Feeding My Dogs A Vegan Diet

[silverfish]

I found Swifthounds and Eaglflyt's posts very sensible and agree with most of them.

 

OK, I've now read through the entire thread.[...]

I applaud you! Quite a ride, no?

 

Indeed.

 

Hm! That's interesting. I had read years and years ago in one of my goat care books that a goat with absolutely no worms is not a healthy goat, which was along these lines. I hadn't heard anything about it being extended to humans yet.

 

The vets I used to work for many years ago used to say the same about hedgehogs.

 

For instance in the case of tiny seeds like sesame or quinoa, I don't see them having a chance of being accessed on their ride through the system unless they have been broken down to a paste (think tahini and hummus).

 

True for us too, I think.

 

[...] Not so fast as to be able to keep up on this one. Evolution happens slowly. If we try to rush it, we usually pay the price - as with BSE. Sheep and cows were never meant to eat meat. We (meaning irresponsible people somewhere in the meat/farming industry) forced them to eat meat. Therefore we all ended up screwed and serve us right.

Your point about the ability of evolution to keep up with the rapid changes in their environment is a good one. Again, as opportunistic feeders, domestic dogs have thrown in their lot with humans, probably before we learned to cook much anyway. DH just came in to say he'd already responded to this point. We were talking about it, and realized that even if dogs had only been with us since early Egyptian times, which is clearly not the case, they would have had at least 5 generations to our 1 to evolve along with us. An interesting point. Another way to see their genetic mutability and adaptability is to look at the different shapes humans have been able to coax out of dogs' genes. Just thought of that in this context.

 

Hmm. Well, the different shapes we've been able to coax out of dogs is actually a point better made against doing so, don't you think? Just consider the hundreds of different problems we've made for them in the process! Breathing difficulties, heart problems, joint and spine problems, eye problems, behavioural and neurological problems (for example 'rage syndrome' in cockers and breed-linked myopathies) the list goes on, right up to lethal genes in Dexter cattle. Blindness associated with coat colour. Deafness associated with coat/eye colour. Sterility associated with coat colour or other genetically chosen characteristics. Polydactylism. Deformed legs and faces ...

 

And yes, dogs threw in their lot with us before we cooked much, but probably pretty much all they ate of our food was the bones and animal remains at that point. Not to say they wouldn't have eaten vegetable matter if nothing else was available, but Swifthounds has already covered that as well as I could hope to do.

 

 

 

Who's to say what happens when you deny a carnivore the right to make meat the main part of his diet and give him vegetable matter only - and some of it, vegetable matter he will never naturally have come across?

[...]

Well, you could ask people who have done so successfully for years, and years, and years. Or ask the dogs of those people. And their vets. It turns out that it can be not only a successful diet, but a beneficial one, and an enjoyable one, as MerlinsMum has pointed out a few times, and as I've found with my bunch so far.

 

But, Xan, this is 'years and years and years' is a very short time in the grand scheme of things. I'd be quite interested to know what health issues their dogs had (if they had none at all, I'd be even more interested since it's a rare mammal, wild or tame that can say that ) as opposed to the sort of health issues that dogs on a conventional diet have.

 

I'm glad to know that you've found a diet that your dogs enjoy, but I'd still like to know about that sausage.

 

I do not assume we all have a "right" to choose what we eat, and by "we all" I mean all of us animals. I think that's a fond cultural illusion of our time and our place on the planet right now.

 

There are many other factors which do come into the decision-making process though: availability of a given resource, immediate cost to attain the resource, cost in the long-run of a given resource, availability of comparable resources, and their costs, long and short-term. As humans, with our mighty brains, we can look into the future based on the trends of the past and present. We can calculate the long-term costs (if we try) of taking whatever we want. We can also do that for our pets, in this culture of many choices. We can choose to feed them meat, with its unsustainably high and cascading environmental cost, and the cost to the meat-animals, and eventually to us all, or we can choose to feed them and ourselves lower on the food chain, where there is less damage, lower cost, and everyone still gets the necessary nutrition to survive and thrive. Happily. For a lot longer.

 

 

Well, here we seem to have a little bit of a contradiction. On the one hand you talk about the 'fond cultural illusion' that we can choose/believe we have a right to choose what we eat - and I do understand where you're coming from on that, although choice for choice's sake is not central to the question of whether to allow a carnivore to eat mostly meat and animal products. On the other hand you seem to have a 'fond cultural illusion' of your own - that we can look into the future and intelligently make predictions and calculations. History tells us man has had this particular illusion for a long time but that it rarely works out as he imagines.

 

I do agree that we all eat too much meat, and we expect to be able to eat too much meat. Many of us are cutting down on our consumption of meat for this very reason. Personally, I will not buy battery/factory farmed meat or products and because of this, I accept that I can't eat so much meat, even if I were to want to do so. There simply isn't going to be enough to go around if we all continue to eat meat several times a day, every day. Humans have the realistic choice not to eat meat, because we are true omnivores. My point is that dogs do not have this choice, 1) because they are not true omnivores, even though they are capable of digesting other foods than meat, and 2) because they are dependent on their care-givers for their food.

 

It is my personal, strongly-held belief, that it is wrong for us to impose our values on animals from another species. This is just as much an ethical choice for me as vegetarianism or veganism is for others. Yes, we must take into account how we cater for their needs in terms of the big issues of food and resource availabilty, but there are much, much bigger sins out there than feeding our carnivores meat.

