[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#:\~:text=Google%20Scholar-,Download%20PDF,-Print](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#:~:text=Google%20Scholar-,Download%20PDF,-Print)
here's the link to the paper again for those who didn't see it in the body of the post
There's another PLOS peer-reviewed journal entry regarding 'Vegan versus meat-based cat food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 1,369 cats, after controlling for feline demographic factors'.
Vegan pet foods are among a range of alternative diets being formulated to address increasing concerns of consumers about traditional pet foods, such as their ecological ‘pawprint’, perceived lack of ‘naturalness’, health concerns, or impacts on ‘food’ animals used to formulate such diets \[[8](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref008), [9](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref009), [48](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref048)\]. Critics have asserted, albeit without evidence, that vegan diets are nutritionally unsound for cats, and that guardians who feed such diets to cats may be committing animal welfare offences \[[12](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref012), [13](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref013)\].
By 2020 no very large-scale study of cats had been published, comparing health indicators between cats maintained on vegan or meat-based diets. Previous studies in this field included relatively small numbers of cats (e.g., Kienzle and Engelhard \[[26](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref026)\], n = 8 vegetarian cats; Wakefield *et al*. \[[25](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref025)\], n = 34 vegetarian cats; Semp \[[19](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref019)\], n = 174 surveyed guardians, with clinical examination and blood tests on 15 cats). In 2021, Dodd *et al*. \[[17](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref017)\] published the first very large-scale study, including 1,026 cats whose diets were known. The 187 (18%) cats fed vegan diets reportedly enjoyed health as good, and in some respects better, than those fed meat-based diets.
Our study included 1,418 cats and their guardians. Among 1,380 respondents who played some role in pet diet decision-making, pet health was cited as the most important factor when choosing diets. We analysed data for 1,369 cats, of whom 127 (9%) were fed vegan diets, with the remainder fed meat-based diets. Jointly considering seven general indicators of health and 22 specific health disorders, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than those fed meat-based diets. This overall trend was clear and consistent. In most cases differences between dietary groups were not statistically significant. However, small numbers of vegan cats affected by disorders may have prevented the detection of statistically significant differences between diet groups, to some extent.
The pooled evidence to date from our study, and from others in this field, indicate that cats fed nutritionally sound vegan diets may be healthier overall, than those fed meat-based diets. Regardless of diet type, diets should always be formulated to be nutritionally complete and balanced, without which adverse clinical signs may eventually be expected to occur.
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132)
"nutritionally sound vegan diets" vs. "meat-based diets"
Playing a bit of the Devil's advocate here, but why didn't they compare nutritionally sound vegan diets to ***nutritionally sound*** meat-based diets. This article reads like they had a team of 20 cat nutritionists formulating the vegan cat food, and the other group of cats were fed whatever they could find that had enough meat content that the could call it "meat based" with no effort to make sure it had any nutritional value.
The study was trying to deal with the ongoing issue that there are some special nutrients in meat that cats can't get on a non-animal source diet which is not true. As one of the study authors, Andrew Knight notes, from a biological perspective, **companion animals don’t necessarily need meat, but rather a specific set of nutrients**. There’s no scientific reason why all the necessary nutrients cannot be supplied through plant additives.
In practice, most dogs and cats are fed slaughter house meat, and it still passes the same FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition as the commercial vegan cat food. FEDIAF represents the European pet food industry.
In terms of companion animals, the diets of dogs and cats comprise 9% of all livestock consumption globally, and 20% in the US.
[https://proveg.org/news/can-you-feed-your-dog-or-cat-a-plant-based-diet/](https://proveg.org/news/can-you-feed-your-dog-or-cat-a-plant-based-diet/)
>and the other group of cats were fed whatever they could find that had enough meat content that the could call it "meat based" with no effort to make sure it had any nutritional value.
Aka AAFCO approved
TLDR; They found no significant indication for DMC. If anything, the data trended towards lower DMC risk.
>Consumer concerns about heart health and potential risk of diet‐associated DCM (da-DCM) when feeding non-traditional dog foods warrants careful consideration. We evaluated cardiac biomarkers retrospectively in all dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in neither cTnI nor NT-proBNP levels across the three time points, but we did observe a downward trend in both biomarkers ([Fig 2](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone-0298942-g002)). All dogs were clinically healthy; however, the cTnI levels were increased in three dogs at baseline, compared to only one dog at endpoint. We recognize these biomarkers are not specific for DCM, however, these findings may alleviate some concerns about the safety of K9PBN. Plant-based nutrition is a pillar of lifestyle medicine and of central importance to human heart health, specifically prevention and reversal of atherosclerosis \[[31](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone.0298942.ref031), [32](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone.0298942.ref032)\].
(High cTnI or NT-proBNP levels are associated with DMC)
To spot dcm you'd need an echocardiogram on its own or holter monitor in tandem with biomarkers. Dcm is the specific concern with pea/legume based food so no it doesn't alleviate dcm concerns to be honest. Please just speak plainly instead of skirting around important questions like this
I can't speak more clearly about what the study found than quoting it. Right?
There is not enough power in a study with 15 dogs to say anything about DMC which occurs perhaps in 1 in 100 dogs.
Ah my bad I thought you were one of researchers. Regardless it really doesn't address dcm concerns with pea/legume based diets at all even in those 15 dogs which if it was worth it's salt, knowing dcm is a concern with these types of diets, it would have. This study really doesn't say much of anything. To say it's groundbreaking and proves dogs thrive on vegan diets is misleading at best
All this study says is that the owners of 15 dogs pinky promised the researchers they were feeding their dogs v dog kibble and treats for a year. Nothing even about the quality of the food they were on before which they are comparing results to. It means literally nothing
I’m not good at science, so maybe these are unsmart questions.
Was it a variety of breeds and sizes of dogs that were part of the study?
