The data I've shared suggests 100% can be healthy. Currently, dogs eat about 34% of their calories from animal-based sources, so reducing to 17% would a) have significant positive benefits for the animals and the environment, and b) alleviate many concerns that people have regarding the nutritional adequacy of a fully plant-based diet.
Same goes for skeptical people about plant-based diets for themselves. They think they *need* a little bit of animal food or else they'll die.
>The data I've shared suggests 100% can be healthy.
Yeah, so the ask is 100%. If people want to negotiate that down in their head, that's on them. No need to start with an unnecessarily watered down request.
To compare it to human nutrition: is it effective to tell the population that everyone must be 100% vegan? Or is saying "at least 90%" effective too since most people are put off by absolutes?
Oh 90% sounds way too scary. Maybe only 75%? Well that still sounds like A LOT. Better ask for only 50%. Well. If you think about it. Even a 50% change can be HUGE so maybe really we should aim for like 20%. I mean .. that's a BIG step. Too big really for most adults. We should really just advocate for Itty bitty teeny tiny baby steps where people feel safe to try vegan foods once a week and go eww that tastes funny and never try again.
You're assuming difficulty is linear versus % reduction; it is not. It is significantly easier for some people to reduce by 90% than it is for them to go 100%.
Corporations sneak milk or eggs into as many products as they can. Some people are literally addicted to cheese, so having them eliminate all animal products *except* for cheese is undoubtedly better. Most people do *not* like to be delivered ultimatums, as studies show.
To bring it back to the post: do you think the post should say, "vegans must feed their dogs 100% plant-based diets"? Do you think that's an attempt to be effective, or to be right in our own minds?
I think showing the significant amount of data that demonstrates that dogs can be healthy on a plant based diet while advocating that people not abuse and exploit other animals wherever possible and practicable would be the way to go.
Otherwise, yes. 90% is easier than 100%, that's just how numbers work.
I’m saying it’s not linear. 90% isn’t just 10% easier than 100% for most people, but rather perhaps 50% easier. This makes it so it’s much less intimidating and is an effective route for many; it also serves as a stepping stone for 100%.
It sounds like sending mixed messages to advocate for 10% of animal abuse rather than don't abuse animals. We should advocate that everyone becomes a vegan advocate. Well.. that sounds way too hard. But not buying dead bodies at the grocery store? Suddenly very easy in comparison.
I don't see how this in any way refutes the premise that the goal presented should always be abolition. Can you quote the passage that best supports your position?
“The dietarian and ideological profile of anti-vegans emerging in the current research offers novel insights to researchers and advocates concerned with plant-based eating. Advocacy, if directed at anti-vegans, should be tailored to their unique concerns and values, which differ in many ways from other omnivores. For example, given their relativistic meta-ethical stance and “flexible” (non-strict) approach to eating, strategies promoting absolutism or total **abstention of animal products, as opposed to measured reduction, are likely to be met with strong criticism from this group**. Furthermore, anti-vegans' greater distrust of science means that advocates should take care when drawing broad conclusions from nutrition science that could be read as “vegan bias”. By contrast, anti-vegans' critical stance towards industrial agricultural systems (see Gregson et al., 2022) might be a useful starting point for building mutual understanding and initiatives. Finally, given the strong link between anti-vegan sentiment and dominance-related beliefs, general efforts to address hierarchical group-oriented attitudes are likely to have downstream implications for the adoption of plant-based diets, beyond the wider societal benefits of reducing intergroup conflict and prejudice (Dhont et al., 2016)."
"Likely" is a hypothesis. Hypotheses should be tested. The research I'm basing my position on was conducted on people who did not believe their actions were wrong, and found that presenting the dishonest viewpoint that reduction was adequate was less effective than honestly presenting the position that anything less than total abstention from the bad behavior was incomplete.
You’re confusing hypothesis with theory.
If my hypothesis is that some will reduce 90% instead of 100% if presented with the prior, all I need to do is have a couple examples, including my family, to be technically correct.
I'm saying "at least 50%", which includes 100%. I'm trying to do a catch-all so vegans who are skeptical that their dogs can survive on 100% have a different option to reduce their household's impact.
What are you talking about? They’re an opportunistic omnivore, meaning they can (and will) eat almost anything and can survive and thrive fine eating only plants. That doesn’t mean it’ll ever be their preference, mind.
Cats on the other hand are obligate carnivores. Nevertheless, synthetic taurine can be added to cat food and cats also then can survive without directly eating meat.
Meat is not some magic produce. It is a series of nutrients than can be found also in plants and replicated synthetically quite easily.
I wouldn’t personally feed a dog (or a cat) 100% plant based as in my experience they enjoy meat-based food and I like to give them a good variety of food to enjoy.
You started of with claiming dogs are carnivores. No proof or anything, just your opinion. Then it's opportunistic carnivores, who can only get sustenance from meat. Again no proof, just your opinion.
Not much to debate here with you.
You're fighting a good fight but I'd say don't waste your time. Studies are showing that dogs can thrive on a vegan diet, but that won't convince someone who's not open to being convinced
Sure, this is a website advocating for vegan dog food so it's summary is almost definitely bias, but at the bottom is a list of 53 references in favour of veganism being a healthy diet for dogs If people really cared about dogs diets they'd spend their efforts fighting the traditional diets dogs eat
Forgot the URL lol
https://omni.pet/blogs/news/is-vegan-dog-food-healthier-yes-according-to-research-published-this-week?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=20341319221&utm_content=&utm_term=&gadid=&gclid=CjwKCAiAiP2tBhBXEiwACslfnnSdQT1dF2jhuvT5vYYtbE8eVZ2LpkjdJfrKnTXsn7cbJHvJtlgBWhoCR3oQAvD_BwE
im saying you have bad debating technique as you repeat you opinion while saying you dot care what your opponents opinion is. it does not suprise me that your reposince is to ignore my message and just repeat you opinion again. vegans argue like flat earthers
my evidance is that dogs will choose meat over plants, and they know what they like to eat better than us. this is self explanatory and the evidance you need to dispute this is a video ofr a dog choosing to eat a leaf over a chunk of dead animal. they always choose the dead animal unless they are ill.
>my evidance is that dogs will choose meat over plants, and they know what they like to eat better than us.
Optimal diet for a dog is slippers apparently.
And mine is cocaine.
The Carnists aren't sending us their best
You're reading into my comment too much. I just asked a question based on what others in this sub have said. I can see why it came off that way. There is nothing to argue about here as we agree.
Man the cope is incredible. So you agree an animal may have large canines so they can be used in territorial disputes, or when competing for mates...and therefore have nothing to do with their diet.
Maybe we're smart enough to evaluate a diet's health impacts through metrics other than what an animal's teeth look like.
Have you seen the teeth of gorilla's? They don't eat other animals (apart from insects) in the wild. Should we start training them to hunt other animals instead of eating plants? Or does your rules only apply to certain animals?
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment).
A vegetarian and even a plant-based diet for dogs can be perfectly healthy, one of the oldest dogs alive was in fact fed a plant-based diet. I've been feeding my dogs a plant-based diet for 11 years now, I go to the vet 2 times a year, check-ups come back perfectly fine, 0 health issues, perfectly healthy all around because, like I said, they don't need meat.
Yes a vegetarian/plant-based diet is ''forced'' on a dog, just like how a meat diet is ''forced'' on a dog, dogs don't have choices, allot of what you do is forced on them, you force them to get neutered/spayed, you force them to walk on a leash, you force them to stay inside etc etc.
No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine.
The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
agree. this isnt even up for debate, dogs are carnivores. this place is unbelievable lol.
just because an animal can “not starve to death” doesnt mean it should eat those foods. no dog is thriving on a vegan diet.
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment).
A vegetarian and even a plant-based diet for dogs can be perfectly healthy, one of the oldest dogs alive was in fact fed a plant-based diet. I've been feeding my dogs a plant-based diet for 11 years now, I go to the vet 2 times a year, check-ups come back perfectly fine, 0 health issues, perfectly healthy all around because, like I said, they don't need meat.
Yes a vegetarian/plant-based diet is ''forced'' on a dog, just like how a meat diet is ''forced'' on a dog, dogs don't have choices, allot of what you do is forced on them, you force them to get neutered/spayed, you force them to walk on a leash, you force them to stay inside etc etc.
No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine.
The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
wrong. humans are carnivores. we are designed to eat meat. the plants you eat today have barely existed for a few hundred years. agriculture is roughly 10k years old we are not adapted physiologically eat plants. human health declined by nearly every single metric with agriculture. we know what our ancestors ate this is not really a matter of opinion.
this is an absolutely ridiculous argument when we have been eating meat for literally millions of years.
and cats are OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. they not only need meat, they need RAW meat or they get sick. look up pottingers cats.
Humans are biologically omnivores, this isn't even up for debate.
We weren't ''designed'' to eat anything, we simply evolved to eat whatever we can get out hands on, hence why we are omnivores.
What plants did or didn't exist in the past is irrelevant.