 

One big resource that we do not currently make use of is insect protein. Now, I'm famous for being very intolerant of animal welfare proponents who 'forget' about the animals which aren't cute or furry, and I refuse to wear silk because of the cruelty involved in its production, but we (the human race) kill billions of insects every year because they are in our way, or eating what we want to eat, and we do this with chemicals and poisons. In practical terms, we could (and some say 'should') be harvesting them and using them for protein, and off the top of my head, I'm thinking this would be a healthier option for dog food than non-animal protein sources. Wild canids can and do eat insects and worms. I am not actually advocating farming insects for food, but it would certainly be a solution to the sustainability problem! And some cultures do eat insects or insect larvae - or even roasted spiders!

[Batmom]

I wondered when somebody was going to bring up bugs . Joseph is partial to cicadas. Zema loved sun-dried earthworms. Batman, on the other hand, was an Extreme Fiend for sweet violet roots. Who knew, eh? Can't find their nutritional content anywhere tho.

[Guest ChasesMum]

If left to their own devices I doubt they would run in a field and graze on grain... But what would your dogs do, if given a choice?

 

just a funny response... my Chase once opened and started eating a bag of flour. and it was the evil white refined flour too! I wouldnt doibt she would have run in and eaten that grain. However she also ate her own poo so probably her palate was not so refined. gawd I miss her

 

anywho, Xan, you are amazingly patient and gracious with all these responses! reading along with interest at the discussion...

[Cheryl2]

1. Ethics I'm an ethical vegan, because I want to do NO harm to my fellow animals. That's a high goal, and impossible to achieve, but it's a goal worth coming as close to as possible. Having companion animals for whom I'm responsible who eat meat makes me responsible for the meat they eat. In MY case, and for MY pets, that means that getting closer to the No Harm goal is to feed them no animals.

 

Haven't been online since Thurs. or you know I would have been in here sooner. This statement is the thing that has always bothered me. If you wanted vegan pets, why not adopt those that are naturally vegan. You impose your ethics on a pet that doesn't share them. Isn't that unethical in it's own way?

[BauersMom]

The veggie dogs I've known have been fine - happy and healthy. Frankly, I'm more concerned with the dogs that are thoughtlessly fed Ol' Roy (how much "meat" is in that?) than dogs getting fed something that's researched and thought out.

 

No one will ever agree about the "ethics" part of the question, so that is what it is...

[MerlinsMum]

It is my personal, strongly-held belief, that it is wrong for us to impose our values on animals from another species.

 

I don't understand how you can say this. You impose your values on animals from other species every day, when you eat meat and dairy, wear leather or consume any other animal-derived product.

 

This is just as much an ethical choice for me as vegetarianism or veganism is for others. Yes, we must take into account how we cater for their needs in terms of the big issues of food and resource availability, but there are much, much bigger sins out there than feeding our carnivores meat.

 

Again.... in practice, dogs are not carnivores. This is not a disputed fact, Judy. You may want to call them carnivores but you do so at the expense of accuracy. It sounds as though you're going purely on the fact that they are listed in the order Carnivora. As Xan has pointed out, many other species whose diet is primarily vegetable matter are also listed in that order. So in that sense, the fact that they have big teeth does not make them carnivores (i.e.exclusively able to eat meat). Bears have the same big teeth, and their diet is 75-85% vegetable matter - fruits, nuts and seeds. The rest of it is made up of insects (for which they also don't need their big teeth) and the occasional dear or fish. So yes, they evolved to be able to hunt other animals, but their actual diet in the wild is much more flexible than that. That makes them omnivorous, because being a carnivore means that you only eat meat.

 

One big resource that we do not currently make use of is insect protein. Now, I'm famous for being very intolerant of animal welfare proponents who 'forget' about the animals which aren't cute or furry, and I refuse to wear silk because of the cruelty involved in its production, but we (the human race) kill billions of insects every year because they are in our way, or eating what we want to eat, and we do this with chemicals and poisons. In practical terms, we could (and some say 'should') be harvesting them and using them for protein, and off the top of my head, I'm thinking this would be a healthier option for dog food than non-animal protein sources.

 

Except that vegans are not just interested in the "cute furry animals" - our ethical perspective does include insects. We do not assume t the right to USE anyone else, be it human or non-human. It is precisely your statement about "using as a resource" that we take issue with. We don't see other non-human animals and species as a "resource", but as individuals who have just as much interest in living their own lives as we do, and who are no less deserving of being on the planet than we are. So clearly we would not be in favor of "harvesting" (nice word for killing) them, because we DO think it's unethical to impose our values on animals from other species (to borrow your quote from above). The difference is that when we talk about "imposing our values on other species" we don't mean just dogs - we mean every species, which is why it is ethical problematic for us to condone the death of one animal to feed another.

 

Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have a pet trade, shelters wouldn't be packed with homeless dogs, and we wouldn't be recklessly breeding other animals into existence for our convenience, food, entertainment or companionship. But as the situation stands now, as vegans TODAY we need to make decisions that respect as much as possible all species.

Edited August 1, 2010 by MerlinsMum

[silverfish]

It is my personal, strongly-held belief, that it is wrong for us to impose our values on animals from another species.