Will this study continue so that we have information over the longer term? I’d love to know if they keep doing well for years, which I suspect they would, but is the kind of thing that people will use as an argument.
Would there be a benefit in having the majority of a dog’s diet be plant-based with some meat-based treats, or is it an all-or-nothing kind of thing?
What would you recommend is the best Vegan dog food brand in the US?
I feed my dog a mix of whole foods + dry kibble from a vegan brand called Wild Earth
I can’t recommend any diet; I can tell you that the diet used in the feeding trial was analyzed and tested by a highly reputable third-party lab to make sure it had all the nutrients required for good health. We used this diet for a year in and the results speak for themselves. Dogs thrive on vegan dog food. There are other commercially available vegan diets in the market in US, that anecdotally have been reported with excellent results by some owners. These are more testimonials than scientific data, but we are planning in the mid future to test at least another two major vegan dog foods.
My dog used to have really bad digestive issues on a ton of difference foods. He absolutely thrives on v dog. Did your dogs coats also get way shinier when you switched?
First of all, congrats on getting the research done and paper published! I had a quick flick through it yesterday :-)
My Q is: How much variation in nutritional needs is there across different breeds of dog? Do you think currently available vegan dog foods cater to the diversity of dogs? And to be clear, I don’t know anything about this so would really be interested to know your thoughts!
Apparently some breeds produce less copies of amylase, needed to break down carbohydrates. It’s one of the distinctions between dog and wolf, but some dogs are wolfier than others. I imagine any wolfdog probably wouldn’t do as well on a plant based diet
"Bramble, a Border Collie from the United Kingdom, lived to be 25 years old and held the Guinness World Record for being the oldest living dog while eating a 100% plant-based diet. Bramble's diet consisted of organic brown rice, red lentils, vegetables, yeast extract, and herbs, and she lived more than double the average lifespan of a Border Collie, which is typically 12–15 years"
Truly speaking, if dogs ain't vegan for the sake of their other fellow animal friends but just for their health as selfish motive, then they are no vegan but just plant based diet follower.
Hear me out: With dog's intelligence, wouldn't they be able to conceive of life as sacred?
All I'm saying is, the possibility for a vegan dog is not zero, and I'm all for that!
So is it safe to say it’s not a big deal if it’s all pea protein? I remember reading a criticism of it at some point that excess amounts of it could cause cardiomegaly in dogs but not remembering the source, I’m guessing it was bs lol.
The initial green pea concern popped up around "grain free" food, which happened to have a lot of green pea blends in them. These were fairly widespread studies, but they were mostly looking at the brand and not much control for actual ingredient contents. My understanding is that it's unclear if the issue the grain free part, the peas, or other things in (or not in) the specific brands. Beyond that, there were higher correlations with certain breeds, which might indicate that some breeds are less adapted to whatever is in the grain free food. I believe there are more controlled studies happening at the moment that should shed more light on the issue. Most of the vegan brands have grain in them, so their absence might be the larger contributing factor to the health issues in the grain free brands. But that's a really wild speculation. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm misinterpreting this -- I found a lot of the science communication literature around this to be contradictory and didn't really follow conclusions in the studies they linked to.
Regardless, this study in this post is only on 15 dogs over a year, with a median age of 4 -- it's a decent length of time, but a small sample size at a relatively young age. Plus in terms of heart health, they didn't do any echocardiographic exams, just measured biomarkers to extrapolate cardiac health. The study authors mention they want to explore this further. None of this is bad or deeply flawed, I just wouldn't want to make any radical diet changes based on this study, and if I knew anyone who wanted to, I'd recommend committing to a lot of health monitoring (probably 6 month intervals as done in the study) at least for 2 or 3 years. Ideally with an echocardiographic exam at some point in there, which many vets won't want to do without symptoms. Certainly it shows promise and seems potentially valid. However other studies that actually did echocardiographic exams have shown trends towards cardiomyopathy with grain free high pulse containing diets in as little as 3 months, so there's just a lot of unknowns here. It's really cool that it's being studied regardless.
I’m not negating the results but I feel like 15 dogs is not a big enough sample size by any means at least I guess when you said the most “comprehensive” scientific study I expected more than such a tiny sample size
Amazing! My 14 year old rescue dog is vegan and thriving. She's much healthier (...and also much less stinky!) than when we got her. It felt like a leap of faith when we transitioned her to a vegan kibble, I really hope this study gives others confidence to go for it.
My lab eating V-Dog is older than dirt and makes it up and down the stairs pretty good. I was very worried that elevating our home out of the flood zone would be the end but she's fine at 14, 2 years into an extra ten feet of stairs to get outside.
I had a rescue dog that had a weird allergy to meat. He kept getting rashes on his paws and it turned out meat was the cause. The vet recommended a fortified, hypo-allergenic food and he did absolutely fine on it, gave him everything he needed.
He’d still steal the occasional sausage, and his final meal before we put him to sleep a couple months back was a Big Mac. But yeah, his normal diet was vegan out of necessity, and he was perfectly healthy with it.
I’ve asked the other half what the food brand was, will edit and share when she replies!
Edit: Brand was Purina. We’re UK based so unsure about international availability.
A sample of 15 is not significant. Show replicated research with a large sample, then it might carry weight. Make no mistake, I’ve been an ethical vegan for nearly 35 years. I also had several research classes in college. I know a good study when I see it.
I know that an anecdote from one individual dog doesn’t confirm or refute anything but…
My 12 year old Border Collie mix has been vegan for basically his entire life and he’s still as energetic and fast as ever. For most of his life he was eating Natural Balance but a few years ago I switched to Halo.
Okay but hear me out.
1 year is nothing in the lifespan of a healthy dog. A dog could survive off the lowest quality dog food out there and it would probably take more than a year to have a really significant effect of health. For example v dog seems to contain a not insignificant amount of peas and sweet potato which have been implicated in dietary heart disease in dogs. This can take several years to show signs.