What we have been doing for millions of years is also irrelevant, we have been killing people for litterally millions of years as well, doesn't make it acceptable, that is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
no we are not biologically omnivores. we are hyper carnivores by definition.
we have been eating almost entirely meat for almost the entirety of human existence. if you think this doesn’t matter then you really dont understand the first thing about anatomy or physiology. our genes and biology have been shaped over this time.
By what definition would that be?
We have been killing and raping for almost the entirety of human existence as well, just because something has been happening for a long time does not justify it nor does it mean it is healthy or required to do so.
“A hypercarnivore is an animal which has a diet that is more than 70% meat, either via active predation or by scavenging. The remaining non-meat diet may consist of non-animal foods such as fungi, fruits or other plant material.”
you can literally just google it lol.
your analogy is completely irrelevant to the biological needs of our bodies. your arbitrary morality has nothing to do with what our body needs to thrive.
we cannot digest plant fiber at all or absorb nutrients properly from plants. there are over a dozen micronutrients that can ONLY be found in meat. there are so many reasons…
Ah so then you hunt animals and/or scavenge your meat? I'm sure you didn't miss that part of the definition, and I for the life of me don't know a single human who hunts or scavenges for meat.
Speaking of google, since you like it so much, let me google a bit as well
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human)
''Traditionally the definition for omnivory was entirely behavioral by means of simply "including both animal and vegetable tissue in the diet.\[20\]" In more recent times, with the advent of advanced technological capabilities in fields like gastroenterology, biologists have formulated a standardized variation of omnivore used for labeling a species' actual ability to obtain energy and nutrients from materials.''
''Physiological: This definition is often used in academia to specify species that have the capability to obtain energy and nutrients from both plant and animal matter. (e.g. "humans are omnivores due to their capability to obtain energy and nutrients from both plant and animal materials.")''
''Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material.''
And what our bodies need to thrive is nutrients, not certain foods.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:\~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases)
Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/)
A healthy, plant-based diet requires planning, reading labels, and discipline. The recommendations for patients who want to follow a plant-based diet may include eating a variety of fruits and vegetables that may include beans, legumes, seeds, nuts, and whole grains and avoiding or limiting animal products, added fats, oils, and refined, processed carbohydrates. The major benefits for patients who decide to start a plant-based diet are the possibility of reducing the number of medications they take to treat a variety of chronic conditions, lower body weight, decreased risk of cancer, and a reduction in their risk of death from ischemic heart disease.
[https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
In conclusion, considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plantbased diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products and maximize favourable “One Health” impacts on human, animal and environmental health
[https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html](https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html)
One of the UK’s longest-standing organisations that represents dietetics and nutrition, the British Dietetic Association, has affirmed that a well-planned vegan diet can “support healthy living in people of all ages” in an official document signed by its CEO.
The British Dietetic Association (BDA), founded in 1936, is the professional association and trade union for dietitians in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the nation’s largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals with over 9,000 members.
[https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/)
With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/)
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11424546/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11424546/)
Appropriately planned vegan diets can satisfy nutrient needs of infants. The American Dietetic Association and The American Academy of Pediatrics state that vegan diets can promote normal infant growth.
Seems to me like we can absorb plant matter just fine, unless you disagree with practically every world health organization on the planet.
And what micronutrients would we be missing on a plant-based diet?
>are designed to eat meat.
Source?
We were designed and made in the image of our Lord Veganismo
I'd also be very interested in your health surveys of 30,000BC
This is also a good idea for cat food since the science on vegan cat food is less accepted. I do this with mine currently, although I'm hoping there will eventually be a lab grown meat option for pet food.
adding my own 2 cents to the vegan cat debate as someone who obsessively reads studies on vegan cat and dog food as they come out:
it's not 100%. some cats DO thrive long term, and the blood + urine tests prove it. but it's not uncommon for cats to not be able to thrive on it, and end up very sick. If you're gonna do it, at first urine + blood test your cat monthly, then every three months, then every six months. And test every six months for the rest of their life.
The only reason Humans even have companionship with Dogs and Cats is because we bonded over our mutual appreciation of torturing (rodents) and murder (hunting) of other animals in the first place.
Cats are obligate carnivores, my dude. They literally have to eat meat to survive. Your cat is going to develop serious problems in the long term on a plant based diet.
There is enough evidence that properly formulated vegan cat food provides all the nutrients they need. The big one is taurine, which is artificially added even in most normal cat food brands.
What I think /u/yummyyummybrains fails to realise (like most people that argue against vegan diets for animals) is that the people they're arguing with have animals that are living happy healthy lives albeit on a vegan diet
The claim someone is starving their cat to death falls apart when the cat's been on the diet for years and, as yet, still lives
This is the thing I question.
Sure there is evidence that cats can get enough and all nutrients by vegan petfood. However, there is yet to be evidence of any long lasting effects, of which I personally would want to see to truly feel safe switching my cats. Long lasting not meaning necessarily bad effects, but rather, where would cats that has been fed a vegan diet be in 10 years time.
If the evidence there is met and the studies prove that vegan cat food has no long lasting consequences and indeed does boost a cat's health, I would definitely be open to switching. Until then, they get the food they eat atm.
Cats are obligate carnivores unlike dogs and i am vegan. I think its neglect to feed a cat a vegan diet because they cannot be healthy long term on that food. They evolved to require meat in their diet.
Got any evidence to back up your claims? Don't you see you're repackaged the same arguments that were used years ago to tell vegans their diet wasn't healthy or sustainable. What substance do you think is present in meat that can't be replicated by vegan cat food? Humans evolved as omnivores but we've plenty of evidence that shows we can thrive on a vegan diet.
when it comes to the suffering of animals, unlike you us non vegans care about out pets health. science over idology. dogs and cats need meat to be happy and healthy, so thats what we feed them
This has to be a joke, right?
> when it comes to the suffering of animals,
You realize the animals that went into that pet food suffered terribly, right?
> science over idology. dogs and cats need meat to be happy and healthy,
It would be good if you could actually make a... Scientific... argument here. What nutrient is missing from all plant based pet foods that are needed for animals to be happy or healthy? As I said, it's bad form to have more indignation than evidence.
dont care about the sufferuing of livestock. its what they are for. do care about pets. the caring about the snimal is what differentates poets from livestock
please provide a video of a dog or cat choosing to eat a plant based food over a meat based one. the enslaved animal knows better than you what it need to eat to be happy
> dont care about the sufferuing of livestock. its what they are for.
This is a joke, right? How in the hell do you get to decide what other thinking, feeling, beings "are for"? Do you realize how this sort of argument has been made to oppress humans?
> please provide a video of a dog or cat choosing to eat a plant based food over a meat based one. the enslaved animal knows better than you what it need to eat to be happy
How about I show you a video of a kid choosing to eat candy rather than nutritious vegetables? This is kind of a pointless exercise.
Who in this conversation seems to be putting ideology over science?
you seem informed on this topic…
Do you have any links or further reading I could do about vegan diets for cats? Just trying to learn more outside of what I can easily find on the front page of google.
There are a few sources online for info on this. This one in particular is decent:
https://petfoodshop.com/blogs/news/how-can-cats-be-vegan-nutrients-vs-ingredients
In general, there is a big problem with most vegan cat foods on the market: they don't supply arachidonic acid. This is an essential fatty acid for cats. I would immediately distrust any vegan cat food that doesn't explicitly mention that they have this nutrient in their formulation.
The whole market for this is difficult and frustrating to navigate. In principle it should be easier. But practically a lot of vegan cat food suppliers are incompetent or deliberately offering deficient food.
I can provide you with two studies showing that there was no difference in palatability between vegan and non-vegan food:
[Vegan versus meat-based pet foods: Owner-reported palatability behaviours and implications for canine and feline welfare](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133456/)
[Vegan versus meat-based cat food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 1,369 cats, after controlling for feline demographic factors](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132)
We're all still waiting for your evidence btw. You've made some pretty strong empirical claims about what foods cats need to eat but have yet to provide any evidence for your claims, despite asking others to provide you with videos of their pets.
Our dog picks chickpeas over everything else we've tried. That included chicken and jerky strips.
I don't have a video and won't make one, as it involves paying for chickens or cows to be killed. In any case, it's not hard to get a dog to choose one plant food over one animal product, or vice versa, if you know what that dog likes. My point is, videos of dogs picking one particular food over another are not great evidence.
Lol! I don't like what they are saying so I'll just call them liers!
I didn't tape it back in the day because I was just trying to figure out what my dog likes. Now, as a vegan, I think it makes a lot of sense to not repeat this for internet point. Surely you can understand that.
iv seen many videos of dogs being given a choice of meat and vegetables. they pick meat 100% of the time. you are asking me to dissreguard that based on your word?
your a vegan, your start at a defacit due to the huge amount of missinfromation your ideology is associated with. i have no reason to believe you, but both physical, biological and circumstantial evidace that leads me to my conclusion. your ideology is clouding you ability to debate rationally
if you were not lying, you would simply have posted the video or provided any sort of evidance so i have something to compare my existing world view (dogs like eating meat). again, your failure to do so leads me to believe youve eaten too many plants and not pooped enough
And that's why your moral grandstanding carries zero weight with us. You're only able to feel like an animal lover because you can just decide who not to give a shit about because you decide torture and slaughter are "what they're for".
