But what portion of the meat products?
Traditionally pet food was made from that part of the animals that were not favored for consumption by humans.
The abstract did not really mention that.
Traditionally pet food was made from that part of the animals that were not favored for consumption by humans.
The abstract did not really mention that.
If I'm looking to make chicken stock, I have to call up my local butcher before going there to make sure they haven't processed all of their chicken spines into dog food...
> the environmental impact of animal production (compared to a plant-protein substitute) used to feed dogs and cats is 25–30% of that used to feed humans
Based on this paper: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/664S/4690011?logi...
So unless I misunderstand they're saying it's 25% as bad as meat production for humans. I'm too tired to look at their methodology though.
I don't think it still would be a huge deal but my gut is known to be an unreliable source and the article is too long.
Like the dogs give two licks about the cut of meat. I’m sure they’d like some marrow.
What they probably don’t enjoy is the filler stuff.
Dogs aren’t connoisseurs of meats. They will eat any meat. Sure they avoid skunk and maybe other meats foul to their tongues, but cow, horse, sheep, etc? They like them all.
Crazy thing about nutrition, eating better means living longer :)
I don't think I follow, why couldn't their lives be cut short by potentially bad food?
He'd started to get fat and wasn't really active or anything at 5 years old. He was having trouble breathing, drinking water constantly. Within a few monthw of switching his food, he was down to a normal weight, running and jumping around again.
I didn't change the amount of food or anything i was giving him, just the quality of it.
And / or, there's plenty of offcuts generated in preparating prime cuts that could still he called prime.
It's too legally expensive dealing with the fallout when a child tries to eat dog food and claims they got sick otherwise. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to just show up in court and say "it's certified for human consumption".
It also means that equipment can be swapped between making pies and making dog food.
They don't. This is a market exploiting the fact that a lot of pet owners care strongly about their pets' well-being. Pet owner communities are full of people who insist all mainstream pet food is garbage and packaged cancer, and that you're a bad person if you buy them. There's a lot of social pressure - which I believe is in large part manufactured on purpose by marketers - to buy premium foods.
Like all other animals, including humans, many pets can get suddenly sick, and suffer a lot before they die. Pet owners tend to know it (even if they avoid thinking about it), so it's trivial to exploit this latent fear - "you wouldn't like to make your pet sick because you're buying processed food". Literally the same strategy that's used to push overpriced "healthy", "natural" human food.
Would you describe yourself as a particularly healthy person?
But dogs? Until quite recently they are scraps.
My dog reacts very differently from different kinds of meat and quality, so does her skin.
Also I can't believe to your argument about lifespan and diet. Can only be a troll.
Better is quite subjective. Yes, we humans nowadays generally prefer to eat muscley meat.
But other animal parts like offal can be quite nutritious. Traditionally the Inuit, for example, had a diet incredibly high in meat. But not meat as in solely 'premium' cuts, but rather making use of most (all?) of the animal.
But I suppose the point to consider here is that some pets are carnivores, and you won't be able to turn them vegetarian without seriously affecting their health. So if we as the human species decide to stop domesticating pigs for food, our pets might run into trouble.
Source: Am vegan.