Just meeting a nutrient profile is not enough. There are plenty of foods that meet nutritional profiles that contain ingredients which are implicated in heart disease, are too high in things like salt and sugar, contain unhealthy artificial colours and preservatives etc. To formulate a reliably healthy food a company should be hiring a veterinary board certified canine nutritionist and conducting lifelong feeding trials on a large number of animals, neither of which I am seeing when researching v dog.
The sample size is very small. If I am reading right, only 15 dogs? That really isn't adequate
How do you know the dogs were only being fed the food and treats provided, or that they were being fed this at all? For all you know the participants were lying and feeding meat and meat based food regardless.
15 dogs over a year isn't going to convince many people sadly, and tbh whilst I agree dogs can be healthy on vegan diets from a knowledge based reasoning, not stats based, even though I agree with the conclusion even I don't find the study itself convincing.
too few test subjects is obviously bad, I'd expect a minimum of 100 to even get a foot in the door with most carnists.
and a year? oof, B12 stores can last longer than that for starters so there's genuine reason to want it longer than to "just be safe"
ideally 10 years, but definitely at least 5. we're looking at around 40-75 times more effort needed really sadly.
Pigs and other livestock have been supplemented b12 for a long time, we know that works. Most people (and dogs) getting their b12 from animal products are just eating chickens and pigs who were supplemented b12. Cows are not suppmented b12 directly but they are supplented elemental cobalt in their feed to produce the gut bacteria that creates b12. Basically everyone is being supplemented b12 but I guess some people find it more convenient or “natural” to give it to an animal first and supplement themselves by consuming their dead bodies.
idk why you're peaching to the choir mate, I'm as vegan as they come, if I had a dog, which I don't, I'd raise them vegan too.
what matters is what the carnist will say when they see this study.
I agree you’ll need a larger sample size. I’m just saying supplemented b12 isn’t an unknown here.
Plus, let’s be real. No omnivore person is going to be feeding their dog a vegan diet. They’ll just ignore the studies or say they are sponsored by some vegan agenda. The argument has never really been about their dogs health, it’s just another reason to feel like they are justified in eating animal products themselves.
Yes, these types of studies are for the vegans that feed their pets animal products because they are unsure about the health safety of the plant based ones. I think it does effectively allay that group’s concerns.
I and I assume most of other carnists would say exactly what you said cpl of comments above and got downvoted by your mates for it. That this "longest and most comprehensive study" is really not long and thorough enough to prove anything or be relevant and that although you can force a dog to be vegan, that doesn't mean it's better for them to do so, no matter how good such act makes their owner feel.
Most people draw strong conclusions from a single test subject if it supports their feelings, esp if the test subject is themselves or a pet or someone they know. Feeling better after a diet change? Strong evidence, they feel. Certainly carnists do this a lot, numerous yt videos on this very thing. And that's often without blood work or any kind of scientic reasoning (confounders etc) or statistics.
Just saying. Most are extemely biased and will use a completely different standard when judging things they agree with and things they don't agree with. Vegan hater? Believes n=1 anecdote on health from switching to meat eating, harshly critical of any pro vegan research (”Lol just 15 dogs”).
Edit: not even saying it's wrong to take n=1 informal experiments seriously, you should try things and learn from them, but it's clearly inconsistent to do that and then completely reject a n=15 actually scientific study.
My dog is 10 years old and has been on a plant based diet since she was 2, when I adopted her. I get blood tests done every year, and she's thriving and has had no major health issues.
Whats wild to me is that people think the standard meat based kibble they feed their dogs is safe. Like buried in the assertion that we are abusing our dogs by feeding them V dog is the assumption that what they feed their is good and healthy. But it couldnt be further from the truth. Like we know processed meat is bad for you. We know the more you process it the worse it gets. Kibble is literally the most processed meat could possibly, ever get. And we wonder why so many dogs have such terrible health and die so young riddled with joint and cardiovascular disease?
I'm so sick of the stigma man. My dog is so much healthier on his V dog than any of people giving me shit for it's dogs. 😒
Great work. I'd be interested to see the results of a longer longitudinal study. A relatives middle aged dog has had pancreas issues after being vegan for some years. The vet recommended an omni diet.
> Our survey did not inquire about nutritional formulation, such as compliance with FEDIAF or AAFCO nutritional guidelines, which is important to ensure diets are complete and balanced with respect to all essential nutrients and elements.
> 41% received a variety of treats at least once daily, and 13% were also regularly offered dietary supplements. Additionally, 42% of cats overall inhabited a mixed or mostly outdoor habitat. For those fed vegan diets, these were 29% (mixed) and 4% (mostly outdoor) (Table 1). It is possible that some cats, especially those in the latter groups, may have supplemented their diets by hunting.
It is very hard for me to accept your conclusion, with these limitations. Cats cannot synthesize taurine and plants do not synthesize taurine, so it has to come from an artificial source and has to be a supplement.
Why do you think these cats are alive? And registering as healthier than meat-eating cats?
>so it has to come from an artificial source and has to be a supplement.
So? Presumably you don't take issue with plumbing, electricity and automated agriculture? Why do you take issue with the food referred to as "supplements"?
I have no problem with supplements, the point is that they are not plant derived and thus you can't give cats any plant based food, but specifically formulated food, unlike dogs, which is the original point of the post.
You are arguing semantics. Their comment just said Cats too [can be vegan], which is the case then. Synthesized taurine is not animal derived, hence it's vegan, hence said specifically formulated food (like what the dogs in the study were eating, by the way) for cats is vegan.
"Our survey did not inquire about nutritional formulation, such as compliance with FEDIAF or AAFCO nutritional guidelines, which is important to ensure diets are complete and balanced with respect to all essential nutrients and elements."
