Help
The first argument, that there's a significant impact, relies on the amount of grain and meat diverted to pet food manufacture. Without this diversion, less grain and meat wold be required overall.
The second argument, that there's little impact, rests on the use of meat byproducts in pet foods. Other than when consumed by MFF members, organ meats are often discarded if not used for pet food. Thus, the incremental impact of meat in pet foods is minimal. The growing trend toward select chuck, etc in animal foods is not considered significant enough to make an impact, it seems.
QUOTE
Last fall, a pair of sustainable architecture experts from New Zealand, Robert and Brenda Vale, raised pet-lover hackles when an article based on their book Time To Eat the Dog? was published in New Scientist magazine. According to the Vales' back-of-the-envelope calculations—which assumed that all the meat in pet food came from chickens and that pet-grade meat is no different than people-grade meat—a medium-size dog has roughly twice the ecological footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser. (An ecological footprint is the average amount of land and sea required to create a product and then absorb its waste.)
Several bloggers cried foul, claiming that the Vales overestimated how many calories a dog requires and underestimated the impacts of the Land Cruiser. The Lantern has been doing her own due diligence on the Vales' assumptions and has enough questions that she's not ready to accept or reject their conclusions just yet. But it does seem clear to her that a carnivorous pet—especially a large one with a big appetite—requires a significant amount of resources. Does that mean you should ditch your Alsatian for the sake of the planet? No. The Lantern understands that pets are important members of many families and that suggesting that readers get rid of them—no matter how big of a paw print they may have—is a bit like suggesting you kill yourself to spare the Earth (a recommendation that appears with some frequency in the Lantern's inbox). But the emotional attachment you feel to your dog or cat isn't a free pass to ignore its contribution to your family's overall consumption patterns. Maybe it means you make some personal trade-offs to balance out your choice of animal companion—like riding your bike instead of driving, for example.
Several bloggers cried foul, claiming that the Vales overestimated how many calories a dog requires and underestimated the impacts of the Land Cruiser. The Lantern has been doing her own due diligence on the Vales' assumptions and has enough questions that she's not ready to accept or reject their conclusions just yet. But it does seem clear to her that a carnivorous pet—especially a large one with a big appetite—requires a significant amount of resources. Does that mean you should ditch your Alsatian for the sake of the planet? No. The Lantern understands that pets are important members of many families and that suggesting that readers get rid of them—no matter how big of a paw print they may have—is a bit like suggesting you kill yourself to spare the Earth (a recommendation that appears with some frequency in the Lantern's inbox). But the emotional attachment you feel to your dog or cat isn't a free pass to ignore its contribution to your family's overall consumption patterns. Maybe it means you make some personal trade-offs to balance out your choice of animal companion—like riding your bike instead of driving, for example.
Slate
