in medicine. Good to know we can find uses for most things to reduce
waste.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_bovine_serum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_bovine_serum)

~~~
flour_power
it's not about reducing waste it's about reclaiming every possible revenue
stream but the net effect is the same so...

------
jannotti
The article says 30% of what humans consume, so I think that means 30/130 =
23% of "all" meat products. (Where "all" is human plus pets.)

------
ImaCake
For the environmentally conscious couple, a dog or cat is an excellent
replacement for the exceptionally wasteful human baby. From that perspective,
re-directing your baby instincts into a dog instead of another human is a
great way to reduce your carbon footprint.

~~~
soggypopsicle
A vegan kid seems like a preferable replacement.

~~~
riot504
Except kids can't be raised on a vegan diet, particularly young kids.

~~~
soggypopsicle
Yes they can: "regarded as appropriate for all stages of the life by the
American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics"(in the context of veganism).

source -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism)

~~~
jriot
I've seen kids on a vegan diet and they aren't nearly as healthy or strong as
kids who eat a non-vegan diet.

~~~
soggypopsicle
Well I'm convinced, too bad we wasted all that money on science.

------
wavefunction
My dogs eat a lot of animal protein, but from what I can tell it's not
anything anyone might really want to eat. That or the products leverage old
waste or by-products.

For example, fish skin leftover from processing sea food. Cow esophagus.
Pizzle. Or the little bits of meat and connective tissue left on a carcass
after butchering ground up into a 'stew' along with vegetables that didn't
pass muster for human consumption.

I also give my dogs ribs and knuckles, though it's not always easy to find
bones at the grocer any more. Most people just want boneless, bloodless
shrink-wrapped steaks, whether that's beef, chicken or pork.

------
devmunchies
I'm sure most pets wouldn't be able to survive on their own, so its pretty
obvious that we are putting an inflated strain on the food chain by providing
meals for them.

I wonder if there are a lot more carnivores than would otherwise naturally
exist (with pets included), or if there is a similar number of carnivores but
less diversity (e.g. an ecosystem that would have housed other carnivores is
now hosting pigs and cows).

I never would have thought I would see "pets" as environmental argument but
its a no brainer.

~~~
kharms
There were about 30 million bison in North America before we hunted them near
extinction. Bison, especially young ones, are prey to wolves and bears. Bison
weight about 1.5x cows.

There are about 100 million cows, and if about 30% of those feed pets the
numbers come out similar.

There are also pigs and chickens, and depleted river fish/wild fowl
populations.

Wolves/bears are heavier so the same mass of prey supports a smaller
population. Still, I think we'd be in the same order of magnitude.

Edit: actually I might be an order of magnitude off, depending on the length
of life. If cows live a year before slaughter, vs bison living 10 years. No
idea what the real numbers are.

~~~
oh_sigh
Meat cattle are usually slaughtered at 3 years, which is the sweet spot of
quality and quantity of meat. There are also many calves which are slaughtered
around 4 months for things like veal

------
seiferteric
Sounds like a perfect application for lab grown meat.

~~~
freehunter
That's a great idea. Humans have refined tastes, we're going to criticize meat
for not being marbled enough, or for tasting a bit "off", or for not being
quite up to par. We will purposefully reject cuts like chuck when offered the
option of a strip steak instead.

Dogs wouldn't. They'd eat the strip steak and then eat the chuck and then
chase down a mole, dig it out of the ground, and eat it whole. They don't have
refined tastes and they are able to eat a much wider variety of meat than
humans so their tastebuds didn't evolve to say "this tastes a little off, must
be poison", so they'll eat almost anything.

Housecats might be a bit pickier about fresh meant but if it's processed into
food, again they're not going to care. And by the time the majority of pets
are eating lab grown food, who knows? Maybe the science will have advanced
enough that it's palatable to humans as well.

~~~
shados
That would be an interesting way to fund and scale production capacity for
that lab grown meat too. Some stuff is just hard to figure out until you try
doing it at scale.