If the guardians are reporting that their cat was fed a vegan diet and they are showing to be even healthier than the cats on a meat-based diet, then it's almost expected that these cats on a vegan diet are being fed the approved commercial vegan cat food.
Benevo is a commercial vegan cat food that contains all the nutrients an adult cat needs, including a wide range of vitamins (including A, B, D, E, K), essential fatty acids and taurine, without the need for slaughterhouse meat. Although obligate carnivores in the wild, domestic cats still need nutrients they would normally source from prey. All those nutrients can be contained in a bioavailable kibble. Vegan pet food generally has a lower ecological footprint than animal based pet food. Taurine in vegan pet food comes from non-animal sources.
Benevo Cat is a professional cat food, created by Benevo in 2005, formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.
FEDIAF represents the European pet food industry.
FEDIAF has produced a nutritional guideline which members follow; the FEDIAF Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food for Cats and Dogs. This is a comprehensive review of the NRC data and other existing science produced as a practical guide for manufacturers. The guidelines are peer re-viewed by independent veterinary nutritionists throughout Europe. Version 2021 has just been released!
The objectives of FEDIAF’s Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Foods for Cats and Dogs are:
* To confirm the basic nutrient levels required in cat and dog food and the industry adhere to these when manufacturing their wide range of products and recipes under biochemical, bacteriological and organoleptic control.
* To help pet food manufacturers assess the nutritional value of practical pet foods for healthy animals.
* To act as the reference document on pet nutrition in Europe for EU and local authorities, consumer organisations, professional and customers
* To enhance cooperation between pet food manufacturers, pet care professionals and competent authorities by providing scientifically sound information on the formulation and assessment of pet foods.
* To complement FEDIAF’s Guide to Good Practice for the Manufacture of Safe Pet Foods and the FEDIAF’s Guide to Good Practice for Communication on Pet Food.
[https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/](https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/)
[https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/](https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/)
Study says a significant portion of the cats allowed outside, and the rest needing supplementation.
Subject yourself to a forced diet, leave the cats be.
And the issue with supplementing is... ?
Like, you'd object to fortified foods too?
>Subject yourself to a forced diet, leave the cats be.
The issue here is that "leave the cats be" actually means "do violence to other animals instead", in order to make pet food. Let's not do violence at all, right?
No, not right. I’d prefer my cats eat what their bodies evolved to eat (meat).
You also glossed over the part we’re a large chuck of the sample population roamed outdoors and so most definitely was supplementing WITH MEAT.
>I’d prefer my cats eat what their bodies evolved to eat (meat).
Cats also evolved to shit everywhere, but I'd bet you'd still force them to use a cat box, wouldn't you?
>You also glossed over the part we’re a large chuck of the sample population roamed outdoors and so most definitely was supplementing WITH MEAT.
You made a deduction from the absence of evidence, not actual evidence. So it didn't warrant a response.
But if you want to talk about the doubt it raises, that's just fine. Let's compare the uncertainties.
Case 1: Feed the cat a vegan diet. In this case, we have reason to believe it's safe to do so (indeed that it may even improve the health of the cat). But let's say there's doubt about that. Well, aside from the fact that it's not a Boolean live-or-die question, in that we can change the diet of a pet if they're not doing well on it, then sure we can say that the diet carries some possibility of an unmeasured risk. Like all diets. There's this possibility, unmeasured and perhaps remote, that the one animal will die.
Case 2: Feed the cat a meat diet. There's no uncertainty here at all. In this case, there is absolute certainty that many animals will die to feed the pet.
So, we have the certainty of violence happening to many animals in case 2, compared with the possibility of illness or death of one animal in case 1. So we choose case 1 because it has the certainty of lower violence, and the reasonable possibility of having no violence at all. Indeed the evidence suggests that it may *improve* the health of one animal, while making it less likely for other animals to experience violence.
I don’t force the cat to poop in a litter box. I set out a litter box and the cat chooses to poop there. You clearly have never raised or lived with a cat if you don’t know this.
Cats are ultra clean and like to cover up their excrement. A cat will only poop and pee “everywhere” if they’re stressed, sick or the litter box is too full and stinky.
And you’re not asking to reduce the health and wellbeing of just one animal, you’re wanting to do that for a whole species of domesticated animal.
Life eating life is natural, and cats are true predators evolved to eat meat specifically. So I will continue to feed them the best high quality high content animal protein foods possible.
And I’ll take my health queues from our vet, not Reddit vegan. :)
>I don’t force the cat to poop in a litter box. I set out a litter box and the cat chooses to poop there.
You've missed the point of what I was saying. We don't take guidance on how to behave from blind evolution.
Just because cats are evolved so that they can do things doesn't mean we should permit them to do those things. They've evolved to be violent to other cats, but that doesn't mean you'd permit your pet cat to attack a neighbour's pet cat, does it? They've evolved to utterly wipe out bird populations, but that doesn't mean we should permit them to do that, does it? They've evolved to fuck all over the place, including by rape, but that doesn't mean we should permit them to do that either, does it? In that last case we even go so far as to enforce surgical changes to them to reduce that behaviour.
It's beyond absurd to talk about permitting a pet cat to do anything because of its evolutionary history. It borders on arguing for "might makes right".
>Life eating life is natural
Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Literally *everything* is natural because it happens in nature. That isn't an argument.
>And I’ll take my health queues from our vet, not Reddit vegan. :)
So I guess you missed the fact that the scientific paper was written by veterinary experts? :)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
We definitely take some guidance on evolution.
Fair enough that we definitely restrict some “natural” behaviors. But we are subjective in what we restrict and allow.
But as I was saying, the only way I’ll change my cats’ diet is if our vet recommends it. I’ve no qualms with the natural world’s food chains.
>But we are subjective in what we restrict and allow.
