What pets eat determines the size of their ecological paws. Is the resulting footprint a crime worthy of capital punishment, or have the professors miscalculated?

We’re debating eating dogs, again. The SPCA must be having kittens. Thankfully, this time, they’ve had the good sense to keep quiet.

Back in August, the SPCA called for a law change, following its investigation into the humane killing and cooking of a pet dog by a Tongan family in Auckland. Maybe cultural imperialism doesn’t wear the guise of cruelty quite so well, when the controversialists are Professors Brenda and Robert Vale, Victoria University of Wellington academics, and authors of Time to Eat the Dog? Their book got publicity this week around the world—including, apparently, the front page of the Toronto Star, where it provoked indignant correspondence (the book, not the dog, was the environmental crime according to the letter writer; it was a “waste of trees”).

As described in the New Scientist, the Vales measured pets’ ecological paw prints. They analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food, extrapolated quantities consumed by a pet to raw quantities of meat and cereal, and calculated the land area that it takes to produce them. They compared this against the footprint of a 4.6 litre Toyota Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, taking into account the energy to both fuel and build it. They concluded that the Land Cruiser is twice as eco-friendly as a medium-sized dog; the Land Cruiser’s footprint was half that of the dog’s.

The title of the book, Time to Eat the Dog?—as well as, evidently, a great publicity hook—relates to the further deduction that the only eco-friendly pet is one that produces food, such as chooks, and can itself be eaten on expiry.

“We used to have lots of cats. But we’ve got to the point where we feel that we shouldn’t,” Robert Vale said Monday from Wellington [to the Toronto Star]. “It’s quite sad. We were very fond of our cats.”

I know how he feels; this had crossed my mind, too. But whilst sympathetic to the overall message—that pets can’t be omitted from ecological footprint calculations—aspects of the argument warrant some unpicking.

First, “pets you can eat” is oxymoronic. Not for nothing are pets called “companion animals”. Smallholder and chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, of River Cottage fame, tells people: never give meat animals names, or forget their higher purpose. What the Vales are saying is: don’t keep pets.

Second, there may be a fallacy built into their study: that the land in question produces food solely for cats and dogs. I’m not convinced this is very likely to be the case: a vet told me once that most pet food is mechanically-reclaimed meat from, for example, chicken carcasses, offal, blood, skin, and so on. It’s a byproduct of our own consumption.

We don’t even approach eating the whole animal. Last weekend I met an elderly gentleman buying ox kidneys in the butcher; he extolled the virtues of them devilled, on toast, for breakfast. They must have been stoic, the days of his youth. Wondering what would make me as happy as he was about the kidneys produced this shameful answer: a perfect mug of freshly ground homemade coffee (“black as the devil, hot as hell … sweet as love”), followed by a well-made pastry-ish thing or two—chocolate éclairs more generous with the custard than the cream, or a big slice of fruit tart.

Of course, even if my byproduct thesis was true, supermarket pet food comes packed in aluminium foil and cans and plastic. It is also true that, if meat and dairy consumption were adjusted to sustainable levels—so that we were eating less of them in total, and using more of each animal—the byproducts wouldn’t feed as many pets, so here again, the Vales have a point. But whether the animal eats fresh offal and line-caught fish trimmings, or prime cuts of steak and tinned tuna, is bound to make a difference to its pawprint size—as Robert Vale does seem to acknowledge in the New Scientist, though it hasn’t been picked up.

The danger is that people write this off as a gimmick, or laughably unsustainable, if not downright offensive, when the problem is valid, and might have a valid solution.

Dogs and cats and humans have been friends for a long time —since Kipling—without wrecking the planet. Cats take care of rats in the barn and mice in the house for a bowl of leftover milk from the dairy. Dogs hunt down game, herd stock and guard the house for a meaty bone. We might not hunt or farm these days, but the unconditional love and loyalty (conditional only on the cupboard) supplied by a furry soul is comforting. Who finds that so often, that they can throw it away?

Declaration of interest: Claire Browning does not own a dog. She shares her house with some cats, and her garden with some chooks. It would be folly to kill the chooks, whose eggs are warm and brown and plentiful, for the sake of a bit of tough meat, and besides, they all have names. Only one of the cats dines on finely chopped steak and tinned tuna—or sometimes, a few morsels of free range chicken—but that is because she’s a little refugee, a little bit special, and ever so grateful for the kindness.