------
a2tech
My dogs get human grade food. None of this 'maybe good enough for people'
stuff. They get real meat and vegetables that are in a recognizable form. They
also don't get table scraps. This means my dogs aren't eating dodgy Chinese
proteins, and also aren't fat (you may have noticed but most of the food we
eat here in the US is terrible for us).

~~~
summer_steven
My dogs eat only raw meat. Cooked meat can remove important nutrients like
vitamin C from the meat that dogs rely on. I also supplement my dogs with 150
mg/day of magnesium glycinate. I shudder when I see these prematurely aging
dogs at the park, thanks to neglectful owners only feeding them scraps.

~~~
maxerickson
Like most mammals, dogs are able to synthesize vitamin C.

Humans and guinea pigs lost the ability to mutations.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/)

------
benlorenzetti
This is exactly the type of debate that makes conservatives question climate
change alarmism and shuts down the economic debate. The question should always
be: to what extent is it cheaper and easier for humanity to reduce carbon
emissions?

The motivation behind this research could be construed as: increasing your
carbon footprint by owning a pet is immoral. This is crazy. It is not morally
wrong to use the materials of the earth to improve human happiness. If you can
afford pet food you should be able to have a pet. If your city can want a
nature preserve, it should be able to have one.

Is anyone surprised that having another mammal in your home increases your
carbon footprint? Should we restrict babies to one per family? Should we not
use more of the earth's resources than we used as of 2017 years after the
death of Christ? Is this all a political satire?

------
pkulak
This is a large part of the reason we went with rabbits for our house pets.
That and the horrifying breeding situation going on with dogs right now.

~~~
bamboozled
Another cool and more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional pets
are worms. I purchased a worm farm recently for our garden and I've fell in
love with the little things.

------
hncf
Article makes many implausible assumptions and the conclusion is too radical
for at least the amount of effort thats been put into bringing this article
together.

It's obvious that the author hates dogs and cats and thus wants to reduce
their numbers. Ad hominem might have been your best friend right here - the
conclusion is agenda-based and doesnt follow directly from the paper, so
either ignore it or make it so that Osin never has access to any publishing
facility ever again. And dont forget to wash your hands after reading his
research.

------
b5
There's a documentary on Netflix called _Pet Fooled_ [1] which covers how dogs
and cats, are fed now and the effects a modern, processed diet can have on
them.

I've watched it, enjoyed it, and felt I learned from it. I don't necessarily
endorse its conclusions, but anyone reading this who has pets may enjoy it.

[1]:
[https://www.netflix.com/title/80164393](https://www.netflix.com/title/80164393)

------
robertlagrant
"Americans are the largest pet owners in the world"

-1 No need to bring Americans' weight into it!

------
trhway
the crap that is put into the most of the dog/cat food may be 30% by weight,
yet it isn't a 30% of "all meat products" \- because it isn't "meat product",
it is "by product" like hoofs, beaks, bones, some internal organs
nonconsumable by humans , etc... which at best would be processed into
chicken/cattle food (and which doesn't make for good chicken/cattle food) or
would be just thrown away.

------
overcast
Right. The 30% that humans don't want to eat.

------
thomasfl
So the big question is, why do some many keep dogs? Is it mostly loneliness?
If so, should we build towns that makes people less lonely?

~~~
aaron-lebo
Dogs are great companions, they've been bred to be that way for thousands of
years, they're not going to be engineered away.

~~~
umeshunni
That's a primarily Western concept. In India, dogs are usually raised mostly
as guard dogs and pet dogs are a recent "western-imported" concept. In the
Middle East, dogs are considered unclean and haraam.

------
analog31
In my view, we produce enough food, that it would be considered toxic if we
were forced to consume all of it. Any identifiable chemical in our food, that
caused as much disease as the food itself causes, would be banned. To find
consumers for the food that we do produce, it has to be formulated by
scientists and psychologists to override our natural satiety responses. Some
of the surplus has to be converted into fuel and burned, at an overall net
energy cost.

So, in this perspective, subsidizing corn farming and drilling for natural
gas, to feed cattle, in order to maintain dogs, doesn't seem any more absurd
than the food system in general.