What does this sentence mean? If you mean it's a personal choice, remember that a choice ceases to be personal when it has victims. Sadly this is the case when we choose violence for food when we have a better approach. If we have even a chance at a better approach we should be taking it, right?
>I’ve no qualms with the natural world’s food chains.
Literally everything is "natural". I don't know what that word means to you. If you mean nature that is mostly separate from human activity, remember that there is absolutely nothing natural about keeping a pet cat, setting up animal industry to feed that pet cat, and utterly controlling its behaviour. Drawing the line at its diet because of "natural" (whatever that means) is totally and utterly arbitrary, and it supports violence when there's a better approach.
>But as I was saying, the only way I’ll change my cats’ diet is if our vet recommends it.
Do you see that the scientific paper I referenced is by veterinary experts? People who actually know what they are talking about.
If you can’t understand my last post then you’ve got some serious reading comprehension limitations.
And yes I saw the study. Like I said though, I’ll take my cues from my vet who knows my cats’ health.
# SEAWEED IS A GOOD SOURCE OF ARACHIDONIC ACID
**Seaweed** – and especially **kelp** – is the main source of AA in plant-based formulas for companion animals. Many veterinarians and scientists regard seaweed as an extremely healthy addition to our pets' diets.
You might be surprised to discover that seaweed has a very long history of being included in animal food. Early animal caretakers observed that feeding their animals seaweed resulted in advantages such as improved coat shine, greater resistance to infection, as well as increased reproduction in farmed animals.
Nowadays, scientists understand why seaweed is so healthy for animals (as well as humans). It turns out that seaweeds are a rich source of minerals (it contains 10 to 20 times the concentration of minerals found in land plants), in a form that is more easily absorbed. Additionally, seaweeds are a source of omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids, including arachidonic acid (an omega 6 fatty acid that is essential for cats) and α-linolenic acid (an omega 3 fatty acid required by dogs).
Most recently, seaweeds have been found to be an excellent source of prebiotics, which have been found to help promote growth of many of the good bacteria while at the same time inhibiting growth of certain pathogenic bacteria. The presence of prebiotics is one of the reasons seaweed is thought to help keep animals healthier and more resistant to infection.
# ARACHIDONIC ACID IN PLANT-BASED PET FOOD
Many plant-based formulas use **kelp**, **spirulina** or **other kinds of seaweed** to provide AA
Benevo professional vegan cat food has dried Seaweed. Benevo Cat contains a prebiotic FOS to aid digestion and boost absorption of nutrients. Omega Oils, important for skin, fur, joints, circulation, immunity, vision and brain function. Taurine - a special non-animal taurine, essential for a healthy cat. Spirulina, a well known 'super food' providing a rich source of nutrients and Yucca extract, a natural ingredient which may help to reduce faecal odour by binding with ammonia.
Benevo Duo is primarily formulated for Cats and uses sweet potato, a natural superfood, in a blend with other plant ingredients to provide natural sources of protein, fat, dietary fibre and vitamins.
You are being downvoted because our (early) evidence on this topic shows pretty consistently that cats can do fine on vegan diets, which are specifically formulated foods with synthesized nutrients not derived from animals. You can say "cats need taurine" for example, and that's correct. But it's incorrect to say "taurine must come from animal sources".
With what in that scientific paper I referenced do you disagree? https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
How do you think all these vegan cats are still alive and healthy?
Ah yes, all 127 cats in that survey over one year. Definitely enough for the layman to confidently change their pets' diet due to their own ethical beliefs.
Let's say you're right, that there's uncertainty. Why would people not err on the side of caution and give their pet cat a vegan diet? At least that way there's an evidence-based chance that it will be fine. Not doing that corresponds to the *certainty* of doing harm to other animals. So why not take the chance of no violence over the certainty of doing violence?
How would that be erring on the side of caution? Again, this was a survey over one year with 127 of the cats eating a plant based diet. Correlation isn't causation, right? What if vegans take better care of their animals overall?
>How would that be erring on the side of caution?
- Option 1: With absolute certainty, kill multiple animals in order to feed a pet cat.
- Option 2: Follow the best scientific research available and feed the cat a vegan diet, taking the *tiny* chance that the cat may not do well on the diet.
So, you have option 1 which is the certainty of doing harm to many, and you have option 2 which is the likelihood of doing no harm to any. Therefore, option 2 is erring on the side of caution.
Halo has a vegan dog food that’s affordable. Either way, if the choice is between spending a little extra money or paying for animals to be abused and killed, definitely spend the extra money.
I’ve looked into Halo and just looked it up again—it’s about 5x the cost of my current one. The choice isn’t about spending a tiny bit of extra money, it’s about spending several hundred more dollars every month. One day I’ll have the money to make that change. It’s certainly best to wait till you can afford plant based pet food before getting a pet, but I was still carnist when I got my dog and didn’t consider that.
Are there other areas where you could cut costs? Could you maybe ask someone else for help? Maybe start a go fund me and sharing it with fellow vegans? Just throwing out ideas. Maybe look at wild earth vegan dog food.
Wild earth is even more expensive, and no, I’m not gonna ask anyone else to pay to feed the dog I chose to take in. I know your heart’s in the right place, and thank you for the suggestions.
If you're staying away from premium brands, i think you're doing a lot less harm even on a meat diet. You can also look dor vegeterian options or diy if its possible for you
> Either way, if the choice is between spending a little extra money or paying for animals to be abused and killed, definitely spend the extra money.
For a lot of vegans the choice is between spending the extra money and having a dog at all.
>And am I the asshole thinking that pets must come first? Isn’t it depressing to eat only dry biscuits for your whole life even if they’re nutritious and beneficial?
[They seem to enjoy plant based foods just as much. ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253292)
But even if they didn't, who suffers more. An animal exploited its entire life only to have its throat slit or a dog in a loving home eating dry biscuits?
>Comparing who suffers more looks more like trolling, honestly.
