Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#11

Post by 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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#12

Post by kitsunesoba »

boyaka wrote: post #7
bluedino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Your cat and/or dog is probably too fat Slightly above 50% of US pet dogs and cats are overweight.

Probably the ones that arent getting premium pet food

For cats, the corn, grain, and otherwise carb-filled cat foods that dominate store shelves and are cheaply available are absolutely terrible. Cats are obligate carnivores and aren't built to deal with that kind of food composition at all. Some cats deal with it better than others, but generally feeding your cat these cheap foods will result in it becoming very obese and highly prone to several types of disease.

I don't go as far as some pet owners, buying frozen pet food from Whole Foods and the like, but I do buy my cat high quality meat-based grain-free dry cat food. It's a little pricey but a 9lb cat eating proper amounts of protein doesn't eat much and a large bag lasts a long time. Just make sure to get a good airtight container to keep the food in.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#14

Post by dtech »

devmunchies wrote: post #9

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…

What a bollocks argument.

Humans in their current numbers could not exist in a traditional food chain, that's why we made our own. Pets live off that same increased food supply.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#15

Post by freehunter »

seiferteric wrote: post #3

Sounds like a perfect application for lab grown meat.

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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#16

Post by kharms »

devmunchies wrote: post #9

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…

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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#18

Post by 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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#19

Post by oh_sigh »

devmunchies wrote: post #9

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…

It's not like we're feeding them filet mignon. As the article states, much of the meat may be either not suitable or not desirable leftovers after human consumables are removed.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#20

Post by oh_sigh »

kharms wrote: post #16
devmunchies wrote: post #9

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…

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…

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
Post reply on HN