Doing their bit for the planet

Boris and Arwen have lived long and happy lives fuelled very succesfully by Royal Canin ‘dry’ Feline Nutrition. First for kittens, then for neutered young cats, then for overweight cats (thanks to the over-generosity of our neighbours in Lawn Road) and now for healthy aging cats ‘with kidney and thyroid support’.

But I am sure that they had no idea – and nor had I – that they were also helping to save the planet by minimising their carbon emissions. But, according to Professor Marcio Brunetto at Sao Paulo University in Brazil, that is exactly what they have been doing.

Professor Brunetto has been comparing the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from making ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ pet food. This is not the first time that anyone has assessed the environmental impact of making pet food. A 2018 study of Chinese pets suggested that the ecologicial ‘paw print’ of the Chinese population of dogs and cats is equivalent to 70 to 245 million Chinese citizens, depending on the size of the animal and diet consumed. Another study conducted in Japan in the same year observed that the ecological pawprint of a dog can be similar to that of one Japanese citizen. But this is the first time that anyone has compared emissions for dry and wet food. And the difference is startling.

According to Professor Brunetto’s study, a 10 kg dog with an average caloric intake of 534 kcal per day, eating dry food, would be responsible for about 830 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent emissions per year – around 12.4% of that of an average Brazilian citizen. But if that dog was on a wet-food diet, it would be responsible for 6500 kilograms of  CO₂– equivalent – or 97% of that of an average Brazilian. So if all Brazilian dogs ate wet food, their diets could represent almost 25% of the total emissions for Brazil. If you made their wet food at home as opposed to buying it canned then the CO₂ equivalent emissions came out half way between the two.

Professor Brunetto’s findings have been criticised on the grounds that they were only looking at ‘proper meat’ sources for the wet food – not using cheaper cuts of offal or alternative sources of protein such as meal worms which would have a lower carbon footprint. But even if you halve the results of his findings there is still a dramatic difference.  Certainly enough, if you worry about sustainability, to make you think twice before buying that next tin of Whiskas.

For Professor Brunetto’s research, see here; for a helpful comment article in the New Scientist, go here.

And thanks once again to The Week for the alert.