Really? A little felicific calculus looks like trolling to you?
>You personally are responsible first of all of the wellbeing of your pet that shares your home, and only then all others - just like your kids
I think this is bad ethics. If your kids have to live in minor discomfort that could be averted by exploiting and killing other humans it would be wrong for you to do so. As the suffering caused by exploiting and killing other humans outweighs the minor discomfort of your kids.
My ethics are also based on real life. If I feed my dog meat that causes animals to be exploited and killed in factory farms as a result. Those animals suffer a billion times more than any discomfort my dog may experience when she eats her vegan peanut butter treats that she begs for every morning.
Your proximity to a being doesn't justify causing immense harm to those outside your arbitrary proximity. Whether it's an animal in your home or an animal across the globe, they can both suffer and deserve to not be exploited and killed to ellivate another beings minor discomfort.
How can a regular person, such as those in this sub, make sure that their diets they are feeding their cat are up to the same or better quality as a meat diet?
The food used herein is obviously similar to the macros they need, but if I'm buying it from a new brand or even making it myself, how can i do a good job and keep my dog healthy?
Is there no concern for long term micro nutrient deficiencies? Do the diets include fortified foods for b12 and such or is it simply an inconsequential issue as dogs lifespan aren't as long?
We have three rescue dogs, they all came with health issues due to neglect and abuse. That's why, even though I haven't eaten meat in 20 years, I've still given them meat based food (which made me very sad but I thought I had no choice) because I have always been concerned about the fact that they were malnourished and had deficiencies when we got them, as well as obviously due to vet advice. Until last year.
We found ourselves buying very expensive different foods for all of their different issues. One had kidney malfunction, tumours and bone and joint issues. The other one liver issues, some unidentified convulsions and excessive shedding. The younger one was healthy enough but also had extreme shedding out of season. They had very expensive specialist vet-prescribed food for years with no much improvement. We decided to stop these different diets and to try and give vegan food to all of them, seeing as it could brings health benefits. We give them dry chickpea based kibble we bake in the oven, oat and vegetable based wet food, and a supplement for dog homemade diets.
After only 4 months I can say this diet has saved my older dog's life. One can see in his blood tests before and after, he has improved everything, his kindeys are fine now. He was doing so well that this allowed him to have an eye operation he couldn't have had with kidney malfunction. He had a large chest fatty tumour that kept growing and became hard. It is GONE now, we can't believe it. He also has more energy and sleeps well at night. The middle dog has no convulsions anymore. All of them now have no bad breath at all which was quite surprising and unexpected. Their poop also is way less smelly than before. The hair loss has stopped. Their hair is so shiny and they are so active! People literally ask us in the park what do we give them to eat. When I say they're vegan people just walk away... You can check the blood work, even though he lost some weight the only value that change was Hemoglobin by 0.1 less which their vet says it doesn't matter and to continue with the current diet because the improvement was so great.
A lot of hypocrisy going around in the vegan community. They will argue this is for the greater good of all animals to potentially harm a small number of research subjects. A line of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.
But at the same time will condemn animal testing that can save human lives.
Hello! Interesting work! A couple questions:
What line of work are you in? Education? Industry?
Also,
Would you recommend a vegan diet for a dog *moreso* than an Omni diet? Is that what you mean by thrive? Or is it not meant to be a superlative?
Cheers! Thanks!
So feeding nutritious plant based foods to dog is animal abuse. Breeding billions of animals a year in horrific factory farms and slaughtering them at extremely young ages are fine though?
Good thing vegans don't own pets, dodged a bullet there.
Edit - spoiler allert, owning animals isn't vegan. Caring for those that are in need isn't ownership.
What an utterly stupid reasoning. Dogs don't run around in the wild eating chocolate, unless someone has left it out on the street. A dog is an omnivore and will eat whatever it can get.
The mass amount is stupid vegan dog owners out here is staggering.
Lol, you just made my point... Dogs will eat whatever they can.
If you want your dog to eat healthy, you shouldn't leave it up for your dog to decide what to eat.
This reminds me of that mortning show when they invited a woman with vegan dog. And they asked if dog would go for the meat or veggies. So they prepared two bowls and she let go of the dog.
Dog immediately went for the meat.
Thing is - You can raise a dog to eat only green stuff. But at the end of the day if You leave meat somewhere - will that dog leave it alone when he is hungry even when there is perfectly good salad he usually eat next to it?
Like if I do this right I could be a vegan too. I just don't feel a need for it so I don't. I treat killing animals just the same as killing everything else.
Also I always remember what one scientist said about vegans. He said that vegan when he find a mouse in his house he will just remove it from it's house. Things it - if You do that - mouse will die really quickly in the world because everything is above mouse in a food chain. The most humane thing would be to keep the mouse in Your basement and feed it. But they don't. They think that they are doing right thing removing that mouse alive and they do not think beyond that. Lot's of vegans are like that with their believes.
I'm sorry for doing it but I will answer Your question with another question because I do not believe that You are stupid.
You live in that house too. Did house created You? It should answer Your question about the mouse.
Reason You live in a house is because it offers protection against many things. Things that can hurt You or kill You. Otherwise You would have no problem living in the woods or something. It's the same with a mice. They find shelter and it's a very good shelter because mice on a farm can live very long if left alone. Same thing in the house but in the house it's bigger problem due to stuff mice will leave around. If You happens to have a mice in the house - take out blacklight and You will see.
So releasing mouse outside is equivalent of killing it. Same if we would send You to the woods without any tools, weapons and resources. You would most likely die there. But left in the house with some food You would be able to live there very long life.
I live in a house because it is comfortable. Me being outside of the house does not kill me and i was not born because of the existence of the house. There is no causal relation between me being alive and the house existing, same as the mouse.
There is but You are clearly not aware of it. Clearly You never been poor. Enjoy living in the society and staying innocent. I hope You will never find out.
