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

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#51

Post by tree_of_item »

yorwba wrote: post #40
randomThoughts9 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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 i…

Whoa, is pig's feet supposed to be an example of an "inedible" food? Some people in my family love that stuff.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#52

Post by Rockslide »

otp124 wrote: post #50
yorwba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> 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.

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

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#53

Post by 21 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #19
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.

There's a big trend now towards organic pet food and the like.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#54

Post by oh_sigh »

21 wrote: post #53
oh_sigh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a big trend now towards organic pet food and the like.

Organically raised cows still have human inedible parts.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#55

Post by b5 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #21
seiferteric wrote: post #3

Sounds like a perfect application for lab grown meat.

I don't think it even needs to be meat...just synthesizing the raw amino acids would probably be much easier, and dogs probably won't care that much since their primary sensory pleasure in eating comes from the proteins themselves.

I couldn't disagree more. Dogs definitely have tastebuds, can definitely taste foods, and definitely enjoy some foods more than others. Dogs can, and do, develop genuine, strong preferences for some foods over others. That's not because "their primary sensory pleasure in eating comes from the proteins themselves" -- that's because they derive pleasure from some foods.

My dog loves blueberries and broccoli. These are pretty poor sources of protein, and her enjoyment comes from either the taste or the texture, or both. She also prefers chicken to other meats, and if presented with two otherwise similar bits of meat will choose the chicken first and foremost. She'll eat beef or lamb or pork, too, but will invariably choose chicken if presented with two options.

"Just synthesise the required amino acids and feed them to a dog like that" will not make for a happy or healthy dog. It's basically the same rationale that led us to feeding animals dry food/kibble, and that's not good for them. On paper, though, it covers all of their essential needs.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#56

Post by 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

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#57

Post by b5 »

randomThoughts9 wrote: post #26
jaclaz wrote: post #2

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 p…

> 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

   > and one of the habits we have to get rid of if we
   > want to improve our ecological footprint.
A much, much bigger improvement (reduction) of humanity's ecological footprint would be for everyone to go vegan two days a week. That would potentially have a ~25% reduction in the number of animals reared and used, and would bring a commensurate decrease in ecological footprint. I think that's a worthy goal.

Disclaimer: I eat meat, but not very often now. I sometimes take milk in tea, but mostly drink green tea and water now. The rest of the time, I follow an Engine 2 diet[1].

[1]: https://www.engine2diet.com

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#58

Post by umeshunni »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #46
thomasfl wrote: post #42

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?

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

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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#59

Post by 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.

Re: Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats

#60

Post by xexers »

Stratoscope wrote: post #25
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.

One thing that can help a lot is to give dogs and cats more vegetables. In particular, they love brassicas, especially brussels sprouts and broccoli. Either mixed in with their regular food or as a treat, it helps fill them up with very few calories - and really good for them too. If you haven't tried this, I recommend it. Simply microwave some brussels sprouts or broccoli until tender, let cool, and either chop it u…

My Mom is a hardcore vegan. She inherited a cat that was unwanted. Mom was not about to feed that cat meat. Despite the comments here, there does exist vegan cat food and my mom fed that cat vegan cat food for the last 10 years of its life. The cat lived to be 19 years old.

TLDR; it's possible for a cat to survive on vegan cat food (even if its not recommended). I know from experience.

If I recall correctly, it was this food: https://www.amazon.com/Ami-Cat-16-5-lbs-7-5kg/dp/B018K4OG9I

Post reply on HN