 

I don't understand how you can say this. You impose your values on animals from other species every day, when you eat meat and dairy, wear leather or consume any other animal-derived product.

 

Uh .. no. You may not like my answer, but to me it is as valid as yours. The values of a cow, such as they are, are to eat, reproduce, protect their young, and to run away from predators or be eaten. We've cut that last bit out of the equation - we now keep domesticated cows, but they are still basically 'prey animals' and they still behave like them. IF a cow were to be intelligent enough to have a philosophy, I suspect it would be 'be suspicious or be eaten', however, since we've domesticated them, we have in fact cut a lot of the fear out of their lives. They have a pretty s****y time of it at the end, and I wish it were not so. I hope we can continue to make improvements in slaughter methods to avoid as much suffering as possibly, but at the moment, yes, it's really not good. I don't defend that.

 

 

 

Interestingly, there is an estate up in the north of England somewhere, where the original wild cow still survives in large herds. Old English Park Cattle. They were not 'farmed', but placed on an estate (a large chunk of land kept by a landowner) for the purpose of hunting. Now, I'm not about to defend the keeping of animals for the purpose of hunting, I'm just dealing in facts here. Anyway, the point is, those cattle are still there, and they're still not domesticated, and they are very, very dangerous. They would attack and kill you if you ventured too close. I guess to me, hunting is a better option than factory farming, because right up to the moment the animal is shot, it's living a natural, free life, but I still don't defend the keeping of animals on a tract of land for the purpose, just as a FYI.

 

 

This is just as much an ethical choice for me as vegetarianism or veganism is for others. Yes, we must take into account how we cater for their needs in terms of the big issues of food and resource availability, but there are much, much bigger sins out there than feeding our carnivores meat.

 

Again.... in practice, dogs are not carnivores. This is not a disputed fact, Judy. You may want to call them carnivores but you do so at the expense of accuracy. I think that maybe you're getting a bit confused by the fact that they are listed in the order Carnivora. As Xan has pointed out already, many other species whose diet is primarily vegetable matter are also listed in that order. So in that sense, the fact that they have big teeth does not make them carnivores (i.e.exclusively able to eat meat). Bears have the same big teeth, and their diet is 75-85% vegetable matter - fruits, nuts and seeds. The rest of it is made up of insects (for which they also don't need their big teeth) and the occasional dear or fish. So yes, they evolved to be able to hunt other animals, but their actual diet in the wild is much more flexible than that. That makes them omnivorous, because being a carnivore means that you only eat meat.

 

Well, I'm afraid it is a disputed fact, if you're talking about wild dogs/wolves, and if you're extrapolating for domestic dogs, they are your closest model. I can quote you at least three highly informed sources which say so categorically. These sources do not have a fish to fry, their only interest is in studying (and maintaining in the most natural way), these species of canids. And their conclusion is that wild dogs and wolves are carnivores. No use quoting me about other canids, there is a huge variety of canids and they're not all carnivores (like the giant panda, which is a type of bear), but wild dogs are.

 

Saying that because a dog is a canid he can live on virtually the same diet as a bear, is like say that because a vulture is a bird, and a canary is a bird, the vulture ought to be able to live on millet. But actually, according to what I learned, bears are not strictly speaking canids, but caniforms. They belong to the family 'ursidae', while dogs belong to the family 'canidae'.

 

'Wild dogs are strict carnivores, meaning they only eat meat .. at the zoo they are fed a commercial raw meat mix'

 

San Diego Zoo - 'At the zoo, dholes (Asiatic wild dog) are fed carnivore diet. Carnivore diet consists mostly of ground beef and beef heart. It also contains additional amino acids, vitamins, and minerals such as calcium and phosphorus.'

 

Wolf Web - 'Wolves are carnivores (meat eaters) but they will eat other foods as well. Their diet ranges from big game, such as elk and moose, to earthworms, berries and grasshoppers ... when the herds migrate, wolves eat mice, birds and even fish. They may also eat carrion'

 

Another interesting snippet from Wolf Web -

 

'Their digestion is very efficient, with all but 5 percent of large meat feeds able to be digested. Any splinters of bone that are not broken down somehow become wrapped in undigested hair, which protects the intestines from injury'

 

Which is why I say that if you feed your dog (or more especially your cat) a vegetarian diet, let alone a vegan one, you are making his whole system work harder. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just saying, IMHO, this is so. I tend to believe non-partisan reputable sources specialising in a species to discuss what is, and not indulge in speculation. By 'non-partisan' I mean they have no personal interest or stake in the dog food or meat industries.

 

Oh, and a most interesting and relevant piece of information about that panda, by the way, can be found here, where it is stated categorically that -

 

"The results showed that during the evolutionary process, as a special stock of carnivore, the giant panda's food was highly specialized. Its dental morphological features are significantly different from those of other carnivores and have their own peculiarities."

 

The article goes on to discuss those differences including this - 'The broad and uneven occlusal surfaces are similar to those of omnivorous and herbivorous animals'

 

From another source - "Brown bears normally do not bite to kill, but have grinding, crunching teeth with the massive muscles to accomplish the task. Polar bears are more carnivorous than other bears, and do bite to kill; their skulls are specifically shaped for the appropriate teeth and muscles to hold, chop, and slash their prey. Each of the eight bear species has its own distinctive skull shape and size."