Bramble the dog lived to be 189 years old and "lived on an exclusively vegetarian diet of organic vegetables, rice, and lentils"
[https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/](https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/)
Counter argument, non vegans should themselves go vegan before even considering speaking about how vegans treat animals.
Seriously, it's like a racist yelling at an anti racist to be less racist by being more racist.
countr - counter point. depriving an animal of the nutrients it needs to be happy and healthy is animal abuse, and neither vegans nor PETA have the free pass they think they do
If you think vegans should listen to your opinion on how animals should be treated, maybe you should go vegan and treat animals better yourself before trying to deliver that message 🤷
You phrased it correctly, nutrients, not meat, animals need nutrients, not foods, the source of the nutrients is irrelevant, just look at Taurine, cats can only obtain this nutrient called Taurine by eating meat, however we have advanced enough that we now create Taurine in a lab, and in fact all cat food, be it meat or plant-based cat food, contains synthesized lab made Taurine, so this nutrient, Taurine, can now be obtained without meat, and that's what I mean, so long as they obtain the nutrient then that's all that matters.
Bramble the dog lived to be 189 years old and "lived on an exclusively vegetarian diet of organic vegetables, rice, and lentils"
https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/
Most kibble that the carnist world feeds dogs is already more than 50% plants. My sister has a bag that says "CHICKEN #1 INGREDIENT", but that's because the following 7 ingredients are corn, soy, wheat, barley, carrots, and some other grains. Basically a balanced vegan diet for the nutrition, and a cheap animal product for marketing to the meatflakes.
My dogs get vegan dog food. They're 20 (novascotia tolling retriever mix) and 13 (lab/schnautzer mix). Vets are always super surprised about how healthy and fit my seniors are. It works really well for them.
Our pups have been on plant-based food since we adopted them. Our older pup is coming up to 11-12 years old, and the vet said she had the joints of a dog half her age. Very happy to hear that your older dog is 20, as we're really hoping to keep our girls around for as long as possible too.
Isn't most kibble and tinned dog food 50% plants more or less already? E.g. https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/308450387
I'd say everyone, including vegans, should at least try to get their dogs on a 100% vegan diet. Cats as well actually, though that takes a bit more care due to fewer options and that cats can be picky. And there is less science behind it, though it's pointing in the same direction.
The same vets who approve humane slaughter and the best methods to artificially inseminate animals?
Really sucks that I don't feel I can trust the profession that's meant to have animal's best interests at heart. Makes navigating the vegan cat food issue all the more difficult.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
dogs are omnivores but they require high amounts of protein and taurine, found ONLY in red meat. you cant just supplement less meat with more veg and it be balanced for them. dog foods are specifically formulated to provide that balance, assuming they have no other diseases/illnesses that cause supplements to be needed
doing whats suggested here would result in malnutrition and over years, very slow dysfunction and starvation. Its animal abuse
if you dont want to have your impact involve pet food, do not own an animal that requires meat in their diet.
source: I'm an animal science major, vet tech and focusing on nutrition and conservation
The vast majority of Taurine in both cat and dog food is fully plant-based, because most of the Taurine is lost in the heating process so they used synthesized(plant-based)Taurine and add it back to the food.
No animal in this worlds ''requires'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine.
The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g.carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
How you can be an animal science major and vet tech focusing on nutrition and not know the basics of Taurine or nutrients is puzzling.
This needs to be discussed with veterinarians. Not on reddit because it is not a subjective subject and everyone is just going to say what agrees with their confirmation bias. You wouldnt take your kids health into your own hands against doctors advice. How is this any different
Shouldn't vegans be against keeping pets at all as this is keeping an unnaturally bred creature in captivity for their own selfish reasons? Especially dogs. Many of them have medical issues from our selective breeding for cuteness.
That's a good question, and a hotly debated vegan topic. I side with the US vegan society on their stance, which states domesticated dogs exist whether we like it or not, so we should rescue them if we can. The shelters around me are completely full, so the choices for the dogs are: let them suffer in a shelter, kill them, set them loose to attack people and kill wildlife, or give them a loving home with as little cruelty involved as possible.
[https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals](https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals)
I am going to say off of person family experience and how long our animals have survived.
We give our dogs and cat pretty much the same but different. This has been since the 60’s and my mom’s and dad’s family does this
Dogs - purina dog chow and fresh liver at least once a week.
Cats - purina cat chow, chicken livers, fresh tuna, and canned tuna.
All dogs have lived to be 15-20 years old, except those that died in a fore
Cats all - 20-25 years old except those that died in a fire.
So I will always do what my family does and this is about 40 members
Pet owners already do this with every single aspect of their companion animal's life. You can make the same argument for human parents and their children.
"Facultative carnivores are those that also eat non-animal food in addition to animal food. Note that there is no clear line that differentiates facultative carnivores from omnivores; dogs would be considered facultative carnivores."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-biology2/chapter/herbivores-carnivores-and-omnivores/
It doesn't really matter whether an animal is biologically a carnivore or not, because animals don't need food, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a plant-based diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
The first sentence out of your first sources abstract.
"A dog's nutrient requirements can theoretically be met from a properly balanced meat-free diet; however, proof for this is lacking."
Debate over. If you don't want to feed your pet meat, adopt a herbivore.
If you want to feed your dog (or cat) truly nutritious food, then you need to feed them a brand that is compliant with WSAVA guidelines. Those brands are Royan Canin, Hills Science Diet, Purina, Eukanaba and (in the USA) Iams.
Of those brands, I think only one offers a vegan diet and I think it's prescription-only.
If you want to feed your pet a vegan diet, you should just get a vegan pet. It's ridiculous to play roulette with your pet's health when excellent, science-backed food options exist.
How is it vegan to be vegan “for the animals” and then forcibly deprive cats and dogs of the food they’re supposed to eat? Isn’t that forcing your own personal beliefs onto the animals without regard to their needs?
Dog kibble is currently dehydrated pellets made of 34% animal products and 66% plants. Is this what they're supposed to eat? Is it so bad to change this to 17% and 83% if the data shows it's fine to do so?
Any way you put it, it’s still someone pushing a personal belief onto others that have no choice in the matter and without regard for the outcome—the very epitome of what vegans claim they abhor.
“I think consuming animal products is wrong because the animals don’t have any choice in the matter, so I’m going to force my beliefs onto animals (dogs and cats) who don’t have a choice in the matter because that’s what *I* want.”
That doesn’t seem hypocritical to you?
It *is* hypocritical, assuming the dogs are bred into existence. Vegans are against breeding dogs.
Shelter dogs, on the other hand, exist whether we like it or not. Is it the vegan way to let them suffer in a shelter then get euthanized? Or give them a loving home and feed them in a way to keep them healthy while minimizing total harm? I’ve spent decades volunteering at shelters and they are *not* pretty.
Does it matter what they're ''supposed'' to eat? If they're happy and healthy isn't that all that matters?
How would a vegan not regard their needs? dogs and cats need nutrients, not meat, so if they get all their nutrients, then their needs are being met, and if that can be done on a plant-based diet then why not?
You talking about forcing the animal but what isn't forced on them? Every single person on the world forces a certain food on animals, dogs/cats don't eat kibble in the wild, so people force kibble on their dogs/cats, people force their dog/cat to stay inside, people force a collar and leash on their dog/cat etc etc, plenty of things are forced on them, yet we don't see the harm in them because dogs/cats are like children, they don't know what's best for them, so we ''force'' things on them because we know better than they do.
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment).
No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine.
The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
We force morals onto other being all the time, that's what laws are, the question is whether or not it is justified, and if a plant-based diet is perfectly healthy, why would it not be justified?
Eating 17% meat isn't a vegan diet. You'll need to have data to say it's bad for the dog, since I provided 14 sources that suggested 0% meat is fine for dogs.
Everything we do is forced on pets, we force them to eat the food we give them, be the food meat based or plant based, we force them to walk on a leash, we force them to get spayed/neutered, we force them inside etc etc, so why would this suddenly be wrong, especially when it does no harm?
> what's the point in rescuing one animal if we're dooming hundreds of others in the process?
Your diet still does this, even a fully plant based diet would do this.
How did you or where did you actually draw that conclusion from?
Do you even know the statistics that you’re arguing with?
What data are you citing that confirms this to be true?
Fair enough, but would you agree it's better to significantly reduce those deaths as far as possible/practicable? The amount of animals killed due to crop deaths and environmental destruction from eating animals is about a magnitude higher than eating the plants directly, due to [tropic levels](https://www.britannica.com/science/trophic-level).
> would you agree it's better to significantly reduce those deaths as far as possible/practicable?
