Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 U raise a good point Nandita, But what to do about all the animals that humans have incarcerated in zoos...no one would think of feeding a lion a diet of vegetable curry. We can look at pets in the same way yes? They have entrusted themselves to us - voluntary or not - and we have the responsibility to provide the most natural environment possible during their captivity. I'd love to let Krypto just run around with his pack-pals and pull down deer (or most likely a sick street cow) for food, but I think the landlord would complain about the mess. So when we talk about 'nature' u have to consider the nature that we have created for ourselves. Is it heaven or is it hell? l'll let the philosophers decide, but it¹s the world we live in and the one we (humans) have created, to include taming beasts into carriers of our own burdens, inclusive of the dog and the cat. I suppose that if humans had group-thinked themselves into being herbivores from the very beginning, things would be very different today; perhaps we would not even have animals in captivity for entertainment or as workers for the commonwealth, dunno, can only imagine... Jigs in Nepal On 12/28/08 9:37 AM, " Nandita Shah " <shahnandi wrote: > > > > The question remains, is a dog¹s life more worthy than a chicken¹s or a > cow¹s? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? I have no > problems with carnivores that kill their own prey, but are WE right in > saving dogs by killing other animals? In nature, when a lion kills a zebra, > its actually supporting the survival of the species because it eliminates > the weakest. But humans weaken and sicken animals that are raised for food. > These are all issues that need to be considered. > Nandita > SHARAN > > I agree with Merritt Clifton completely. Dogs are confirmed carnivores and > it is cruelty to feed them a vegetarian diet. My dog feeds on non vegetarian > food daily. I don't think humans should impose their moral values on > creatures who do not share them. Could anyone in their right senses, think > about vegetarian tigers and wolves? I do know there are vegetarian and vegan > dog and cat feed available in the market but I am not convinced of their > utility and efficiency. It might interest you to read this small extract > from a book written by Desmond Morris. I am in complete agreement with him : > *Recent attempts by well meaning vegetarians to convert their cats to a > meat free diet are both misguided and cruel. Cats rapidly become seriously > ill on a vegetarian diet and cannot survive it for long. The recent > publication of vegetarian diets recommended as suitable for cats is a clear > case of animal abuse and should be dealt with as such. * > ** > *CATWATCHING BY DESMOND MORRIS, Ebury Press, Page 58* > *Desmond Morris is a zoologist and has a D.Phil. from Oxford University. He > was already the author of some fifty scientific papers and seven books > before completing The Naked Ape in 1967, which has sold over 10 million > copies worldwide. He is now one of the best-known natural history > presenters. * > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 First, lions are different from dogs. None of us who are interested in animal welfare or AR would ever put a lion in a zoo. I am not trying to preach to the uneducated unethical masses. But we do care about animals, and my question is do we see a dog different from a chicken or a lion or an eagle? Besides which I have seen dogs do extremely well on vegan diets. I would not say the same for cats who need Taurine and who can survive on specially made vegan cat food but not on what is cooked at home. Nandita On 28/12/08 10:51, " Herojig " <herojig wrote: > U raise a good point Nandita, But what to do about all the animals that humans > have incarcerated in zoos...no one would think of feeding a lion a diet of > vegetable curry. We can look at pets in the same way yes? They have > entrusted themselves to us - voluntary or not - and we have the > responsibility to provide the most natural environment possible during their > captivity. I¹d love to let Krypto just run around with his pack-pals and pull > down deer (or most likely a sick street cow) for food, but I think the > landlord would complain about the mess. So when we talk about ³nature² u have > to consider the nature that we have created for ourselves. Is it heaven or is > it hell? l¹ll let the philosophers decide, but it¹s the world we live in and > the one we (humans) have created, to include taming beasts into carriers of > our own burdens, inclusive of the the dog and the cat. I suppose that if > humans had group-thinked themselves into being herbivores from the very > beginning, things would be very different today; perhaps we would not even > have animals in captivity for entertainment or as workers for the > commonwealth, dunno, can only imagine... > Jigs in Nepal > > > > On 12/28/08 9:37 AM, " Nandita Shah " <shahnandi wrote: > >> >> >> >> The question remains, is a dog¹s life more worthy than a chicken¹s or a >> cow¹s? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? I have no >> problems with carnivores that kill their own prey, but are WE right in >> saving dogs by killing other animals? In nature, when a lion kills a zebra, >> its actually supporting the survival of the species because it eliminates >> the weakest. But humans weaken and sicken animals that are raised for food. >> These are all issues that need to be considered. >> Nandita >> SHARAN >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 Ur right about the question; not only is it irrelevant, but it¹s too narrow in scope. I think what the writer really means is ³ ...is any life more worthy than another. Do we have the right to kill one to save another?² Answer that one in the right direction, and all of this could be solved after all, it¹s not rocket / pet food science. Jigs in Nepal > > On 12/28/08 3:21 PM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >The question remains, is a dog's life more worthy than a chicken's or a >>> >cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? >> >> This question is irrelevant, since neither chickens nor cows >> are raised and killed to make either commercial dog food, or the >> refuse in dumps and gutters that have fed street dogs since the dawn >> of civilization. >> >> The difference between commercial dog food and the refuse in >> dumps and gutters is that about 120 years ago some butchers in >> England learned to make a lucrative side business from processing >> their meat scraps into dog food that could be sold, not just be >> discarded. >> >> About 100 years ago, large commercial slaughterhouses got >> into the business. Mixing meat scraps with grain gluten turned out >> to be the key to making dog food that could be stored, transported, >> and sold in grocery stores. Canned dog food began to reach the U.S. >> market in the 1920s, and bagged kibble was first produced for kennel >> use in the 1930s, but was not introduced to grocery stores until >> 1959. >> >> Eventually, producing pet food came to be one of the largest >> branches of the rendering industry, which processes the remains from >> dead animals that are considered unfit for human consumption -- but >> even so, the pet food industry still only consumes a small >> percentage of the total waste from the slaughter industry. >> Fertilizer production consumes far more. The pet food industry could >> grow in size many times over before it would exhaust the supply of >> scraps from slaughter for human consumption. >> >> Some animals are killed specifically to become pet food, >> including non-ambulatory cattle and " spent " laying hens, but these >> animals would be killed anyhow, and were not raised to be >> slaughtered for this purpose. >> >> Most non-ambulatory cattle are former milk cows whose >> hindquarters broke down under the stress of bearing calves repeatedly >> and supporting udders of artificially increased size and weight. >> This is not something that the farmers want to happen, since the >> price paid for a non-ambulatory cow carcass sold for pet food is just >> a fraction of the price of an ambulatory cow sold for beef. Dairy >> farmers try to cull and sell their cows for slaughter before they >> break down and become non-ambulatory -- but if they keep a cow too >> long, only the pet food industry will take her. >> >> " Spent " laying hens are simply part of the refuse of >> commercial egg production. Most are macerated into fertilizer. Pet >> food is an alternate destination of some of them. > > -- Paul Reitman, CEO > Phoenix Studios Nepal > Mobile: 9841589797 > > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate > > -- Paul Reitman, CEO Phoenix Studios Nepal Mobile: 9841589797 www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 I think all animals deserve the right to live a natural life, be that as predator or prey. Without one or the other, how could any life exist? Without predators to keep numbers in check, or prey to feed those higher in the food chain. I was forced long ago to accept that nature is cruel. But I wouldn't change it for the world. 2008/12/28 Herojig <herojig > Ur right about the question; not only is it irrelevant, but it¹s too > narrow > in scope. I think what the writer really means is ³ ...is any life more > worthy than another. Do we have the right to kill one to save another?² > Answer that one in the right direction, and all of this could be solved > after all, it¹s not rocket / pet food science. > > Jigs in Nepal > > > > On 12/28/08 3:21 PM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl<anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> >The question remains, is a dog's life more worthy than a chicken's or > a > >>> >cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? > >> > >> This question is irrelevant, since neither chickens nor cows > >> are raised and killed to make either commercial dog food, or the > >> refuse in dumps and gutters that have fed street dogs since the dawn > >> of civilization. > >> > >> The difference between commercial dog food and the refuse in > >> dumps and gutters is that about 120 years ago some butchers in > >> England learned to make a lucrative side business from processing > >> their meat scraps into dog food that could be sold, not just be > >> discarded. > >> > >> About 100 years ago, large commercial slaughterhouses got > >> into the business. Mixing meat scraps with grain gluten turned out > >> to be the key to making dog food that could be stored, transported, > >> and sold in grocery stores. Canned dog food began to reach the U.S. > >> market in the 1920s, and bagged kibble was first produced for kennel > >> use in the 1930s, but was not introduced to