 

 

One big resource that we do not currently make use of is insect protein. Now, I'm famous for being very intolerant of animal welfare proponents who 'forget' about the animals which aren't cute or furry, and I refuse to wear silk because of the cruelty involved in its production, but we (the human race) kill billions of insects every year because they are in our way, or eating what we want to eat, and we do this with chemicals and poisons. In practical terms, we could (and some say 'should') be harvesting them and using them for protein, and off the top of my head, I'm thinking this would be a healthier option for dog food than non-animal protein sources.

 

Except that vegans are not just interested in the "cute furry animals" - our ethical perspective does include insects. We do not assume t the right to USE anyone else, be it human or non-human.

 

Yep, I understand that, which is why I said 'animal welfare proponents' and not 'vegetarians' or 'vegans'.

 

 

It is precisely your statement about "using as a resource" that we take issue with. We don't see other non-human animals and species as a "resource", but as individuals who have just as much interest in living their own lives as we do, and who are no less deserving of being on the planet than we are. So clearly we would not be in favor of "harvesting" (nice word for killing) them, because we DO think it's unethical to impose our values on animals from other species (to borrow your quote from above). The difference is that when we talk about "imposing our values on other species" we don't mean just dogs - we mean every species, which is why it is ethical problematic for us to condone the death of one animal to feed another.

 

And as I said, I'm not proposing that we should harvest insects, I merely state that they are a neglected source of protein, as a specific answer to what was said about meat production being unsustainable. I did not use the word 'harvest' as a euphemism for 'kill', I used it because in the previous sentence I had already used the word 'kill' in a different context - and 'harvest' is the word I've heard used when talking about the possibility of breeding and killing insects for food. I try to be accurate, in my English as well as in my facts.

 

 

Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have a pet trade, shelters wouldn't be packed with homeless dogs, and we wouldn't be recklessly breeding other animals into existence for our convenience, food, entertainment or companionship. But as the situation stands now, as vegans TODAY we need to make decisions that respect as much as possible all species.

 

This is an ethical question which has strayed from Xan's original question, 'How do you feel about me feeding my dogs a vegan diet', which is the question I was attempting to answer, as fully as I was able.

 

However, my short answer to your question is, how does this sit with the previously (correctly) asserted statement that dogs threw in their lot with ours, a very, very long time ago. Do you want to go back on that 'deal' and go back to the days when dogs and men were competitive enemies? And if so, how are you going to stop the dogs that you no longer feed from catching and killing animals for food? Or does it not matter since they are no longer captive/domesticated/pets/companions? How will you deal with the animals which encroach on your food crops which you now need more than ever because everyone is a vegetarian/vegan? Are you going to starve them into extinction or cohabit with them? In which case they will eat far, far more than you could ever imagine, unless you've been an arable farmer.

 

Sorry for the hijack, there, Xan.

 

I would like to make it clear that I don't wish to offend anyone (though it can be difficult in a topic about personal ethics) but since we were asked the question, I replied.

[Guest kydie]

O.K. no more cornflakes or roasted spiders,,, anymore, As a vegan, I understand my needs to aquire adequate nutrition,,,, not sure if I could do that for this entire pack,,, and the grey is a real meat eater,,, more so than the others,,, he leaves the veggies in the dish everytime,,, not to worry the GSP helps him out but this has been an interesting thread,,, good Food for thought

Edited August 1, 2010 by kydie

[Guest hblackburn]

Boy, the "carnivores" I am hearing about on these pages do not resemble the dogs I have experienced in South America, Asia and elsewhere, which are in fact omnivores, opportunistic feeders. I get the impression that the view of dogs as being obligate carnivores is based on northern european and north american models where meat is routinely fed to dogs, or where in very northern climates, meat is the only source of nutrition, which is what wolves and humans subsist on in those climates.

Which keeps bringing around the sustainability issue to me. If you accept that our population is growing, that resources are increasingly limited, including of course, water, then you have to conclude that raising animals like cattle for mass consumption is simply not sustainable or responsible for people, let alone petfood. If you conclude this, then is it not humane and compassionate to look at how to get our dogs to have complete nutrition not based on meat? How can you argue against this kind of enquiry?

[Batmom]

Complete nutrition based on anything is a worthy goal. Most people don't pay any attention to that when feeding the dog -- most folks never even begin to look into what that means for a dog. And as you and I know, dogs are not obligate carnivores. They're omnivores. Just repeating that for anyone who may have forgotten.

[Guest gurehaundo]

I chose "other" because I would consider switching some, if not all, of my hounds to a vegan diet. However, it's not because I love challenges. Xan, when you get your spreadsheet up and running, I'd love to take a look at it!

[BootsyCollins]

I'm too lazy to go vegan for myself or my dog. Plus I can't eat carbs to the degree that vegans eat them. Regardless, I don't care a whit how other people feed their dogs, but I'd be willing to bet that Xan's vegan diet is more nutritious than kibbles and bits, which far more dogs are fed, and seem to do just fine on.

