Time To Eat The Dog

[Felt 35]

Should owning a Great Dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, Professorial Research Fellows and architects who specialise in sustainable living. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living; they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices and the critters do not fare well. As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets.

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, Robert and Brenda analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300 gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year far more for beef and lamb and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives a Great Dane a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV the Vales used a 4.6 litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and a proportion of the energy required to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruisers eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares less than half that of a medium sized dog.

So what is an eco-friendly animal lover to do? If you already have a pet, then changing its diet can help. Meat is the key, since its production is so energy intensive. You can almost halve the eco-pawprint of your dog simply by feeding it many of the same sorts of savoury foods that you eat, which are likely to be far less protein-rich than most dog foods. As well as quantity, think about quality. If pussy is scoffing Fancy Feast or some other food made from choice cuts of meat then the relative impact is likely to be high, says Robert Vale. If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower.

Environment friendly dog owners might also want to avoid walking their dog in wildlife-rich areas, and cat owners could consider keeping their cats indoors to reduce predation.

And if you are thinking of acquiring a pet? “Shared pets are the best the theatre cat or the temple dogs,” says Robert Vale. But if you must own your own, think about getting an animal that serves a dual purpose. He recommends hens, which partly compensate for their eco-footprint by providing eggs.

Time to Eat the Dog has received huge international attention and the findings of Brenda and Robert Vale’s research are supported by many of their colleagues researching sustainable living. "People concerned about the environment should put as much thought into choosing a pet as into buying a car. The energy footprint of a cat is about 2 percent of the average person’s energy footprint and it is bigger for most dogs."

The above is an excerpt from the New Scientist.

The Vales’ research has unfortunately also attracted some – perhaps understandable hostility but pet owners truly concerned about the environment should take some of the above suggestions on board.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/architecture/about/news/2009-news.aspx#how-green

[ETatBKK]

I can somewhat agree the general concept, not all the details especially on the pet food discussion !

well, our dogs and cats are not eating our prime rib, or our salmon fillet. in the food production, either live stock or vegetables, the last sort in the conveyer belt ( something you and me don't want ) then go to the pet food production. the pet production actually increase the rate of raw food utlisation. otherwise, we see a bigger waste dump at the back door of the food production !

if energy footprint is the prime concern, then I suggest the TIME TO EAT LESS MEAT ! live stock production is resources demanding ( feeding, drinking, cleaning . . . ) and is process polluting. we could eat 100gram LESS of meat per day, perhaps save our cats and dogs !

I keep my pets as they bring us pleasures in life, it is a sensible trade-off :- )

[Cuban]

Seems my earlier reply was "lost".

Without writing out the detail again, look at the issue of human over population and the effects on resources food, water, land & oil and address that difficult delicate problem of telling nations that allowing populations to grow beyond the means to feed, house, cloth those mouths is wrong. Cull the humans rather than dogs.

As a species we are in denial that population density can be allowed to continue to rise without going to war over resources so many mouths require.

A good fast lethal virus spread in the population hot spots of the world to thin human numbers by 30% will do wonders for the quality of life of those remaining. Bird-flu, Swine-flu, third time lucky.

Soylent Green not roast dog.

[Naam]

The Vales’ research has unfortunately also attracted some – perhaps understandable hostility but pet owners truly concerned about the environment should take some of the above suggestions on board.

no hostility from my side, just a friendly advice from a pet owner which is "the Vales should eat their children, if any, and if they don't have children one Vale should eat the other one to reduce the ecological footprint of the Vale family".