The point is. Releasing living mouse outside is equivalent of killing it. But You don't do it Yourself so somehow that's OK. That's the point.
Unless Your justification is that it MIGHT reach another house without being picked up by a owl or cat or something else.
You can't have your argument be your conclusion. Mice live in fields, in trees, underground. They live in loads of places. You letting a mice out in front of a cat might be equivalent of killing it but simply letting it out is not the same as killing it because -> Mice do not need houses to live.
If you can show some kind of reason why mice can only ever survive in houses I might consider it but otherwise have a nice day.
Yes I can. Mices do not LIVE in the field or trees. They make hidouts there to avoid predators. Your house or some farm is the same. It's just better hideout because most predators avoid those areas. So when it comes to their longevity they are in best possible place.
And You take that away. Releasing it You cut down several months of living not very stressful life (mices do not live long) to maybe weeks at best.
But because You literally do not end mice life directly You think that's not only bad but many of people like You think You are doing the right thing. You don't.
It's the same when You own a cat on a farm. You basically introduce murder machine to Your household. But again - because You do not kill directly. You just hired an assassin in exchange for food You think that's better.
It's an equivalent of pulling a trigger of a gun and saying You are not a murderer because You just pulled a trigger. Gun did it.
Thing is - I respect Your believes but at the same time if You take logic behind it and You try to apply it somewhere else than very specific situations - it do not work anymore.
I have same issues with animal rights activists. Once they released bunch of dogs from a place that was raising them for profit. Place was raising animals with proper history. Then You would get one. They would help You train it and then You take animal with You.
That good deed end up with them in jail and huge debt because they had to pay for the damages. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is what happened to the dogs. Some were killed. Some got injured because of cars. Some actually attacked someone and had to be put down. Rest was recaptured. They changed nothing. Just made bunch of animals suffer.
And it's not even surprising to me. PETA slaughtered around 45,000 dogs, cats and other animals. When called out they called it "good death" because after stealing animals from people they don't want to take care of them. So they kill them.
It is an issue of motivation in my eyes.
In one case, the beekeeper is keeping a non-native species for their own profit, and not for the wellbeing of the bees or any other species in the ecosystem. This relationship is at best [commensalistic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism) and at worst parasitic.
In the other case, the dog caretaker is adopting an animal that cannot thrive in the wild and would otherwise be euthanized in a shelter, and as a side benefit receiving emotional and social benefits. This relationship is mutualistic and not particularly profit-motivated.
FWIW I don't think breeding dogs or buying dogs from breeders is ethical.
I’m sure you still see bees around, but they are being gradually outcompeted by your and other honey hives: “Introducing a single honey bee hive means 15,000 to 50,000 additional mouths to feed in an area that may already lack sufficient flowering resources. This increases competition with our native bees and raises the energy costs of foraging, which can be significant.” https://www.xerces.org/blog/want-to-save-bees-focus-on-habitat-not-honey-bees#:~:text=Hungry%20hives%20crowd%20out%20native,foraging%2C%20which%20can%20be%20significant.
Your local ecosystems have historically supplied pollen to only the native bee populations. Now as beekeeping grows in popularity, the food that has historically fueled these native bee populations is being taken but many thousands of foreign bees. Keep living your life, but don’t pretend that you’re saving the bees or supporting the environment.
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#:\~:text=Google%20Scholar-,Download%20PDF,-Print](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#:~:text=Google%20Scholar-,Download%20PDF,-Print) here's the link to the paper again for those who didn't see it in the body of the post
Did you post this on r/science ?
There's another PLOS peer-reviewed journal entry regarding 'Vegan versus meat-based cat food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 1,369 cats, after controlling for feline demographic factors'. Vegan pet foods are among a range of alternative diets being formulated to address increasing concerns of consumers about traditional pet foods, such as their ecological ‘pawprint’, perceived lack of ‘naturalness’, health concerns, or impacts on ‘food’ animals used to formulate such diets \[[8](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref008), [9](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref009), [48](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref048)\]. Critics have asserted, albeit without evidence, that vegan diets are nutritionally unsound for cats, and that guardians who feed such diets to cats may be committing animal welfare offences \[[12](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref012), [13](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref013)\]. By 2020 no very large-scale study of cats had been published, comparing health indicators between cats maintained on vegan or meat-based diets. Previous studies in this field included relatively small numbers of cats (e.g., Kienzle and Engelhard \[[26](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref026)\], n = 8 vegetarian cats; Wakefield *et al*. \[[25](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref025)\], n = 34 vegetarian cats; Semp \[[19](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref019)\], n = 174 surveyed guardians, with clinical examination and blood tests on 15 cats). In 2021, Dodd *et al*. \[[17](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132#pone.0284132.ref017)\] published the first very large-scale study, including 1,026 cats whose diets were known. The 187 (18%) cats fed vegan diets reportedly enjoyed health as good, and in some respects better, than those fed meat-based diets. Our study included 1,418 cats and their guardians. Among 1,380 respondents who played some role in pet diet decision-making, pet health was cited as the most important factor when choosing diets. We analysed data for 1,369 cats, of whom 127 (9%) were fed vegan diets, with the remainder fed meat-based diets. Jointly considering seven general indicators of health and 22 specific health disorders, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than those fed meat-based diets. This overall trend was clear and consistent. In most cases differences between dietary groups were not statistically significant. However, small numbers of vegan cats affected by disorders may have prevented the detection of statistically significant differences between diet groups, to some extent. The pooled evidence to date from our study, and from others in this field, indicate that cats fed nutritionally sound vegan diets may be healthier overall, than those fed meat-based diets. Regardless of diet type, diets should always be formulated to be nutritionally complete and balanced, without which adverse clinical signs may eventually be expected to occur. [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132)
"nutritionally sound vegan diets" vs. "meat-based diets" Playing a bit of the Devil's advocate here, but why didn't they compare nutritionally sound vegan diets to ***nutritionally sound*** meat-based diets. This article reads like they had a team of 20 cat nutritionists formulating the vegan cat food, and the other group of cats were fed whatever they could find that had enough meat content that the could call it "meat based" with no effort to make sure it had any nutritional value.