grocery stores until > >> 1959. > >> > >> Eventually, producing pet food came to be one of the largest > >> branches of the rendering industry, which processes the remains from > >> dead animals that are considered unfit for human consumption -- but > >> even so, the pet food industry still only consumes a small > >> percentage of the total waste from the slaughter industry. > >> Fertilizer production consumes far more. The pet food industry could > >> grow in size many times over before it would exhaust the supply of > >> scraps from slaughter for human consumption. > >> > >> Some animals are killed specifically to become pet food, > >> including non-ambulatory cattle and " spent " laying hens, but these > >> animals would be killed anyhow, and were not raised to be > >> slaughtered for this purpose. > >> > >> Most non-ambulatory cattle are former milk cows whose > >> hindquarters broke down under the stress of bearing calves repeatedly > >> and supporting udders of artificially increased size and weight. > >> This is not something that the farmers want to happen, since the > >> price paid for a non-ambulatory cow carcass sold for pet food is just > >> a fraction of the price of an ambulatory cow sold for beef. Dairy > >> farmers try to cull and sell their cows for slaughter before they > >> break down and become non-ambulatory -- but if they keep a cow too > >> long, only the pet food industry will take her. > >> > >> " Spent " laying hens are simply part of the refuse of > >> commercial egg production. Most are macerated into fertilizer. Pet > >> food is an alternate destination of some of them. > > > > -- Paul Reitman, CEO > > Phoenix Studios Nepal > > Mobile: 9841589797 > > > > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate > > > > > > -- Paul Reitman, CEO > Phoenix Studios Nepal > Mobile: 9841589797 > > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 I absolutely agree with Mr. McCormack. I think that many of the persons involved in this debate are forgetting one basic point, even though they have made mention of it to support their point of view. It is this: The pet food industry is a by-product of the slaughter house where billions of suffering animals which have been reared in terrible conditions are transported in an even worse manner and killed in the most horrendous way, even if we want to delude ourselves that these conditions are " humane " . Make no mistake - the leather and pet food industries subsidise the meat industry. Keep your dog vegetarian and healthy. S. Chinny Krishna > I think all animals deserve the right to live a natural life, be that as > predator or prey. Without one or the other, how could any life exist? > Without predators to keep numbers in check, or prey to feed those higher > in the food chain. > > I was forced long ago to accept that nature is cruel. But I wouldn't > change it for the world. > > 2008/12/28 Herojig <herojig > >> Ur right about the question; not only is it irrelevant, but it¹s too >> narrow >> in scope. I think what the writer really means is ³ ...is any life more >> worthy than another. Do we have the right to kill one to save another?² >> Answer that one in the right direction, and all of this could be solved >> >> after all, it¹s not rocket / pet food science. >> >> Jigs in Nepal >> > >> > On 12/28/08 3:21 PM, " Merritt Clifton " >> <anmlpepl<anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >The question remains, is a dog's life more worthy than a chicken's >> or >> a >> >>> >cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? >> >> >> >> This question is irrelevant, since neither chickens nor cows >> >> are raised and killed to make either commercial dog food, or the >> >> refuse in dumps and gutters that have fed street dogs since the dawn >> >> of civilization. >> >> >> >> The difference between commercial dog food and the refuse in >> >> dumps and gutters is that about 120 years ago some butchers in >> >> England learned to make a lucrative side business from processing >> >> their meat scraps into dog food that could be sold, not just be >> >> discarded. >> >> >> >> About 100 years ago, large commercial slaughterhouses got >> >> into the business. Mixing meat scraps with grain gluten turned out >> >> to be the key to making dog food that could be stored, transported, >> >> and sold in grocery stores. Canned dog food began to reach the U.S. >> >> market in the 1920s, and bagged kibble was first produced for kennel >> >> use in the 1930s, but was not introduced to grocery stores until >> >> 1959. >> >> >> >> Eventually, producing pet food came to be one of the largest >> >> branches of the rendering industry, which processes the remains from >> >> dead animals that are considered unfit for human consumption -- but >> >> even so, the pet food industry still only consumes a small >> >> percentage of the total waste from the slaughter industry. >> >> Fertilizer production consumes far more. The pet food industry could >> >> grow in size many times over before it would exhaust the supply of >> >> scraps from slaughter for human consumption. >> >> >> >> Some animals are killed specifically to become pet food, >> >> including non-ambulatory cattle and " spent " laying hens, but these >> >> animals would be killed anyhow, and were not raised to be >> >> slaughtered for this purpose. >> >> >> >> Most non-ambulatory cattle are former milk cows