[Guest Swifthounds]

Uh .. no. You may not like my answer, but to me it is as valid as yours. The values of a cow, such as they are, are to eat, reproduce, protect their young, and to run away from predators or be eaten. We've cut that last bit out of the equation - we now keep domesticated cows, but they are still basically 'prey animals' and they still behave like them. IF a cow were to be intelligent enough to have a philosophy, I suspect it would be 'be suspicious or be eaten', however, since we've domesticated them, we have in fact cut a lot of the fear out of their lives. They have a pretty s****y time of it at the end, and I wish it were not so. I hope we can continue to make improvements in slaughter methods to avoid as much suffering as possibly, but at the moment, yes, it's really not good. I don't defend that.

 

 

Well, I'm afraid it is a disputed fact, if you're talking about wild dogs/wolves, and if you're extrapolating for domestic dogs, they are your closest model. I can quote you at least three highly informed sources which say so categorically. These sources do not have a fish to fry, their only interest is in studying (and maintaining in the most natural way), these species of canids. And their conclusion is that wild dogs and wolves are carnivores. No use quoting me about other canids, there is a huge variety of canids and they're not all carnivores (like the giant panda, which is a type of bear), but wild dogs are.

 

Saying that because a dog is a canid he can live on virtually the same diet as a bear, is like say that because a vulture is a bird, and a canary is a bird, the vulture ought to be able to live on millet. But actually, according to what I learned, bears are not strictly speaking canids, but caniforms. They belong to the family 'ursidae', while dogs belong to the family 'canidae'.

 

'Wild dogs are strict carnivores, meaning they only eat meat .. at the zoo they are fed a commercial raw meat mix'

 

San Diego Zoo - 'At the zoo, dholes (Asiatic wild dog) are fed carnivore diet. Carnivore diet consists mostly of ground beef and beef heart. It also contains additional amino acids, vitamins, and minerals such as calcium and phosphorus.'

 

Wolf Web - 'Wolves are carnivores (meat eaters) but they will eat other foods as well. Their diet ranges from big game, such as elk and moose, to earthworms, berries and grasshoppers ... when the herds migrate, wolves eat mice, birds and even fish. They may also eat carrion'

 

Another interesting snippet from Wolf Web -

 

'Their digestion is very efficient, with all but 5 percent of large meat feeds able to be digested. Any splinters of bone that are not broken down somehow become wrapped in undigested hair, which protects the intestines from injury'

 

Which is why I say that if you feed your dog (or more especially your cat) a vegetarian diet, let alone a vegan one, you are making his whole system work harder. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just saying, IMHO, this is so. I tend to believe non-partisan reputable sources specialising in a species to discuss what is, and not indulge in speculation. By 'non-partisan' I mean they have no personal interest or stake in the dog food or meat industries.

 

Oh, and a most interesting and relevant piece of information about that panda, by the way, can be found here, where it is stated categorically that -

 

"The results showed that during the evolutionary process, as a special stock of carnivore, the giant panda's food was highly specialized. Its dental morphological features are significantly different from those of other carnivores and have their own peculiarities."

 

The article goes on to discuss those differences including this - 'The broad and uneven occlusal surfaces are similar to those of omnivorous and herbivorous animals'

 

From another source - "Brown bears normally do not bite to kill, but have grinding, crunching teeth with the massive muscles to accomplish the task. Polar bears are more carnivorous than other bears, and do bite to kill; their skulls are specifically shaped for the appropriate teeth and muscles to hold, chop, and slash their prey. Each of the eight bear species has its own distinctive skull shape and size."

 

A carnivore is NOT a carnivore based merely on what it solely eats. A carnivore is a carnivore whether it eat its natural diet or you force it to eat only vegetation. Anything else misunderstands what makes a carnivore a carnivore. A dog, as a carnivore, could not thrive only on vegetation it finds. It simply does not have the grinding teeth, the digestive juices in the mouth, or the long digestive tract of an omnivore. You can, in fact, feed a cow meat. Heck, you can feed cows to cows. That doesn't transform that ruminant - essentially a type of herbivore - into an omnivore any more than feeding cooked, ground up vegetation to a dog makes that dog transform from a carnivore to an omnivore.

 

However, my short answer to your question is, how does this sit with the previously (correctly) asserted statement that dogs threw in their lot with ours, a very, very long time ago. Do you want to go back on that 'deal' and go back to the days when dogs and men were competitive enemies? And if so, how are you going to stop the dogs that you no longer feed from catching and killing animals for food? Or does it not matter since they are no longer captive/domesticated/pets/companions? How will you deal with the animals which encroach on your food crops which you now need more than ever because everyone is a vegetarian/vegan? Are you going to starve them into extinction or cohabit with them? In which case they will eat far, far more than you could ever imagine, unless you've been an arable farmer.

 

Sorry for the hijack, there, Xan.

 

I would like to make it clear that I don't wish to offend anyone (though it can be difficult in a topic about personal ethics) but since we were asked the question, I replied.

 

I'm interested in the answers to this as well since it seems that imposing our will to make a carnivore eat only vegetation is acceptable, but keeping that dog is an unacceptable imposition of will.

[Xan]

Okay, I'm going to forgo the quotes and direct responses to address the topics that keep being raised over and over again.

 

1. Nutrition: Can a vegan diet be nutritionally complete?

Yes, it can. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to (nor should you take JUST my word for it). Do your own research. Here are a few places to start:

Vegetarian Canine Diets Andrew Knight BSc. (Vet. Biol.), BVMS, MRCVS Veterinarian. This site has a good deal of information, with lots of resources linked.

