In general, predators like dogs are a very inefficient way to get calories. Cattle, for example, have the benefit of turning stuff like grass that we can’t eat into something that we can (meat,) dogs on the other hand, largely tend to eat the same sorts of foods we would, so often we could just eat those foods and cut out the middleman
Now dogs are not totally obligate carnivores, theoretically they can be fed on a vegetarian diet, though it requires some careful planning to ensure they’re getting the right nutrients, you can’t just turn them loose in a field to eat grass and expect to get much out of it, by and large they’re going to need to eat the same sorts of food we’d eat- a variety of fruits and vegetables. They can also possibly fed byproducts, scraps, offal, overripe or damaged produce, etc. that is unfit or less desirable for human consumption, but that still adds a lot of complexity to managing their diet, and if animal products are part of the feed it potentially means you need to worry about spreading disease between animal populations, don’t want to be feeding your meat dogs on mad cow brains or avian flu chicken bits.
And as you move up the food chain you can have issues with bioaccumulation of toxins like heavy metals. Say from birth to slaughter a cow absorbs 1oz (pulling that number out of my ass) of lead and mercury and such that ends up in its various tissues. Cows are big, you have to eat a lot of cow to absorb that much lead and mercury from eating them. Now let’s say a dog during it’s lifetime eats the equivalent of one whole cow (again, pulled out of my ass) during it’s lifetime. That dog now has that same 1oz of lead and mercury, and dogs are much smaller so it’s at a higher concentration in their meat, you don’t have to eat nearly as much dog as you do cow to get the same amount of heavy metals.
Just a small pointer: If the goal was to convince the person you replied to, the third condescending paragraph is a surefire way to make them not listen, which is a shame because the first two paragraphs are actually solid arguments.
I saw an ad on the subway once with a cute cow and a cute dog that said “you wouldn’t eat one, so why eat the other?” I ended up having a constructive discussion with a vegan on the train cause I was like “well, we don’t eat dogs because they’re our pets, but it it came to it, we would”. Throughout history, when shit hits the fan, famine, sieges, etc. The dogs are the first to go and be made food.
We’ve just kind of agreed to kill this one group of animals as opposed to killing all of them. It’s horrible but you’re never gonna stop humans from eating meat. We just gotta encourage a more humane way to get meat. I’m a vegetarian now, but I know humans are just meat eaters and we can’t change that.
You’re right. When times got hard, the dog became dinner.
I raised all my own food for a few years and fully understand the horror of having to kill to eat. It’s never pretty, despite all the arguments I can make about health of the herd, culling only the weak, and giving them the best lives they could hope for.
I find the vegan arguments weak, though too. Every day we are discovering new levels of feelings and intelligence in life and that goes down to plants, too. It’s a harsh reality that in order to exist, you must make something else not exist… and unless we change something dramatically it’s never going away.
All this is why I’m cautiously optimistic about lab grown meat. It could turn this whole thing on its head.
Bring plant-based seems to result in much less overall pain. How so?
About 10% net energy goes between stages of the food ladder, so 90% of the energy in the entire cow’s diet was lost as heat. This applies to all animals.
If your goal is overall reduction in pain of others for your own survival, then eating a cow includes that cow’s death, plus the much larger amount of greenery it had to eat versus how much greenery you’d eat to comfortably live as the much smaller beings that we are.
Skipping the cow means less overall death by that logic.
I mean, arguably one could make a standard based on animal intelligence. Like, dogs are fairly smart, so one could argue that raising them for meat in farm conditions isn’t very ethical, and similarly, farming something like, say, a dolphin, might be even worse if someone was to do that, but then that farming much more simple minded creatures like shrimp, bees, mealworms etc would be much more acceptable. A standard like that still wouldn’t reflect well on most animal agriculture though given that most meat animals are mammals and birds, which can be reasonably intelligent, especially pigs to my understanding. Though I suppose the conditions of the farm matter too, like, sheep kept on adequate grazing land for their wool probably don’t have too bad a life as far as farm animals go, and it’s probably possible if more expensive and less land efficient to get milk and eggs from cows/goats and chickens in a reasonably humane way too, since those products don’t inherently require raising the animal just to kill it.
Is that any worse than any other animal being farmed?
In general, predators like dogs are a very inefficient way to get calories. Cattle, for example, have the benefit of turning stuff like grass that we can’t eat into something that we can (meat,) dogs on the other hand, largely tend to eat the same sorts of foods we would, so often we could just eat those foods and cut out the middleman
Now dogs are not totally obligate carnivores, theoretically they can be fed on a vegetarian diet, though it requires some careful planning to ensure they’re getting the right nutrients, you can’t just turn them loose in a field to eat grass and expect to get much out of it, by and large they’re going to need to eat the same sorts of food we’d eat- a variety of fruits and vegetables. They can also possibly fed byproducts, scraps, offal, overripe or damaged produce, etc. that is unfit or less desirable for human consumption, but that still adds a lot of complexity to managing their diet, and if animal products are part of the feed it potentially means you need to worry about spreading disease between animal populations, don’t want to be feeding your meat dogs on mad cow brains or avian flu chicken bits.