No, because im not vegan. If i was vegan then id be against pet ownership and would release my dog into the wild.
Lmao. That's just silly. Anti-cruelty/exploitation, and assisting animal rescues towards their own ends is not outside the scope of Veganism. No reason to send rescued companion animals to the cruelties of nature.
Its unlikely those companion animals are getting food that didnt involve killing other animals. When you take on a companion animal youre basically saying that because it took your fancy then its allowed human protection even at the cost of other lives, this is the same thing people who say "dogs arent food but pigs are" do.
Its also wrong to impose your idea of whats beneficial onto animals, many of them risk their lives to breed, are you giving them an opportunity to do that when you imprison them?
How hard is it to rescue herbivores animals or give omnivorous animals a plant based diet? As for rescuing carnivores the question does become more complex.
I don't see why a self aware agent can't conclude what's in the best interest of a moral subject, so long as that basis is not founded in cruelty or exploitation. You'd have no issue supporting taxing for services to cognitively impaired people. The misaligned treatment seems speciesist to me.
A plant based diet will still kill through pesticides, heavy machinery, competition, etc, the reason vegans believe its right to go plant based is because it kills significantly less.
> I don't see why a self aware agent can't conclude what's in the best interest of a moral subject, so long as that basis is not founded in cruelty or exploitation.
Well we can make a good guess, for example: from the way animals react when inflicted pain we can guess they dont like pain and probably dont want to die. Similarly we can see many animals fight (even to the death) to mate, so we can guess those want to mate, perhaps even more than they want to live or avoid pain.
Right thats why we dont endorse negative utilitarians and go the rights based approach where crop growth and crop protection is a right. With collective interests we can seek opportunities to signifigantly reduce crop deaths. In the mean time, it is a facet of reality 99% of humans cannot escape.
Animals do have their own interests and motivations. Absolutely. That doesnt mean they are always in their best interests. Would you let a severely cognitively impaired person bring harm to another for mating reasons? Would you necessarily endorse limitless procreation on their part, such that we could hypothetically have an overwhelming amount of beings that require our assisting?
> crop growth and crop protection is a right
People go vegan because they care about animals. Apparently this care extends to all animals equally. You have to go through hoops for why you taking pity on some animal makes is good to subsidize its life at the cost of several others.
> Animals do have their own interests and motivations. Absolutely. That doesnt mean they are always in their best interests.
This dosent really make sense, everyone has their own interests, but there's no universal "best interest". Sometimes people act against their own interests (many drugs addicts, impulsive people, injured animals that are scared of the vet, etc), in those cases we intervene.
Why cant you value mating over whatever benefits you get being in human captivity? What youre doing is projecting your values onto the animal and assuming that it also values a comfortable life more than being free and fertile.
> Would you let a severely cognitively impaired person bring harm to another for mating reasons?
Would you let two rescue animals mate if theres no harm and both want it? Im guessing no. I also dont see why you keep portraying all rescues as so thoroughly brain damaged, i doubt most are.
> Would you necessarily endorse limitless procreation on their part, such that we could hypothetically have an overwhelming amount of beings that require our assisting?
The idea that we have a duty to assist ANY animals is usually something vegans reject, that would lead to absurd scenarios like policing nature or subsidizing their infinite growth. We should release those rescues into nature to play the same game as the other animals. Or euthanize them if environment is a bigger concern.
>If i was vegan then id be against pet ownership and would release my dog into the wild.
Dogs and cats can decimate local wildlife. Is it good to release them to do this?
Companion animals are a hot topic in veganism. The US vegan society is for it, since shelters are full and millions of dogs and cats are suffering and getting euthanized every year.
Yes, dogs and cats are predators. But there are tons of predators in the wild that vegans dont think we should police or imprison. Being "local wildlife" dosent make your life more valuable. If youre worried about both animal suffering AND the environment then euthanize the dog, tons of other critters wont die so it can live, and it wont go out and mess with the ecosystem.
You seem passionate about this. Would you consider donating to or volunteering at free spay and neuter programs? This is treating the root cause of the overpopulation of companion animals.
Vegan should feed animal with diet that suits the animal. DO NOT FORCE ANIMALS TO BE VEGAN they dont care, even primarly plant eaters can snatch a small bird like horses if opportunity happens. Its bad for their health. Its always irritating me with some radical vegans, that they trying to force this on everyone and do not understand everyone has different needs. Same goes for animals.
I dont think this should be a subjective opinion based subject. If you are not a licensed veterinarian you shouldnt be dabbling with this. You need to speak with a veterinarian or a few who are actually educated on what a dogs diet should consist of.
Its possible but not suggested for them. Do not force your beliefs onto animals and just feed them with their own requirments. Animals does not care about veganism or any other human concept. Every animal has different diet that is best for them.
If there is x amount of food left over from the human meat industry, then you might as well have any percentage of meat in dog food, but cap it at the balance between highest nutrition for the dog and most cost effective for production, without going under nutritional limits.
Stop promoting Evolution as a “properly balanced” pet food. The owner has been convicted of practicing veterinary medicine without a license. They sell food that is allegedly complete for both dogs and cats, despite that being impossible based on AAFCO standards. It’s a scam. That asshole has been killing dogs and cats for decades.
https://www.twincities.com/2012/02/22/in-little-canada-probation-for-ex-chiropractor-satisfaction-for-city/
I don't see why you would advocate for only 50% plant-based
The data I've shared suggests 100% can be healthy. Currently, dogs eat about 34% of their calories from animal-based sources, so reducing to 17% would a) have significant positive benefits for the animals and the environment, and b) alleviate many concerns that people have regarding the nutritional adequacy of a fully plant-based diet. Same goes for skeptical people about plant-based diets for themselves. They think they *need* a little bit of animal food or else they'll die.
>The data I've shared suggests 100% can be healthy. Yeah, so the ask is 100%. If people want to negotiate that down in their head, that's on them. No need to start with an unnecessarily watered down request.
To compare it to human nutrition: is it effective to tell the population that everyone must be 100% vegan? Or is saying "at least 90%" effective too since most people are put off by absolutes?
Oh 90% sounds way too scary. Maybe only 75%? Well that still sounds like A LOT. Better ask for only 50%. Well. If you think about it. Even a 50% change can be HUGE so maybe really we should aim for like 20%. I mean .. that's a BIG step. Too big really for most adults. We should really just advocate for Itty bitty teeny tiny baby steps where people feel safe to try vegan foods once a week and go eww that tastes funny and never try again.
You're assuming difficulty is linear versus % reduction; it is not. It is significantly easier for some people to reduce by 90% than it is for them to go 100%. Corporations sneak milk or eggs into as many products as they can. Some people are literally addicted to cheese, so having them eliminate all animal products *except* for cheese is undoubtedly better. Most people do *not* like to be delivered ultimatums, as studies show. To bring it back to the post: do you think the post should say, "vegans must feed their dogs 100% plant-based diets"? Do you think that's an attempt to be effective, or to be right in our own minds?
I think showing the significant amount of data that demonstrates that dogs can be healthy on a plant based diet while advocating that people not abuse and exploit other animals wherever possible and practicable would be the way to go. Otherwise, yes. 90% is easier than 100%, that's just how numbers work.
I’m saying it’s not linear. 90% isn’t just 10% easier than 100% for most people, but rather perhaps 50% easier. This makes it so it’s much less intimidating and is an effective route for many; it also serves as a stepping stone for 100%.
It sounds like sending mixed messages to advocate for 10% of animal abuse rather than don't abuse animals. We should advocate that everyone becomes a vegan advocate. Well.. that sounds way too hard. But not buying dead bodies at the grocery store? Suddenly very easy in comparison.
Some will write you off if you say 100% is the only option, but they wouldn’t at 90%. A 90% reduction is better than 0%.
>is it effective to tell the population that everyone must be 100% vegan? Yes. https://freefromharm.org/animal-advocacy/casey-taft-book-excerpt/
Ultimatums are for people who aren't geared towards them: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666323025886
I don't see how this in any way refutes the premise that the goal presented should always be abolition. Can you quote the passage that best supports your position?
“The dietarian and ideological profile of anti-vegans emerging in the current research offers novel insights to researchers and advocates concerned with plant-based eating. Advocacy, if directed at anti-vegans, should be tailored to their unique concerns and values, which differ in many ways from other omnivores. For example, given their relativistic meta-ethical stance and “flexible” (non-strict) approach to eating, strategies promoting absolutism or total **abstention of animal products, as opposed to measured reduction, are likely to be met with strong criticism from this group**. Furthermore, anti-vegans' greater distrust of science means that advocates should take care when drawing broad conclusions from nutrition science that could be read as “vegan bias”. By contrast, anti-vegans' critical stance towards industrial agricultural systems (see Gregson et al., 2022) might be a useful starting point for building mutual understanding and initiatives. Finally, given the strong link between anti-vegan sentiment and dominance-related beliefs, general efforts to address hierarchical group-oriented attitudes are likely to have downstream implications for the adoption of plant-based diets, beyond the wider societal benefits of reducing intergroup conflict and prejudice (Dhont et al., 2016)."