 

Comments (9)

by Andrew Geddis on October 30, 2009
Andrew Geddis

"We’re debating eating dogs, again. The SPCA must be having kittens."

If so, can we eat those, too?

by Claire Browning on November 01, 2009
Claire Browning

I don't believe you're treating this very serious issue with due gravitas, Andrew. ;-)

by Bruce Thorpe on November 02, 2009
Bruce Thorpe

From the reports I have read the authors are making a lot of false assumptions, from the size of the average dog and the calories it requires to how those calories should be measured.

I usually share my piece of the globe's surface with about 30 to 40  kilos of dog, close to the median size. Food requirement of half a kilo per day at supermarket prices is about $NZ1.25, or  $450 per annum.

In practice it is much less because the dog is fed from my table scraps,other opportunist sources, also possums , a by product of allied pest patrol services.

There is a yearly rego of about $50

A once in 10 years purchase and microchip, and a round of vaccinations, and the option of neutering, which I do not choose.Probably another $500.

But then I only paid $2000 for my 5 speed 2.2litre sedan.

I think the Vales are out of touch, commuting from Waiheke Island must be quite a carbon cost on its own, and they seem to be stuck in a middle class consumer culture.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

by Melissa Cassidy on November 02, 2009
Melissa Cassidy
I'm glad to hear someone is writing about this in an intelligent way. I don't really think much of the Vales comparing a dog to a car. A dog is a living being, not a possession. Is being environmentally friendly simply a matter of killing everything that isn't human life? Of course, a dog isn't native flora and fauna, but it is still less of an imposition than a human is. I'm not having children and I've neutered by dogs; I think it's fair that I should be able to have a companion animal and be respected for that choice.
by Claire Browning on November 03, 2009
Claire Browning

From the reports I have read the authors are making a lot of false assumptions, from the size of the average dog and the calories it requires to how those calories should be measured ...

Yes, although I would have liked to see their own write-up of the study, not just second-hand accounts of it, before pillory or praise! I emailed Robert Vale, and he replied that it was only available in the book (which I haven't seen yet), not separately written up anywhere else.

Is being environmentally friendly simply a matter of killing everything that isn't human life?

Other way about, possibly, Melissa! As your comment suggests. However, I don't believe such a grim and guilt-inducing conclusion is necessarily necessary ...

Michael Pollan writes brilliantly on this, in one of his early less well-known books, Second Nature - harder to get hold of in NZ than his mega-hits, but a lovely thoughtful read. Basically, he argues that we do have a middle ground to stand on, as gardeners, in the broad sense. The title is a pun: it's second nature to us to garden, and a garden is not quite nature.

by Claire Browning on November 04, 2009
Claire Browning

I think the Vales are out of touch, commuting from Waiheke Island must be quite a carbon cost on its own, and they seem to be stuck in a middle class consumer culture ...

Hey Bruce (if you're still following this) ... the Waiheke thing's been bugging me. Do you know for sure they're commuting Waiheke-Wellington, as opposed to maybe temporarily renting - and if so, how do you know it?

by Young Mclean on April 12, 2010
Young Mclean
I was surprised a lot when looked through your first-class information reffering to this topic. I couldn’t believe that such definition essay was written not by essays online service! You are a real professional, I think.
by on April 27, 2012
Anonymous

new activity until assuredly currently,Ralph Lauren Outlet as it has been apprenticed to go ticket, Ralph Lauren Shirts bookings alternating with altered gifts.Because Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet that the antecedent few yrs, the bulk of humans Ralph Lauren Men that baddest attire

by on May 08, 2012
Anonymous

Louis Vuitton Sale In faddy Louis Vuitton articles are awful admired internationally. Louis Vuitton Bags Outlet They could be finishing touches, boundless reveals and achievement affable yield a attending at. Louis Vuitton Outlet Some women ascertain a amount of if not added silpada? Louis Vuitton ladies backpack are amid in throughout their spectrum. To added advance them a abundant added accommodate with some added areas accustomed application appropriate from these phones carry. Creator? Louis Vuitton Bags Outlet are advised central of the able-bodied accepted designers and even creators.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.