[HN Gopher] Pets consume 30% of all meat products (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
Pets consume 30% of all meat products (2016)
Author : adrian_mrd
Score : 36 points
Date : 2021-03-10 22:35 UTC (24 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (journals.plos.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (journals.plos.org)
| eric4smith wrote:
| 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.
| eknkc wrote:
| Yeah, at later stages they mention the increasing demand for
| "premium" pet food, which likely contains better meat cuts.
|
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| This I don't get. Why does a pet need 'premium' meat cuts?
| They live <20 years. It's not like fat, sinew and gristle is
| going to cut their lives short. And if they get the innards
| and less tasty bits, I mean, isn't that what wild dogs eat?
|
| 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.
| swirepe wrote:
| > They live <20 years
|
| Crazy thing about nutrition :)
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not exactly concerned that I'm going to lose my
| valuable supply of _pig snouts_ to the dogfood industry.
|
| 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.
| cgriswald wrote:
| I agree. Even when feeding our dogs a raw diet, we fed them
| meat not bound for human consumption or the occasional leftover
| trimmings from our own meals. The things that were human
| consumable were not meats and are generally not eaten by the
| average American although they are more common in other diets.
| centimeter wrote:
| I assume pets are mostly getting the parts of the animal that
| humans don't want to eat, so this doesn't necessarily imply that
| pets increase the scale of animal agriculture.
| whatever1 wrote:
| But it does mean that you cannot reduce the meat production
| without affecting the pet food.
| coding123 wrote:
| Most likely the human consumed meat amounts will change very
| little. But let's say for some reason 50% of humans suddenly
| started only eating Impossible Foods style meat - I would
| imagine that along with that sea change would be pet food.
| (And when I say suddenly I would say expect at least 25 years
| - 50 years)
| gsteinberg wrote:
| That's interesting. I wonder if that is in fact the case.
| There could also be a surplus of meat waste in the meat
| industry, some of which could go to pet food if the overall
| production decreased.
|
| I admittedly know very little about the meat industry.
| bewareandaware wrote:
| It can increase, because by selling unwanted parts as animal
| food we are getting a 30% price decrease in wanted parts.
|
| We can't raise beef cattle with no limbs to shorten our
| expenses.
| cynoclast wrote:
| Aren't a lot of them 'waste' products that humans wouldn't?
|
| I mean, I know Labradors will eat fucking anything.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Many of your comments seem to be dead, including this one (at
| first). You might be the victim of a shadowban.
| [deleted]
| m463 wrote:
| Many pets also suffer from the shortcomings of the western diet.
|
| Not that they don't have a long life living indoors and with the
| benefits of medical (veterinary) advances and attention.
| canadianfella wrote:
| What do you mean?
| [deleted]
| tokai wrote:
| The date should be (2017)
| ademup wrote:
| I'm curious how many animals are slaughtered strictly to feed
| people's desire to feed carnivorous pets. And if "extra" animals
| are raised, what is the climate cost?
| adnzzzzZ wrote:
| I think we should ban pets. The planet is dying.
| EGreg wrote:
| North Korea banned dogs
|
| https://dnews.com/life/north-korea-s-kim-and-and-his-dog-ban...
| HideousKojima wrote:
| I present this post as reason #5,782 why policies to combat
| climate change are horribly unpopular politically.
| adnzzzzZ wrote:
| You could make it popular if you package it up with a Bitcoin
| banning proposal. Two birds with one stone.
| majormajor wrote:
| The morality-based "don't create technology to fight climate
| change since it would allow us to continue current behaviors"
| position is definitely one of the more infuriating ones.
|
| The damage is the big problem here, not the behavioral
| causes.
| batch12 wrote:
| While we're being extreme, banning humans would be a more
| straightforward solution.
| elliotec wrote:
| By that logic, we should ban humans who have a far more
| significant impact on the death of the planet.
| CA0DA wrote:
| Serve them Impossible burger?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Carnivores like cats can't survive on plants alone. There are
| sad stories of folks who thought they could feed their cat a
| vegan/vegetarian diet and ran into significant, debilitating
| issues with lack of taurine. I'm not saying it's impossible to
| feed pets a solely plant-based diet, but you need to do a lot
| of research to make sure their nutrient requirements are being
| met. I would definitely do this under the guidance and
| consultation of your vet.
| ravenstine wrote:
| If people learned to love organ meats again, the proportion would
| probably be very different. So many people, especially in the
| west, will only eat muscle tissue, and even then they prefer it
| to be very lean. Too bad for them... more tongue, liver, and
| tripe for me!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-10 23:00 UTC)