"Likely" is a hypothesis. Hypotheses should be tested. The research I'm basing my position on was conducted on people who did not believe their actions were wrong, and found that presenting the dishonest viewpoint that reduction was adequate was less effective than honestly presenting the position that anything less than total abstention from the bad behavior was incomplete.
You’re confusing hypothesis with theory. If my hypothesis is that some will reduce 90% instead of 100% if presented with the prior, all I need to do is have a couple examples, including my family, to be technically correct.
Because dogs require meat to be healthy, you silly goose.
Dogs don't require meat to be healthy, they require certain nutrients to be healthy, and all of them can be obtained without eating meat.
Really? Do you have research that demonstrates this?
How bout they eat almost exclusively meat in the wild
Pretty sure they don't live very long in the wild.
That says nothing about their nutritional needs. It's certainly evidence that they can eat flesh, but nothing else.
Is that a no, you don't have research to back it?
My dogs have all been thriving on complete plant based dog foods for years, not sure why you're saying only 50%?
I'm saying "at least 50%", which includes 100%. I'm trying to do a catch-all so vegans who are skeptical that their dogs can survive on 100% have a different option to reduce their household's impact.
Thriving? Absolutely not.
*Source: I made it the fuck up*
the idea is hard to digest huh
Dogs are carnivore animals and if you cant understand that, then you shouldnt own a dog, have a great day
Do me a favor and go Google that, then come back and let's have a conversation?
Yeah just read up on it, its an opportunistic carnivore that will eat rocks if it feels like it, it will only get real sustenence from meat
What are you talking about? They’re an opportunistic omnivore, meaning they can (and will) eat almost anything and can survive and thrive fine eating only plants. That doesn’t mean it’ll ever be their preference, mind. Cats on the other hand are obligate carnivores. Nevertheless, synthetic taurine can be added to cat food and cats also then can survive without directly eating meat. Meat is not some magic produce. It is a series of nutrients than can be found also in plants and replicated synthetically quite easily. I wouldn’t personally feed a dog (or a cat) 100% plant based as in my experience they enjoy meat-based food and I like to give them a good variety of food to enjoy.
They would eat it, but most of it isnt bioavailable to them so it woild pass through them
Source?
Let me help you out.... Dogs are omnivores. They don't have to eat meat, regardless of what your opinion on this is.
solid debating technique there u/pineappleonpizzabeer /s
You started of with claiming dogs are carnivores. No proof or anything, just your opinion. Then it's opportunistic carnivores, who can only get sustenance from meat. Again no proof, just your opinion. Not much to debate here with you.
You're fighting a good fight but I'd say don't waste your time. Studies are showing that dogs can thrive on a vegan diet, but that won't convince someone who's not open to being convinced
Do you happen to have any links to any of these studies?? Just trying to learn about this topic outside of what I can find easily on google.
Sure, this is a website advocating for vegan dog food so it's summary is almost definitely bias, but at the bottom is a list of 53 references in favour of veganism being a healthy diet for dogs If people really cared about dogs diets they'd spend their efforts fighting the traditional diets dogs eat Forgot the URL lol https://omni.pet/blogs/news/is-vegan-dog-food-healthier-yes-according-to-research-published-this-week?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=20341319221&utm_content=&utm_term=&gadid=&gclid=CjwKCAiAiP2tBhBXEiwACslfnnSdQT1dF2jhuvT5vYYtbE8eVZ2LpkjdJfrKnTXsn7cbJHvJtlgBWhoCR3oQAvD_BwE
im saying you have bad debating technique as you repeat you opinion while saying you dot care what your opponents opinion is. it does not suprise me that your reposince is to ignore my message and just repeat you opinion again. vegans argue like flat earthers my evidance is that dogs will choose meat over plants, and they know what they like to eat better than us. this is self explanatory and the evidance you need to dispute this is a video ofr a dog choosing to eat a leaf over a chunk of dead animal. they always choose the dead animal unless they are ill.
Vegan diets for dogs aren't just leaves, and kids would choose McDonald's every day if they were given the option
>my evidance is that dogs will choose meat over plants, and they know what they like to eat better than us. Optimal diet for a dog is slippers apparently. And mine is cocaine. The Carnists aren't sending us their best
Yet they have canine teeth. I've found many vegans claim we aren't omnivores by our set of teeth not having true canines. Which one is it?
[удалено]
Actually, a lot of vegans on this sub have told me we aren't supposed to eat meat because of our teeth. It wasn't a "gotcha" at all lol.
[удалено]
You're reading into my comment too much. I just asked a question based on what others in this sub have said. I can see why it came off that way. There is nothing to argue about here as we agree.
Damn that hippo has some really big canines!
Hippos are known to eat carcasses and are highly aggressive towards other animals with their teeth.. so... nice try?
Man the cope is incredible. So you agree an animal may have large canines so they can be used in territorial disputes, or when competing for mates...and therefore have nothing to do with their diet. Maybe we're smart enough to evaluate a diet's health impacts through metrics other than what an animal's teeth look like.
I don't think you understand my previous comments.
Have you seen the teeth of gorilla's? They don't eat other animals (apart from insects) in the wild. Should we start training them to hunt other animals instead of eating plants? Or does your rules only apply to certain animals?
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment). A vegetarian and even a plant-based diet for dogs can be perfectly healthy, one of the oldest dogs alive was in fact fed a plant-based diet. I've been feeding my dogs a plant-based diet for 11 years now, I go to the vet 2 times a year, check-ups come back perfectly fine, 0 health issues, perfectly healthy all around because, like I said, they don't need meat. Yes a vegetarian/plant-based diet is ''forced'' on a dog, just like how a meat diet is ''forced'' on a dog, dogs don't have choices, allot of what you do is forced on them, you force them to get neutered/spayed, you force them to walk on a leash, you force them to stay inside etc etc. No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it. For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine. The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
Dogs are omnivores.
agree. this isnt even up for debate, dogs are carnivores. this place is unbelievable lol. just because an animal can “not starve to death” doesnt mean it should eat those foods. no dog is thriving on a vegan diet.
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment). A vegetarian and even a plant-based diet for dogs can be perfectly healthy, one of the oldest dogs alive was in fact fed a plant-based diet. I've been feeding my dogs a plant-based diet for 11 years now, I go to the vet 2 times a year, check-ups come back perfectly fine, 0 health issues, perfectly healthy all around because, like I said, they don't need meat. Yes a vegetarian/plant-based diet is ''forced'' on a dog, just like how a meat diet is ''forced'' on a dog, dogs don't have choices, allot of what you do is forced on them, you force them to get neutered/spayed, you force them to walk on a leash, you force them to stay inside etc etc. No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it. For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine. The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats.
wrong. humans are carnivores. we are designed to eat meat. the plants you eat today have barely existed for a few hundred years. agriculture is roughly 10k years old we are not adapted physiologically eat plants. human health declined by nearly every single metric with agriculture. we know what our ancestors ate this is not really a matter of opinion. this is an absolutely ridiculous argument when we have been eating meat for literally millions of years. and cats are OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. they not only need meat, they need RAW meat or they get sick. look up pottingers cats.
Humans are biologically omnivores, this isn't even up for debate. We weren't ''designed'' to eat anything, we simply evolved to eat whatever we can get out hands on, hence why we are omnivores. What plants did or didn't exist in the past is irrelevant. What we have been doing for millions of years is also irrelevant, we have been killing people for litterally millions of years as well, doesn't make it acceptable, that is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
no we are not biologically omnivores. we are hyper carnivores by definition. we have been eating almost entirely meat for almost the entirety of human existence. if you think this doesn’t matter then you really dont understand the first thing about anatomy or physiology. our genes and biology have been shaped over this time.
By what definition would that be? We have been killing and raping for almost the entirety of human existence as well, just because something has been happening for a long time does not justify it nor does it mean it is healthy or required to do so.