Vegan Dog Nutrition Association by James O'Heare, CABC. Companion Animal Nutrition Certificate levels, 1, 2 & 3.

Vegetarian Diets Can Be Healthy for Dogs, by Dr. Armaiti May, D.V.M., C.V.A.

These and a simple google search will turn up will turn up tons of information, scholarly and otherwise.

 

2. Natural: It's not natural to feed a dog a vegan diet.

So what? It's not natural to feed kibble or canned food, either. It's not natural for them to live in houses and have manufactured beds and rubber chew toys, and to ride to the dog park in a car and have vaccinations. This is a non-issue in our world.

3. Palatability: Are they being deprived of dining pleasure? Can they enjoy a vegan diet?

Yes and yes. They don't get to eat a lot of things they'd get pleasure from, which has been discussed already. They very much do enjoy the vegan food, so they aren't pining away for lack of something not in front of them. Their quality of life is not threatened in this area.

 

4. Compassion: Widening the circle.

We all here share a compassion for our companion animals, and even for those we've never met, to the point where we can be brought to tears reading about the plight of dogs thousands of miles away. We all have that in common here.

 

Some choose to widen that compassion to animals other than dogs, cats, or other pets, which includes not eating them or being a part of a market that includes their commodification and inevitable abuse. No one here can, or has even tried to deny the horrors that are part of factory farming. We can't un-know what we know about that. With knowledge comes responsibility. More "humane" farming is a step in the right direction, but only a step.

 

Having chosen not to eat animals, I also choose not to feed them to my dogs (the cats are still on hold for the moment while I get more information and confidence about proceeding with them), thus widening the circle even further.

 

5. Ecology: Our meat-based culture is not sustainable, ecologically (again, do your own research).

It's important to begin the process of reducing or omitting our dependance on animal protein to preserve ourselves, each other, and the entire ecosystem . We, and our millions of pets, can't continue to eat meat as we have become accustomed to do here in the States and western Europe. The world can't afford it. A lot of the world has never gotten to the point we are at in terms of assuming meat consumption is a natural right not to be denied.

 

************************************************************

 

I'm aware that this topic really pushes people's buttons. I've been a veg*n for a long time, and I've had these conversations before. The reaction is so strong, so threatened, that it feels to me like what's being thrown at me is a projection of a conflict already happening inside the other person.

 

It's hard to have this bright light shining into an area we'd rather keep dark: eating meat means hurting and killing a lot of animals, and it's not necessary, not healthy, and not safe for the earth. Knowing that means that eating a hamburger, steak or chop, your Sunday bacon, whatever, is not a compassionate act, and we'd all like to preserve the idea of ourselves as compassionate. Be brave. Look deep. It isn't a fun or happy place to be, knowing these truths.

 

{DH reminds me to be humble. Bless his heart! I'm not claiming sainthood here. Ahem. Far from it. My compassion is incomplete, and I don't want you to think *I* believe otherwise. It's a goal I'm aiming at, and working towards, stumping along and evolving.}

 

Luckily, we can easily restore our self-image, help save the planet, and a LOT of animals, by eating lower on the foodchain. It's cheaper (in SO many ways!), and it's very enjoyable! I promise! I LOVE to eat!

 

We can also bring our pets' consumption down the foodchain. Even reducing the amount of meat products they eat is a reasonable first step.

[Guest WhiteWave]

I feed a mix diet to my dogs. Some raw, some kibble, some can, some meat rolls, Honest kitchen, etc. It works for us. My dogs love veggies, but I would never feed them a vegetarian diet. I eat meat, my dogs eat meat. But I feel everyone had the right to make your own choices. If you dogs eat and thrive on the diet, then feed it. If not, try something else. I feel a vegetarian diet is probably better than what a lot dogs get eating Ol' Roy and such foods.

[Guest eaglflyt]

Okay, I'm going to forgo the quotes and direct responses to address the topics that keep being raised over and over again.

 

 

4. Compassion: Widening the circle.

We all here share a compassion for our companion animals, and even for those we've never met, to the point where we can be brought to tears reading about the plight of dogs thousands of miles away. We all have that in common here.

 

Some choose to widen that compassion to animals other than dogs, cats, or other pets, which includes not eating them or being a part of a market that includes their commodification and inevitable abuse. No one here can, or has even tried to deny the horrors that are part of factory farming. We can't un-know what we know about that. With knowledge comes responsibility. More "humane" farming is a step in the right direction, but only a step.

 

Having chosen not to eat animals, I also choose not to feed them to my dogs (the cats are still on hold for the moment while I get more information and confidence about proceeding with them), thus widening the circle even further.

 

5. Ecology: Our meat-based culture is not sustainable, ecologically (again, do your own research).

It's important to begin the process of reducing or omitting our dependance on animal protein to preserve ourselves, each other, and the entire ecosystem . We, and our millions of pets, can't continue to eat meat as we have become accustomed to do here in the States and western Europe. The world can't afford it. A lot of the world has never gotten to the point we are at in terms of assuming meat consumption is a natural right not to be denied.

 

************************************************************

 

I'm aware that this topic really pushes people's buttons. I've been a veg*n for a long time, and I've had these conversations before. The reaction is so strong, so threatened, that it feels to me like what's being thrown at me is a projection of a conflict already happening inside the other person.