And as you move up the food chain you can have issues with bioaccumulation of toxins like heavy metals. Say from birth to slaughter a cow absorbs 1oz (pulling that number out of my ass) of lead and mercury and such that ends up in its various tissues. Cows are big, you have to eat a lot of cow to absorb that much lead and mercury from eating them. Now let’s say a dog during it’s lifetime eats the equivalent of one whole cow (again, pulled out of my ass) during it’s lifetime. That dog now has that same 1oz of lead and mercury, and dogs are much smaller so it’s at a higher concentration in their meat, you don’t have to eat nearly as much dog as you do cow to get the same amount of heavy metals.
I mean, if we’re talking about ‘efficient ways to get calories’, then farming any animal is a stupid way to do that.
You lose so much energy feeding them than if you just ate the food yourself or used the land to grow food.
Always funny watching where meat-eaters draw the line with their abuse. There is more cognitive dissonance among ya’ll than conservatives.
The question posed was whether farming dogs is worse than farming other animals, and that is the question I attempted to answer.
The question was not whether farming any animal for food is ethical or justifiable, and so I didn’t attempt to answer that.
Just a small pointer: If the goal was to convince the person you replied to, the third condescending paragraph is a surefire way to make them not listen, which is a shame because the first two paragraphs are actually solid arguments.
No, my goal was to say what I wanted to say and I accomplished that to a tee.
Just a small pointer: nobody cares about your pointers. Lol.
Well, in that case, nobody cares about what you want to say, either.
I wouldn’t spend any more energy on them. They made it clear that they’re here to talk at people rather than talking with people.
I saw an ad on the subway once with a cute cow and a cute dog that said “you wouldn’t eat one, so why eat the other?” I ended up having a constructive discussion with a vegan on the train cause I was like “well, we don’t eat dogs because they’re our pets, but it it came to it, we would”. Throughout history, when shit hits the fan, famine, sieges, etc. The dogs are the first to go and be made food.
We’ve just kind of agreed to kill this one group of animals as opposed to killing all of them. It’s horrible but you’re never gonna stop humans from eating meat. We just gotta encourage a more humane way to get meat. I’m a vegetarian now, but I know humans are just meat eaters and we can’t change that.
…We also sometimes eat other people when shit hits the fan. 🙁.
You’re right. When times got hard, the dog became dinner.
I raised all my own food for a few years and fully understand the horror of having to kill to eat. It’s never pretty, despite all the arguments I can make about health of the herd, culling only the weak, and giving them the best lives they could hope for.
I find the vegan arguments weak, though too. Every day we are discovering new levels of feelings and intelligence in life and that goes down to plants, too. It’s a harsh reality that in order to exist, you must make something else not exist… and unless we change something dramatically it’s never going away.
All this is why I’m cautiously optimistic about lab grown meat. It could turn this whole thing on its head.
Bring plant-based seems to result in much less overall pain. How so?
About 10% net energy goes between stages of the food ladder, so 90% of the energy in the entire cow’s diet was lost as heat. This applies to all animals.
If your goal is overall reduction in pain of others for your own survival, then eating a cow includes that cow’s death, plus the much larger amount of greenery it had to eat versus how much greenery you’d eat to comfortably live as the much smaller beings that we are.
Skipping the cow means less overall death by that logic.
You don’t know what strong arguments look like
Depends on the dog. There are lots of little mammals that survive in those situations and something like a Jack Russell might be worth keeping
I mean, arguably one could make a standard based on animal intelligence. Like, dogs are fairly smart, so one could argue that raising them for meat in farm conditions isn’t very ethical, and similarly, farming something like, say, a dolphin, might be even worse if someone was to do that, but then that farming much more simple minded creatures like shrimp, bees, mealworms etc would be much more acceptable. A standard like that still wouldn’t reflect well on most animal agriculture though given that most meat animals are mammals and birds, which can be reasonably intelligent, especially pigs to my understanding. Though I suppose the conditions of the farm matter too, like, sheep kept on adequate grazing land for their wool probably don’t have too bad a life as far as farm animals go, and it’s probably possible if more expensive and less land efficient to get milk and eggs from cows/goats and chickens in a reasonably humane way too, since those products don’t inherently require raising the animal just to kill it.
Yes
No. Don’t be a hypocrite.
You’re a hypocrite
Okay.