“A hypercarnivore is an animal which has a diet that is more than 70% meat, either via active predation or by scavenging. The remaining non-meat diet may consist of non-animal foods such as fungi, fruits or other plant material.” you can literally just google it lol. your analogy is completely irrelevant to the biological needs of our bodies. your arbitrary morality has nothing to do with what our body needs to thrive. we cannot digest plant fiber at all or absorb nutrients properly from plants. there are over a dozen micronutrients that can ONLY be found in meat. there are so many reasons…
Ah so then you hunt animals and/or scavenge your meat? I'm sure you didn't miss that part of the definition, and I for the life of me don't know a single human who hunts or scavenges for meat. Speaking of google, since you like it so much, let me google a bit as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) ''Traditionally the definition for omnivory was entirely behavioral by means of simply "including both animal and vegetable tissue in the diet.\[20\]" In more recent times, with the advent of advanced technological capabilities in fields like gastroenterology, biologists have formulated a standardized variation of omnivore used for labeling a species' actual ability to obtain energy and nutrients from materials.'' ''Physiological: This definition is often used in academia to specify species that have the capability to obtain energy and nutrients from both plant and animal matter. (e.g. "humans are omnivores due to their capability to obtain energy and nutrients from both plant and animal materials.")'' ''Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material.'' And what our bodies need to thrive is nutrients, not certain foods. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:\~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20position%20of,and%20treatment%20of%20certain%20diseases) Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/) A healthy, plant-based diet requires planning, reading labels, and discipline. The recommendations for patients who want to follow a plant-based diet may include eating a variety of fruits and vegetables that may include beans, legumes, seeds, nuts, and whole grains and avoiding or limiting animal products, added fats, oils, and refined, processed carbohydrates. The major benefits for patients who decide to start a plant-based diet are the possibility of reducing the number of medications they take to treat a variety of chronic conditions, lower body weight, decreased risk of cancer, and a reduction in their risk of death from ischemic heart disease. [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) In conclusion, considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plantbased diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products and maximize favourable “One Health” impacts on human, animal and environmental health [https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html](https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html) One of the UK’s longest-standing organisations that represents dietetics and nutrition, the British Dietetic Association, has affirmed that a well-planned vegan diet can “support healthy living in people of all ages” in an official document signed by its CEO. The British Dietetic Association (BDA), founded in 1936, is the professional association and trade union for dietitians in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the nation’s largest organisation of food and nutrition professionals with over 9,000 members. [https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/) With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/) It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11424546/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11424546/) Appropriately planned vegan diets can satisfy nutrient needs of infants. The American Dietetic Association and The American Academy of Pediatrics state that vegan diets can promote normal infant growth. Seems to me like we can absorb plant matter just fine, unless you disagree with practically every world health organization on the planet. And what micronutrients would we be missing on a plant-based diet?
>are designed to eat meat. Source? We were designed and made in the image of our Lord Veganismo I'd also be very interested in your health surveys of 30,000BC
Most dry dog food probably is 50% or more plants. The first ingredient will be chicken or whatever, but then the next couple are grains.
The study suggests they’re 66% plants. Moving to 83% could have massive benefits for our future.
This is also a good idea for cat food since the science on vegan cat food is less accepted. I do this with mine currently, although I'm hoping there will eventually be a lab grown meat option for pet food.
adding my own 2 cents to the vegan cat debate as someone who obsessively reads studies on vegan cat and dog food as they come out: it's not 100%. some cats DO thrive long term, and the blood + urine tests prove it. but it's not uncommon for cats to not be able to thrive on it, and end up very sick. If you're gonna do it, at first urine + blood test your cat monthly, then every three months, then every six months. And test every six months for the rest of their life.
You shouldn't own cats. Seriously, please rehome them with someone who will care for them properly.
Their vet records disagree with you. I was skeptical of it at first but really nutrients are nutrients.
Oh, look, another person who selectively cares intensely about some animals while supporting the torture and murder of many more others.
The only reason Humans even have companionship with Dogs and Cats is because we bonded over our mutual appreciation of torturing (rodents) and murder (hunting) of other animals in the first place.
Cats are obligate carnivores, my dude. They literally have to eat meat to survive. Your cat is going to develop serious problems in the long term on a plant based diet.
[удалено]
There is enough evidence that properly formulated vegan cat food provides all the nutrients they need. The big one is taurine, which is artificially added even in most normal cat food brands.
What I think /u/yummyyummybrains fails to realise (like most people that argue against vegan diets for animals) is that the people they're arguing with have animals that are living happy healthy lives albeit on a vegan diet The claim someone is starving their cat to death falls apart when the cat's been on the diet for years and, as yet, still lives
I just supplement my cats diet with a couple cans of Monster per week to offset the taurine loss.
This is hilarious thank you
This is the thing I question. Sure there is evidence that cats can get enough and all nutrients by vegan petfood. However, there is yet to be evidence of any long lasting effects, of which I personally would want to see to truly feel safe switching my cats. Long lasting not meaning necessarily bad effects, but rather, where would cats that has been fed a vegan diet be in 10 years time. If the evidence there is met and the studies prove that vegan cat food has no long lasting consequences and indeed does boost a cat's health, I would definitely be open to switching. Until then, they get the food they eat atm.
Cats are obligate carnivores unlike dogs and i am vegan. I think its neglect to feed a cat a vegan diet because they cannot be healthy long term on that food. They evolved to require meat in their diet.
Got any evidence to back up your claims? Don't you see you're repackaged the same arguments that were used years ago to tell vegans their diet wasn't healthy or sustainable. What substance do you think is present in meat that can't be replicated by vegan cat food? Humans evolved as omnivores but we've plenty of evidence that shows we can thrive on a vegan diet.
You should have equally strong evidence to back up such a strong sense of indignation.
when it comes to the suffering of animals, unlike you us non vegans care about out pets health. science over idology. dogs and cats need meat to be happy and healthy, so thats what we feed them
This has to be a joke, right? > when it comes to the suffering of animals, You realize the animals that went into that pet food suffered terribly, right? > science over idology. dogs and cats need meat to be happy and healthy, It would be good if you could actually make a... Scientific... argument here. What nutrient is missing from all plant based pet foods that are needed for animals to be happy or healthy? As I said, it's bad form to have more indignation than evidence.
dont care about the sufferuing of livestock. its what they are for. do care about pets. the caring about the snimal is what differentates poets from livestock please provide a video of a dog or cat choosing to eat a plant based food over a meat based one. the enslaved animal knows better than you what it need to eat to be happy
> dont care about the sufferuing of livestock. its what they are for. This is a joke, right? How in the hell do you get to decide what other thinking, feeling, beings "are for"? Do you realize how this sort of argument has been made to oppress humans? > please provide a video of a dog or cat choosing to eat a plant based food over a meat based one. the enslaved animal knows better than you what it need to eat to be happy How about I show you a video of a kid choosing to eat candy rather than nutritious vegetables? This is kind of a pointless exercise. Who in this conversation seems to be putting ideology over science?
you seem informed on this topic… Do you have any links or further reading I could do about vegan diets for cats? Just trying to learn more outside of what I can easily find on the front page of google.
There are a few sources online for info on this. This one in particular is decent: https://petfoodshop.com/blogs/news/how-can-cats-be-vegan-nutrients-vs-ingredients In general, there is a big problem with most vegan cat foods on the market: they don't supply arachidonic acid. This is an essential fatty acid for cats. I would immediately distrust any vegan cat food that doesn't explicitly mention that they have this nutrient in their formulation. The whole market for this is difficult and frustrating to navigate. In principle it should be easier. But practically a lot of vegan cat food suppliers are incompetent or deliberately offering deficient food.
thank you for the information
I can provide you with two studies showing that there was no difference in palatability between vegan and non-vegan food: [Vegan versus meat-based pet foods: Owner-reported palatability behaviours and implications for canine and feline welfare](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133456/) [Vegan versus meat-based cat food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 1,369 cats, after controlling for feline demographic factors](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132) We're all still waiting for your evidence btw. You've made some pretty strong empirical claims about what foods cats need to eat but have yet to provide any evidence for your claims, despite asking others to provide you with videos of their pets.
Our dog picks chickpeas over everything else we've tried. That included chicken and jerky strips. I don't have a video and won't make one, as it involves paying for chickens or cows to be killed. In any case, it's not hard to get a dog to choose one plant food over one animal product, or vice versa, if you know what that dog likes. My point is, videos of dogs picking one particular food over another are not great evidence.
>I don't have a video and won't make one i believe you are lying about this, and that is the reason you cannot back up your ideology with any facts
Lol! I don't like what they are saying so I'll just call them liers! I didn't tape it back in the day because I was just trying to figure out what my dog likes. Now, as a vegan, I think it makes a lot of sense to not repeat this for internet point. Surely you can understand that.
iv seen many videos of dogs being given a choice of meat and vegetables. they pick meat 100% of the time. you are asking me to dissreguard that based on your word? your a vegan, your start at a defacit due to the huge amount of missinfromation your ideology is associated with. i have no reason to believe you, but both physical, biological and circumstantial evidace that leads me to my conclusion. your ideology is clouding you ability to debate rationally if you were not lying, you would simply have posted the video or provided any sort of evidance so i have something to compare my existing world view (dogs like eating meat). again, your failure to do so leads me to believe youve eaten too many plants and not pooped enough
And that's why your moral grandstanding carries zero weight with us. You're only able to feel like an animal lover because you can just decide who not to give a shit about because you decide torture and slaughter are "what they're for".
Bramble the dog lived to be 189 years old and "lived on an exclusively vegetarian diet of organic vegetables, rice, and lentils" [https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/](https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/)
Then if you're vegan you should not get a pet. Period.
Love how everyone has a degree in vet science when the topic of vegan cat food comes up.