whose >> >> hindquarters broke down under the stress of bearing calves repeatedly >> >> and supporting udders of artificially increased size and weight. >> >> This is not something that the farmers want to happen, since the >> >> price paid for a non-ambulatory cow carcass sold for pet food is just >> >> a fraction of the price of an ambulatory cow sold for beef. Dairy >> >> farmers try to cull and sell their cows for slaughter before they >> >> break down and become non-ambulatory -- but if they keep a cow too >> >> long, only the pet food industry will take her. >> >> >> >> " Spent " laying hens are simply part of the refuse of >> >> commercial egg production. Most are macerated into fertilizer. Pet >> >> food is an alternate destination of some of them. >> > >> > -- Paul Reitman, CEO >> > Phoenix Studios Nepal >> > Mobile: 9841589797 >> > >> > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate >> > >> > >> >> -- Paul Reitman, CEO >> Phoenix Studios Nepal >> Mobile: 9841589797 >> >> www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 It is not about if there are cows or chickens are especially raised for dog food. Each element in this industry is providing this industry to get money to continue their practices. So every canned meat for dogs or cats is killing animals. I think every animal friend should give animals vegan food if possible. We can not force the animals ofcourse, but if they like it why not? The same for cat food. If it is possible why not. People who provide arguments against this always say it is unnatural. But is it the canned dog/cat food so natural? No. Like these animals will kill those animals... some people give their cats fish and those fish are caught in the seas. It is also unnatural, because those cats will not go to the sea by themselves to get that fish from the deep seas. And look at this: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/7753/pets-consuming-limited-fish-stocks A lot of fish for the cat food industry. So if we can reduce this industry a little bit by giving 'our pets' vegetarian/vegan dog/cat food and if it will provide the animals all their /nutrients/.. why not. And if they don't like it. Some people mix vegetarian/vegan food with the normal pet food. So that is maybe a solution for some. I am also not against giving tigers/lions (in zoos) vegetarian/vegan food, as long as it is giving those animals all their nutrients and they will not be forced to eat it. Ofcourse I am against zoos. Merritt Clifton schreef: > > >The question remains, is a dog's life more worthy than a chicken's or a > >cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? > > This question is irrelevant, since neither chickens nor cows > are raised and killed to make either commercial dog food, or the > refuse in dumps and gutters that have fed street dogs since the dawn > of civilization. > > The difference between commercial dog food and the refuse in > dumps and gutters is that about 120 years ago some butchers in > England learned to make a lucrative side business from processing > their meat scraps into dog food that could be sold, not just be > discarded. > > About 100 years ago, large commercial slaughterhouses got > into the business. Mixing meat scraps with grain gluten turned out > to be the key to making dog food that could be stored, transported, > and sold in grocery stores. Canned dog food began to reach the U.S. > market in the 1920s, and bagged kibble was first produced for kennel > use in the 1930s, but was not introduced to grocery stores until > 1959. > > Eventually, producing pet food came to be one of the largest > branches of the rendering industry, which processes the remains from > dead animals that are considered unfit for human consumption -- but > even so, the pet food industry still only consumes a small > percentage of the total waste from the slaughter industry. > Fertilizer production consumes far more. The pet food industry could > grow in size many times over before it would exhaust the supply of > scraps from slaughter for human consumption. > > Some animals are killed specifically to become pet food, > including non-ambulatory cattle and " spent " laying hens, but these > animals would be killed anyhow, and were not raised to be > slaughtered for this purpose. > > Most non-ambulatory cattle are former milk cows whose > hindquarters broke down under the stress of bearing calves repeatedly > and supporting udders of artificially increased size and weight. > This is not something that the farmers want to happen, since the > price paid for a non-ambulatory cow carcass sold for pet food is just > a fraction of the price of an ambulatory cow sold for beef. Dairy > farmers try to cull and sell their cows for slaughter before they > break down and become non-ambulatory -- but if they keep a cow too > long, only the pet food industry will take her. > > " Spent " laying hens are simply part of the refuse of > commercial egg production. Most are macerated into fertilizer. Pet > food is an alternate destination of some of them. > > -- > Merritt Clifton > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > P.O. Box 960 > Clinton, WA 98236 > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > Fax: 360-579-2575 > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > for free sample, send address.] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2008 Report Share Posted December 28, 2008 >Make no mistake - the leather and pet food industries subsidise the >meat industry. This is often said, but economically incorrect. The leather and pet food industries make use of byproducts, but the meat industry thrived for millennia before the pet food industry existed at all, and has thrived in places where leather is rarely used (or is rarely produced, in places were most of the meat comes from poultry.) If you were to completely eliminate the pet food and leather industries tomorrow, there would be very little impact on the main portion of the meat industry. The fertilizer industry would quickly absorb the portions of meat waste that go into pet food. There has never been a major industry competing with the leather industry for the use of hides, so what would become of them is less clear; but the sale of raw, unprocessed leather is not a big part of meat industry revenues in most of the world. This may be somewhat different in India, where lower meat consumption results in a significantly smaller supply of hides relative to humans than is seen almost everywhere else, & hides therefore have proportionately higher value. In the U.S. the most recent Bureau of the Census data shows that the current value of slaughtered carcasses of animals other than poultry (i.e., animals who produce leather) is about $57 billion per year, before processing into the meat products sold in grocery stores. The total value of all of the byproducts from carcasses is about $2.2 billion per year, before processing into leather, pet food, fertilizer, and everything else that is done with byproducts. In short, the sum value of all byproducts to the U.S. red meat industry is just under 4% of the whole. Routine seasonal fluctuations in consumption matter more to net profits. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 >>Make no mistake - the leather and pet food industries subsidise the >>meat industry. > > > This is often said, but economically incorrect. - Merritt Clifton > > In short, the sum value of all byproducts to the U.S. red > meat industry is just under 4% of the whole. Routine seasonal > fluctuations in consumption matter more to net profits. > Demand may be relatively inelastic for the meat industry, meaning that an increase in price may not bring about a proportional drop in demand. However, even in the USA, 4% is 4% and every little bit counts. Why subsidise even to this degree? And in countries like India and Bangladesh and many other Asian countries, we subsidise it to a very much larger extent. S. Chinny Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 ..>Could anyone in their right senses, think >about vegetarian tigers and wolves " ...... ..I think that's a great idea, : -) ... and 100 miles to a gallon cars will be nice too. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 >Demand may be relatively inelastic for the meat industry, meaning >that an increase in price may not bring about a proportional drop in >demand. However, even in the USA, 4% is 4% and every little bit >counts. Why subsidise even to this degree? 4% of gross revenue from leather-bearing carcasses is the sum of all byproducts. If you separate out the value of just the portion going to the pet food industry, it will be more like 1.6%. The pet food industry is consuming material for which there are other buyers -- as with bone, which may go to the fertilizer industry or the chemical industry to be burned to make carbon black, or be dissolved to produce calcium products. The pet food industry pays a little bit more for rendered byproducts than the fertilizer industry, but it is also much more finicky about what it accepts. The net gain for the slaughter industry in selling to the pet food industry ends up being about .5% -- at most -- over selling the same material for fertilizer or grease-making, or any of the other uses of rendered tankage. This is not a factor of significance in keeping the slaughter industry going, any more than your feeding your dogs vegetable products that could be consumed by humans is a factor of significance in causing human hunger, or in raising the price of grain and fodder for livestock. We could all do the same thing and it still wouldn't matter. In the end, feeding your dogs a vegetarian or vegan diet is for your own comfort and satisfaction. Even if every animal advocate did as you do, it would not make any practical difference to the numbers of animals who are slaughtered, or to how the animals are treated before slaughter. Among all the issues that do make a real difference to animals, this one just doesn't rate. The slaughter industry could decline by half and it wouldn't matter. If it declined by two-thirds, the diet of dogs might begin to be of economic significance to the industry as a whole, but the present trend is far in the opposite direction. What we need to be doing is convincing people to eat less meat. Once that is accomplished, dogs probably will need no convincing to eat whatever else they are given, can sniff out, or can catch -- and will probably continue to eat all sorts of things that their people would prefer that they didn't. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 Alex, I don¹t think anyone here is advocating for canned, processed, or dry dog & cat food. I think part of the debate is whether or not to feed dogs a diet that resembles rotting rat-infested bovine carcass intestines, and other things that dogs love. I don¹t know anything about cats, but I know dogs, and they love this diet, or any other food that resembles the inside AND outside of a herbivores stomach. Here is just one grisly example (warning, some of the photos may disturb): http://www.vandenheuvelk9.com/dietplan.html Jigs in Nepal On 12/28/08 10:08 PM, " Alex Romijn " <alex wrote: > > > > It is not about if there are cows or chickens are especially raised for > dog food. > Each element in this industry is providing this industry to get money to > continue their practices. > > So every canned meat for dogs or cats is killing animals. > > I think every animal friend should give animals vegan food if possible. > We can not force the animals ofcourse, but if they like it why not? > > The same for cat food. If it is possible why not. People who provide > arguments against this always say it is unnatural. But is it the canned > dog/cat food so natural? No. Like these animals will kill those > animals... some people give their cats fish and those fish are caught in > the seas. It is also unnatural, because those cats will not go to the > sea by themselves to get that fish from the deep seas. > > And look at this: > http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/7753/pets-consuming-limited-fish-stocks > > A lot of fish for the cat food industry. > > So if we can reduce this industry a little bit by giving 'our pets' > vegetarian/vegan dog/cat food and if it will provide the animals all > their /nutrients/.. why not. And if they don't like it. Some people mix > vegetarian/vegan food with the normal pet food. So that is maybe a > solution for some. > > I am also not against giving tigers/lions (in zoos) vegetarian/vegan > food, as long as it is giving those animals all their nutrients and they > will not be forced to eat it. Ofcourse I am against zoos. > > Merritt Clifton schreef: >> > >>> > >The question remains, is a dog's life more worthy than a chicken's or a >>> > >cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? >> > >> > This question is irrelevant, since neither chickens nor cows >> > are raised and killed to make either commercial dog food, or the >> > refuse in dumps and gutters that have fed street dogs since the dawn >> > of civilization. >> > >> > The difference between commercial dog food and the refuse in >> > dumps and gutters is that about 120 years ago some butchers in >> > England learned to make a lucrative side business from processing >> > their meat scraps into dog food that could be sold, not just be >> > discarded. >> > >> > About 100 years ago, large commercial slaughterhouses got >> > into the business. Mixing meat scraps with grain gluten turned out >> > to be the key to making dog food that could be stored, transported, >> > and sold in grocery stores. Canned dog food began to reach the U.S. >> > market in the 1920s, and bagged kibble was first produced for kennel >> > use in the 1930s, but was not introduced to grocery stores until >> > 1959. >> > >> > Eventually, producing pet food came to be one of the largest >> > branches of the rendering industry, which processes the remains from >> > dead animals that are considered unfit for human consumption -- but >> > even so, the pet food industry still only consumes a small >> > percentage of the total waste from the slaughter industry. >> > Fertilizer production consumes far more. The pet food industry could >> > grow in size many times over before it would exhaust the supply of >> > scraps from slaughter for human consumption. >> > >> > Some animals are killed specifically to become pet food, >> > including non-ambulatory cattle and " spent " laying hens, but these >> > animals would be killed anyhow, and were not raised to be >> > slaughtered for this purpose. >> > >> > Most non-ambulatory cattle are former milk cows whose >> > hindquarters broke down under the stress of bearing calves repeatedly >> > and supporting udders of artificially increased size and weight. >> > This is not something that the farmers want to happen, since the >> > price paid for a non-ambulatory cow carcass sold for pet food is just >> > a fraction of the price of an ambulatory cow sold for beef. Dairy >> > farmers try to cull and sell their cows for slaughter before they >> > break down and become non-ambulatory -- but if they keep a cow too >> > long, only the pet food industry will take her. >> > >> > " Spent " laying hens are simply part of the refuse of >> > commercial egg production. Most are macerated into fertilizer. Pet >> > food is an alternate destination of some of them. >> > >> > -- >> > Merritt Clifton >> > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE >> > P.O. Box 960 >> > Clinton, WA 98236 >> > >> > Telephone: 360-579-2505 >> > Fax: 360-579-2575 >> > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> >> <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> >> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org >> > >> > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing >> > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, >> > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the >> > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. >> > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; >> > for free sample, send address.] >> > >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.