 

It's hard to have this bright light shining into an area we'd rather keep dark: eating meat means hurting and killing a lot of animals, and it's not necessary, not healthy, and not safe for the earth. Knowing that means that eating a hamburger, steak or chop, your Sunday bacon, whatever, is not a compassionate act, and we'd all like to preserve the idea of ourselves as compassionate. Be brave. Look deep. It isn't a fun or happy place to be, knowing these truths.

 

{DH reminds me to be humble. Bless his heart! I'm not claiming sainthood here. Ahem. Far from it. My compassion is incomplete, and I don't want you to think *I* believe otherwise. It's a goal I'm aiming at, and working towards, stumping along and evolving.}

 

Luckily, we can easily restore our self-image, help save the planet, and a LOT of animals, by eating lower on the foodchain. It's cheaper (in SO many ways!), and it's very enjoyable! I promise! I LOVE to eat!

 

We can also bring our pets' consumption down the foodchain. Even reducing the amount of meat products they eat is a reasonable first step.

 

You know, I'm really trying to be understanding in this thread. The science part of it doesn't *push my buttons*, but the attitude of *shining the light in the dark* for everyone is quite assumptive. Actually, quite arrogant, it seems. If you really want to make a difference *right now*, go buy some cows and let them live naturally. Care for them in the rain, the snow, in storms, bust frozen water in winter in the wee hours of the morning .... sacrificially give of your time and resources ... don't just make sweeping statements. Do more! Only when you're actively participating can you make claims of being truly *enlightened* or compassionate.

 

Since we live in a world where organisms are designed to eat particular diets, yes we can probably find a way to scientifically replace that diet with some other matter and give additives and supplements to make it acceptable or maybe even healthy or superior. However, there comes a point where you will cross your own *compassionate* lines. If you extend your compassion to insects, fine, but what will you do in the realm of even smaller organisms? Do you deworm your dogs? Is that not sacrificing one species for another? Do you administer antibiotics to yourself or your pets? Again, sacrificing one organism for another. This can go on to the point of being totally ridiculous. Who is to say where it goes from being compassionate to *for the greater good*?

 

What you see as defensive, is in fact, not .... but rather wanting to put *accuracy* where inaccuracy is thought to be correct. Many things you report as being abusive are not. A hot wire fence is NOT abusive. Ear tags are NOT abusive. Until many that are *rampant to point fingers at others & claiming abuse* are willing to actually participate in actively understanding or working in the environment they are pointing the finger at, I lose interest in hearing claims of superior compassion or understanding.

 

I consider my husband and myself to be strong advocates for both humans and animals. Many here do the same. Unless everyone that is claiming more enlightenment and compassion are actively participating in putting the rubber to the road, the arguments lose credibility. Please, make your own choices. Do the best you can. But, I would be hesitant to claim abuse at every drop of the hat based on your assumptions. I've said more than once that if I had the choice, I might choose to be a dairy cow. We have friends that are dairy owners and those cows have the best of everything. The best feed, hay, grain ... the best in housing ... the most lush pastures .... the best in veterinary care. Yes, they have babies annually .... and if they were out in the wild ... they'd have babies annually! The babies are weaned ... just like they would be in the wild. But, they separate the babies into a separate pasture. This is much nicer than watching a mother cow head butt, chase or kick her own calf (and possibly severely injure in the process) to accomplish weaning. Female calves stay in the herd. Male calves are sold or given to local 4-H kids to raise or to others for pets. They are fed a formulated milk replacement from bottles ... is this much different than a different diet for your pets? And yes, they are milked twice daily. The difference in milking vs. nursing a calf? Having once been a nursing mom, myself, I can tell you that the first time the baby slept through the night, I was more than ready for some relief. Whether by actual nursing or breast pump (which we did utilize because I was also working!), relief was greatly appreciated.

 

It's not the diet you are giving your dogs that truly bothers me, it's the claiming of abuse across the board in so many areas of farm animal husbandry ... and the *enlightenment* attitude. Keep thinking ... how far can you take the enlightenment? Take your thinking further ... you can take that to the infinite ... and still come up *guilty* yourself of what you seek to point out to others as their shortcomings.

 

We too have a great concern for animals and our fellow humans ... even as a small farm family.

 

OK, back to normal greytalk matters now.

Edited August 1, 2010 by eaglflyt

[silverfish]

Your step by step answers are good ones, Xan, and while I might not agree wholeheartedly, I can see where you're coming from and you've clearly put a lot of thought into this and worked out your own philosophy and ethics, which is most admirable and more than most people ever do in their lifetimes. No argument with that.

 

 

I'm aware that this topic really pushes people's buttons. I've been a veg*n for a long time, and I've had these conversations before. The reaction is so strong, so threatened, that it feels to me like what's being thrown at me is a projection of a conflict already happening inside the other person.

 

It's hard to have this bright light shining into an area we'd rather keep dark: eating meat means hurting and killing a lot of animals, and it's not necessary, not healthy, and not safe for the earth. Knowing that means that eating a hamburger, steak or chop, your Sunday bacon, whatever, is not a compassionate act, and we'd all like to preserve the idea of ourselves as compassionate. Be brave. Look deep. It isn't a fun or happy place to be, knowing these truths.