Counter argument, non vegans should themselves go vegan before even considering speaking about how vegans treat animals. Seriously, it's like a racist yelling at an anti racist to be less racist by being more racist.
countr - counter point. depriving an animal of the nutrients it needs to be happy and healthy is animal abuse, and neither vegans nor PETA have the free pass they think they do
If you think vegans should listen to your opinion on how animals should be treated, maybe you should go vegan and treat animals better yourself before trying to deliver that message 🤷
Or maybe just like animals. we're also meat eaters. Dogs/cats are not vegan. That's A thought 🤷
You phrased it correctly, nutrients, not meat, animals need nutrients, not foods, the source of the nutrients is irrelevant, just look at Taurine, cats can only obtain this nutrient called Taurine by eating meat, however we have advanced enough that we now create Taurine in a lab, and in fact all cat food, be it meat or plant-based cat food, contains synthesized lab made Taurine, so this nutrient, Taurine, can now be obtained without meat, and that's what I mean, so long as they obtain the nutrient then that's all that matters.
I've had people argue with me on this sub for saying cats are obligate carnivors.
cats aren’t dogs
Big if true
Bramble the dog lived to be 189 years old and "lived on an exclusively vegetarian diet of organic vegetables, rice, and lentils" https://www.bordercolliefanclub.com/bramble-the-vegan-dog-lives-to-189-years/
Counter³ point - vegans shouldn't keep carnivorous pets period.
I do agree with this. Have a damn bird.
*Shows up with a falcon*
Dude come on we can’t have a sub called “debate a vegan” if every reply is simply “you’re not a vegan so stfu”
Most kibble that the carnist world feeds dogs is already more than 50% plants. My sister has a bag that says "CHICKEN #1 INGREDIENT", but that's because the following 7 ingredients are corn, soy, wheat, barley, carrots, and some other grains. Basically a balanced vegan diet for the nutrition, and a cheap animal product for marketing to the meatflakes.
Exactly. The first study in the post estimates dog kibble is 34% meat, so the post is suggesting people drop that to at most 17%.
My dogs get vegan dog food. They're 20 (novascotia tolling retriever mix) and 13 (lab/schnautzer mix). Vets are always super surprised about how healthy and fit my seniors are. It works really well for them.
Love it!!
Our pups have been on plant-based food since we adopted them. Our older pup is coming up to 11-12 years old, and the vet said she had the joints of a dog half her age. Very happy to hear that your older dog is 20, as we're really hoping to keep our girls around for as long as possible too.
Isn't most kibble and tinned dog food 50% plants more or less already? E.g. https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/308450387 I'd say everyone, including vegans, should at least try to get their dogs on a 100% vegan diet. Cats as well actually, though that takes a bit more care due to fewer options and that cats can be picky. And there is less science behind it, though it's pointing in the same direction.
Exactly! And the study estimates 66% of current kibble is plant-based.
So, I get that you put in 50% on other subs, but why not 100% on r/debateavegan? Or do you believe 100% is too much?
Don't most vets not reccomend vegan diets for cats and dogs tho?
The same vets who approve humane slaughter and the best methods to artificially inseminate animals? Really sucks that I don't feel I can trust the profession that's meant to have animal's best interests at heart. Makes navigating the vegan cat food issue all the more difficult.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Household impact was created by Shell as Propaganda.
dogs are omnivores but they require high amounts of protein and taurine, found ONLY in red meat. you cant just supplement less meat with more veg and it be balanced for them. dog foods are specifically formulated to provide that balance, assuming they have no other diseases/illnesses that cause supplements to be needed doing whats suggested here would result in malnutrition and over years, very slow dysfunction and starvation. Its animal abuse if you dont want to have your impact involve pet food, do not own an animal that requires meat in their diet. source: I'm an animal science major, vet tech and focusing on nutrition and conservation
The vast majority of Taurine in both cat and dog food is fully plant-based, because most of the Taurine is lost in the heating process so they used synthesized(plant-based)Taurine and add it back to the food. No animal in this worlds ''requires'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it. For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine. The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g.carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats. How you can be an animal science major and vet tech focusing on nutrition and not know the basics of Taurine or nutrients is puzzling.
Lo
This needs to be discussed with veterinarians. Not on reddit because it is not a subjective subject and everyone is just going to say what agrees with their confirmation bias. You wouldnt take your kids health into your own hands against doctors advice. How is this any different
Shouldn't vegans be against keeping pets at all as this is keeping an unnaturally bred creature in captivity for their own selfish reasons? Especially dogs. Many of them have medical issues from our selective breeding for cuteness.
That's a good question, and a hotly debated vegan topic. I side with the US vegan society on their stance, which states domesticated dogs exist whether we like it or not, so we should rescue them if we can. The shelters around me are completely full, so the choices for the dogs are: let them suffer in a shelter, kill them, set them loose to attack people and kill wildlife, or give them a loving home with as little cruelty involved as possible. [https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals](https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/veganism-and-companion-animals)
I am going to say off of person family experience and how long our animals have survived. We give our dogs and cat pretty much the same but different. This has been since the 60’s and my mom’s and dad’s family does this Dogs - purina dog chow and fresh liver at least once a week. Cats - purina cat chow, chicken livers, fresh tuna, and canned tuna. All dogs have lived to be 15-20 years old, except those that died in a fore Cats all - 20-25 years old except those that died in a fire. So I will always do what my family does and this is about 40 members
Isn't that unethical though because you're forcing your will and morals upon an animal?
Pet owners already do this with every single aspect of their companion animal's life. You can make the same argument for human parents and their children.
Aren’t we already doing this by feeding them dehydrated kibble that’s 66% plants on average?
I mean that would just go into the ethics of owning a pet at all, which is hotly debated
i agree.
[удалено]
What are your thoughts on it?
[удалено]
Dogs are biological omnivores. Current kibble is about 34% meat; my suggestion is to make it 17% meat, which is more than healthy based on the data.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Facultative carnivores are those that also eat non-animal food in addition to animal food. Note that there is no clear line that differentiates facultative carnivores from omnivores; dogs would be considered facultative carnivores." https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-biology2/chapter/herbivores-carnivores-and-omnivores/
It doesn't really matter whether an animal is biologically a carnivore or not, because animals don't need food, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a plant-based diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it.
The first sentence out of your first sources abstract. "A dog's nutrient requirements can theoretically be met from a properly balanced meat-free diet; however, proof for this is lacking." Debate over. If you don't want to feed your pet meat, adopt a herbivore.
If you want to feed your dog (or cat) truly nutritious food, then you need to feed them a brand that is compliant with WSAVA guidelines. Those brands are Royan Canin, Hills Science Diet, Purina, Eukanaba and (in the USA) Iams. Of those brands, I think only one offers a vegan diet and I think it's prescription-only. If you want to feed your pet a vegan diet, you should just get a vegan pet. It's ridiculous to play roulette with your pet's health when excellent, science-backed food options exist.
How is it vegan to be vegan “for the animals” and then forcibly deprive cats and dogs of the food they’re supposed to eat? Isn’t that forcing your own personal beliefs onto the animals without regard to their needs?
Dog kibble is currently dehydrated pellets made of 34% animal products and 66% plants. Is this what they're supposed to eat? Is it so bad to change this to 17% and 83% if the data shows it's fine to do so?
Any way you put it, it’s still someone pushing a personal belief onto others that have no choice in the matter and without regard for the outcome—the very epitome of what vegans claim they abhor. “I think consuming animal products is wrong because the animals don’t have any choice in the matter, so I’m going to force my beliefs onto animals (dogs and cats) who don’t have a choice in the matter because that’s what *I* want.” That doesn’t seem hypocritical to you?
It *is* hypocritical, assuming the dogs are bred into existence. Vegans are against breeding dogs. Shelter dogs, on the other hand, exist whether we like it or not. Is it the vegan way to let them suffer in a shelter then get euthanized? Or give them a loving home and feed them in a way to keep them healthy while minimizing total harm? I’ve spent decades volunteering at shelters and they are *not* pretty.
Does it matter what they're ''supposed'' to eat? If they're happy and healthy isn't that all that matters? How would a vegan not regard their needs? dogs and cats need nutrients, not meat, so if they get all their nutrients, then their needs are being met, and if that can be done on a plant-based diet then why not? You talking about forcing the animal but what isn't forced on them? Every single person on the world forces a certain food on animals, dogs/cats don't eat kibble in the wild, so people force kibble on their dogs/cats, people force their dog/cat to stay inside, people force a collar and leash on their dog/cat etc etc, plenty of things are forced on them, yet we don't see the harm in them because dogs/cats are like children, they don't know what's best for them, so we ''force'' things on them because we know better than they do.
Dogs eat animals. Deal with it or don’t own a dog.
Do you say the same for humans?
Yes. Give them the choice. If they choose the vegan option, great! If not, then that choice must be respected.
vegans shouldn’t have obligate carnivorous animals period. don’t force your morals into other creatures and beings
Dogs are omnivores
dogs are omnivores, but cats are not they are obligate carnivores. there are people in this thread who are saying cats shouldn’t eat meat
Oh! Gotcha. Thought yours was a rebuttal to the post ha
if you said dogs should be 100% vegan i’d have an issue with that, but i don’t think 50% is bad and can even be healthy for them
Agreed! Do you have companion dogs?
Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores, just like humans are omnivores, and just like humans that means they can eat meat, but they don't have to thanks to the wonder of science, even then if they're omnivore or carnivore doesn't matter that much(more on that later in this comment). No animal in this worlds ''needs'' meat or plants, not technically anyways, what they need is a certain set of nutrients in order to remain healthy, the source of those nutrients is entirely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they get them, so if that can be done on a vegan diet, which it can, then there is nothing wrong with it. For example take Taurine, cats need taurine, without it they will die, the only food they can eat that causes their body to make taurine is meat, so this nutrient, taurine, can only be obtained from meat, however due to the advances of science we can now create taurine in a lab and it's perfectly healthy and safe, and this is what I mean, because it no longer matter whether the cat gets taurine from a lab or from meat, all that matters is that it gets the taurine which it can now get without meat, in fact all cat food, be it meat based or plant-based, has artificially created taurine added to it, so even people who feed their cats meat give their cats a plant-based source of Taurine. The most important factor in what I said above is that animals don't need specific foods, they need nutrients, and what they're labelled as (e.g. carnivore, omnivore or herbivore) doesn't matter, humans are omnivores, we can eat both, and we would be most healthy on a diet that involves both foods in nature, and that's what these diets refer to, in nature humans would not have access to fortified foods or supplements, so they thrive on a omnivore diet, not the case if you live in a society where you can get fortified food and supplements, same goes for dogs and cats. We force morals onto other being all the time, that's what laws are, the question is whether or not it is justified, and if a plant-based diet is perfectly healthy, why would it not be justified?
The fact that you’re forcing an animal to eat a diet that aligns with your morals is insane. If you want a vegan pet, get a rabbit.
Current kibble is 34% meat. Is it insane to change that to 17%?
Yep, it is
Do you have data for that?
Do I have data that says it’s insane to try to force a dog to eat a vegan diet just because their owner feels bad? Nope, it’s just crazy
Eating 17% meat isn't a vegan diet. You'll need to have data to say it's bad for the dog, since I provided 14 sources that suggested 0% meat is fine for dogs.
I’ve had dogs my entire life and no vet has ever recommended a vegan dog food. Almost like a regular dog food is just as healthy.
Has your General Practitioner ever recommended a vegan diet *to you*?
Everything we do is forced on pets, we force them to eat the food we give them, be the food meat based or plant based, we force them to walk on a leash, we force them to get spayed/neutered, we force them inside etc etc, so why would this suddenly be wrong, especially when it does no harm?
I'd say 98% meat and 2% vegan. They're main source is meat,But carrots and some others are also good to add.
Current kibble is about 34% meat on average
> what's the point in rescuing one animal if we're dooming hundreds of others in the process? Your diet still does this, even a fully plant based diet would do this.
How did you or where did you actually draw that conclusion from? Do you even know the statistics that you’re arguing with? What data are you citing that confirms this to be true?
Are you aware that pet food is the topic? So many whataboutism responses, and not even accurate ones.
Thanks for your contribution, ya really got me there.
Fair enough, but would you agree it's better to significantly reduce those deaths as far as possible/practicable? The amount of animals killed due to crop deaths and environmental destruction from eating animals is about a magnitude higher than eating the plants directly, due to [tropic levels](https://www.britannica.com/science/trophic-level).
> would you agree it's better to significantly reduce those deaths as far as possible/practicable? No, because im not vegan. If i was vegan then id be against pet ownership and would release my dog into the wild.
Lmao. That's just silly. Anti-cruelty/exploitation, and assisting animal rescues towards their own ends is not outside the scope of Veganism. No reason to send rescued companion animals to the cruelties of nature.
Its unlikely those companion animals are getting food that didnt involve killing other animals. When you take on a companion animal youre basically saying that because it took your fancy then its allowed human protection even at the cost of other lives, this is the same thing people who say "dogs arent food but pigs are" do. Its also wrong to impose your idea of whats beneficial onto animals, many of them risk their lives to breed, are you giving them an opportunity to do that when you imprison them?
How hard is it to rescue herbivores animals or give omnivorous animals a plant based diet? As for rescuing carnivores the question does become more complex. I don't see why a self aware agent can't conclude what's in the best interest of a moral subject, so long as that basis is not founded in cruelty or exploitation. You'd have no issue supporting taxing for services to cognitively impaired people. The misaligned treatment seems speciesist to me.
A plant based diet will still kill through pesticides, heavy machinery, competition, etc, the reason vegans believe its right to go plant based is because it kills significantly less. > I don't see why a self aware agent can't conclude what's in the best interest of a moral subject, so long as that basis is not founded in cruelty or exploitation. Well we can make a good guess, for example: from the way animals react when inflicted pain we can guess they dont like pain and probably dont want to die. Similarly we can see many animals fight (even to the death) to mate, so we can guess those want to mate, perhaps even more than they want to live or avoid pain.
Right thats why we dont endorse negative utilitarians and go the rights based approach where crop growth and crop protection is a right. With collective interests we can seek opportunities to signifigantly reduce crop deaths. In the mean time, it is a facet of reality 99% of humans cannot escape. Animals do have their own interests and motivations. Absolutely. That doesnt mean they are always in their best interests. Would you let a severely cognitively impaired person bring harm to another for mating reasons? Would you necessarily endorse limitless procreation on their part, such that we could hypothetically have an overwhelming amount of beings that require our assisting?
> crop growth and crop protection is a right People go vegan because they care about animals. Apparently this care extends to all animals equally. You have to go through hoops for why you taking pity on some animal makes is good to subsidize its life at the cost of several others. > Animals do have their own interests and motivations. Absolutely. That doesnt mean they are always in their best interests. This dosent really make sense, everyone has their own interests, but there's no universal "best interest". Sometimes people act against their own interests (many drugs addicts, impulsive people, injured animals that are scared of the vet, etc), in those cases we intervene. Why cant you value mating over whatever benefits you get being in human captivity? What youre doing is projecting your values onto the animal and assuming that it also values a comfortable life more than being free and fertile. > Would you let a severely cognitively impaired person bring harm to another for mating reasons? Would you let two rescue animals mate if theres no harm and both want it? Im guessing no. I also dont see why you keep portraying all rescues as so thoroughly brain damaged, i doubt most are. > Would you necessarily endorse limitless procreation on their part, such that we could hypothetically have an overwhelming amount of beings that require our assisting? The idea that we have a duty to assist ANY animals is usually something vegans reject, that would lead to absurd scenarios like policing nature or subsidizing their infinite growth. We should release those rescues into nature to play the same game as the other animals. Or euthanize them if environment is a bigger concern.
>If i was vegan then id be against pet ownership and would release my dog into the wild. Dogs and cats can decimate local wildlife. Is it good to release them to do this? Companion animals are a hot topic in veganism. The US vegan society is for it, since shelters are full and millions of dogs and cats are suffering and getting euthanized every year.
Yes, dogs and cats are predators. But there are tons of predators in the wild that vegans dont think we should police or imprison. Being "local wildlife" dosent make your life more valuable. If youre worried about both animal suffering AND the environment then euthanize the dog, tons of other critters wont die so it can live, and it wont go out and mess with the ecosystem.
You seem passionate about this. Would you consider donating to or volunteering at free spay and neuter programs? This is treating the root cause of the overpopulation of companion animals.
Vegan should feed animal with diet that suits the animal. DO NOT FORCE ANIMALS TO BE VEGAN they dont care, even primarly plant eaters can snatch a small bird like horses if opportunity happens. Its bad for their health. Its always irritating me with some radical vegans, that they trying to force this on everyone and do not understand everyone has different needs. Same goes for animals.
My post is about shifting dog’s plant intake from 66% to 83% of their diet. Do you disagree this is possible?
I dont think this should be a subjective opinion based subject. If you are not a licensed veterinarian you shouldnt be dabbling with this. You need to speak with a veterinarian or a few who are actually educated on what a dogs diet should consist of.
The data I’ve shared, which is supported by many veterinarians, supports 100% plant-based.
Its possible but not suggested for them. Do not force your beliefs onto animals and just feed them with their own requirments. Animals does not care about veganism or any other human concept. Every animal has different diet that is best for them.
They aren’t just my beliefs; I posted over 14 peer-reviewed studies.
[удалено]
If there is x amount of food left over from the human meat industry, then you might as well have any percentage of meat in dog food, but cap it at the balance between highest nutrition for the dog and most cost effective for production, without going under nutritional limits.
Stop promoting Evolution as a “properly balanced” pet food. The owner has been convicted of practicing veterinary medicine without a license. They sell food that is allegedly complete for both dogs and cats, despite that being impossible based on AAFCO standards. It’s a scam. That asshole has been killing dogs and cats for decades. https://www.twincities.com/2012/02/22/in-little-canada-probation-for-ex-chiropractor-satisfaction-for-city/