 

I have to say this is not the case here. I have thought, and continue to think, long and hard about how I live my life - ask anyone who knows me well and they'll tell you I'm a thinker - sometimes I've been accused of thinking too much.

 

I am aware that my diet is very poor, but this is mainly because I eat too much sugar and too many other refined carbs and I don't seem to be able to stay on the 'NO YEAST' wagon without falling off every now and then and making myself ill. Other than that I'm happy with what I eat, which is a good proportion of vegetables and fruit, wholegrain soda bread, rice and pasta (too much, I fear), and considerably less meat than I used to eat, and most of that is free range or organic meat (organic is always free range in the UK, it's the law that it should be so). I do eat dairy (also organic where possible), but factory farmed meat is no longer an acceptable choice for me, although I won't preach to others about it, and that too is an ethical choice I've made. Sure, I'll join in arguments where questions have been asked, and I'll freely tell others what I think, but I won't attempt to impose my views on others because everyone has to find their own way. I just wish people would get their facts right, and not quote things as 'facts' when they are not.

 

I don't feel threatened, I feel frustrated by some of the specious arguments being promulgated in support of certain viewpoints. I'm not accusing you personally, btw, it's just that whenever this subject comes up, there will be someone who is almost evangelical in their zeal to convert me and that always puts my back up. So, apologies if I've come across as aggressive in any way. I'm perhaps a little too prickly sometimes.

 

 

We can also bring our pets' consumption down the foodchain. Even reducing the amount of meat products they eat is a reasonable first step.

 

Not to me. I stand by my opinion that dogs are primarily carnivores even if the do eat other foods, and I will not feed them a vegetarian diet. However, I do agree that most people could eat less meat, and probably should do.

 

And that, I think, is probably all I should say on the matter.

[Guest mcsheltie]

We can debate ethical questions till the cows come home. Dogs are carnivores who have learned to scavenge to survive. They are not omnivores. The genome of the dog and the wolf are almost identical (99.97%) Scavenging and living with humans has not changed their physiology or genetic make-up. It has not changed the fact that they do not have the dentition to chew plant matter, they do not have salivary amylase that herbivores and omnivores have, they do not have the type of digestive enzymes to break down plant matter or the length of digestive tract to be able to absorb the nutrients from plant matter. Dogs are able to synthesize the vitamins they need from protein sources, Vitamin C is one example. Herbivores and Omnivores need Vitamin C from plant matter as they are not able to synthesize it themselves, but dogs can. Herbivores and omnivores can utilize Beta Carotene. Dogs need preformed Vitamin A. Herbivores and omnivores are able to sustain life on the amino acid profile found in plants. The amino acid profile in plants is incomplete for a carnivore, it is incomplete for a dog.

 

With that said, it is possible to engineer a vegetarian diet for a dog. Xan has a lot of work cut out for her, but it can be done. Plant matter will have to be processed (cooked, juiced, mashed) to break down the cellulose walls. Synthetic amino acids will need to be added. Digestive enzymes will need to be added to the food right before it is fed. Each vitamin will need to be included at its daily requirement because there will not be any animal matter for the dog to synthesize its own C, D & K. The correct amount of beta carotene needs to be given. If I remember correctly it takes 4x the amount of preformed Vitamin A. The one thing that worries me is that plant based protein is low quality protein for a dog. And the kidneys will have to work harder to filter out the byproducts. On the plus side her diet will contain Phytonutrients we have no idea of. And I applaud the fact that she is keeping her diet soy free. That alone shows she has put a lot of effort into her research. Various ground nuts can supply many of the amino acids. I agree with WhiteWave, I bet Xan's diet will be much better than a lot of dog foods out there. Such as the ones that pretend they have meat in them.

[Guest Swifthounds]

It's a bit off topic, but I find some of the assumptions that have been made and accepted in this thread a bit odd. Along the lines of what is natural a la vaccinations, rides in cars, etc. and enjoyment for a dog a la canned, kibble etc. To properly address these issues we would need to widen our understanding of the options, not just hold a vegan diet up to the candle of mediocre dog care.

[Batmom]

Does anyone here besides me know what "facultative" means?

[silverfish]

Does anyone here besides me know what "facultative" means?

 

Yes.

[Batmom]

There's one ..... :lol

[Guest eaglflyt]

Does anyone here besides me know what "facultative" means?

 

Yes.

 

 

Here it is straight from Merriam-Webster:

 

Main Entry: fac·ul·ta·tive Pronunciation: \ˈfa-kəl-ˌtā-tiv, British -tə-tiv\Function: adjective Date: 1820

1 a : of or relating to the grant of permission, authority, or privilege <facultative legislation> b : optional

2 : of or relating to a mental faculty

3 a : taking place under some conditions but not under others <facultative diapause> b : exhibiting an indicated lifestyle under some environmental conditions but not under others <facultative anaerobes>

 

— fac·ul·ta·tive·ly adverb

*******************

 

Should I highlight the applicable part?

edited to add definition

Edited August 1, 2010 by eaglflyt

[Guest mcsheltie]

Here is two.

 

ETA: Opps... make that three

Edited August 1, 2010 by mcsheltie

[Batmom]

Did y'all know that dogs' dentition is actually considered relatively unspecialized? Not so cats.