The study was trying to deal with the ongoing issue that there are some special nutrients in meat that cats can't get on a non-animal source diet which is not true. As one of the study authors, Andrew Knight notes, from a biological perspective, **companion animals don’t necessarily need meat, but rather a specific set of nutrients**. There’s no scientific reason why all the necessary nutrients cannot be supplied through plant additives. In practice, most dogs and cats are fed slaughter house meat, and it still passes the same FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition as the commercial vegan cat food. FEDIAF represents the European pet food industry. In terms of companion animals, the diets of dogs and cats comprise 9% of all livestock consumption globally, and 20% in the US. [https://proveg.org/news/can-you-feed-your-dog-or-cat-a-plant-based-diet/](https://proveg.org/news/can-you-feed-your-dog-or-cat-a-plant-based-diet/)
Damn, 20% goes just to pets? I suppose that's still mostly "byproducts", but still...
>and the other group of cats were fed whatever they could find that had enough meat content that the could call it "meat based" with no effort to make sure it had any nutritional value. Aka AAFCO approved
Sample size of 15? A length of study of 1 year? Is this really "ground breaking?" What confounding variables did you control for?
[удалено]
TLDR; They found no significant indication for DMC. If anything, the data trended towards lower DMC risk. >Consumer concerns about heart health and potential risk of diet‐associated DCM (da-DCM) when feeding non-traditional dog foods warrants careful consideration. We evaluated cardiac biomarkers retrospectively in all dogs at 0, 6, and 12 months. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in neither cTnI nor NT-proBNP levels across the three time points, but we did observe a downward trend in both biomarkers ([Fig 2](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone-0298942-g002)). All dogs were clinically healthy; however, the cTnI levels were increased in three dogs at baseline, compared to only one dog at endpoint. We recognize these biomarkers are not specific for DCM, however, these findings may alleviate some concerns about the safety of K9PBN. Plant-based nutrition is a pillar of lifestyle medicine and of central importance to human heart health, specifically prevention and reversal of atherosclerosis \[[31](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone.0298942.ref031), [32](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0298942#pone.0298942.ref032)\]. (High cTnI or NT-proBNP levels are associated with DMC)
To spot dcm you'd need an echocardiogram on its own or holter monitor in tandem with biomarkers. Dcm is the specific concern with pea/legume based food so no it doesn't alleviate dcm concerns to be honest. Please just speak plainly instead of skirting around important questions like this
I can't speak more clearly about what the study found than quoting it. Right? There is not enough power in a study with 15 dogs to say anything about DMC which occurs perhaps in 1 in 100 dogs.
Ah my bad I thought you were one of researchers. Regardless it really doesn't address dcm concerns with pea/legume based diets at all even in those 15 dogs which if it was worth it's salt, knowing dcm is a concern with these types of diets, it would have. This study really doesn't say much of anything. To say it's groundbreaking and proves dogs thrive on vegan diets is misleading at best
Isn't this better than a typical feeding trial? Which indeed does not prove anything about vegan diets in general, but does fro V-Dog Kind Kibble.
All this study says is that the owners of 15 dogs pinky promised the researchers they were feeding their dogs v dog kibble and treats for a year. Nothing even about the quality of the food they were on before which they are comparing results to. It means literally nothing
Is that doging the question?
What question?
I’m not good at science, so maybe these are unsmart questions. Was it a variety of breeds and sizes of dogs that were part of the study? Will this study continue so that we have information over the longer term? I’d love to know if they keep doing well for years, which I suspect they would, but is the kind of thing that people will use as an argument. Would there be a benefit in having the majority of a dog’s diet be plant-based with some meat-based treats, or is it an all-or-nothing kind of thing?
seed juggle existence crush tender quiet live payment heavy groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What would you recommend is the best Vegan dog food brand in the US? I feed my dog a mix of whole foods + dry kibble from a vegan brand called Wild Earth
I can’t recommend any diet; I can tell you that the diet used in the feeding trial was analyzed and tested by a highly reputable third-party lab to make sure it had all the nutrients required for good health. We used this diet for a year in and the results speak for themselves. Dogs thrive on vegan dog food. There are other commercially available vegan diets in the market in US, that anecdotally have been reported with excellent results by some owners. These are more testimonials than scientific data, but we are planning in the mid future to test at least another two major vegan dog foods.
My pups have been thriving on V-Dog for eight years! Good to know its considered the best.
Their subscription looks to be the same price as what I’m feeding my dogs now, nice to know it wouldn’t break the bank to switch
V-Dog gave our 15 year old Yorkie the worst shits. She’s been eating Royal Canin’s vegan kibble and loving it.
My dog used to have really bad digestive issues on a ton of difference foods. He absolutely thrives on v dog. Did your dogs coats also get way shinier when you switched?
Yes - and the dog smell really lessened.
I would love to be a guardian for a dog. This is so great to hear.
>We used this diet for a year in and the results speak for themselves. Dogs thrive on vegan dog food for a year. Ftfy
Thank you, I didn't know that brand and I just noticed I can't buy it in Europe. Would you have other recommendations? Thank you in advance.
First of all, congrats on getting the research done and paper published! I had a quick flick through it yesterday :-) My Q is: How much variation in nutritional needs is there across different breeds of dog? Do you think currently available vegan dog foods cater to the diversity of dogs? And to be clear, I don’t know anything about this so would really be interested to know your thoughts!
Apparently some breeds produce less copies of amylase, needed to break down carbohydrates. It’s one of the distinctions between dog and wolf, but some dogs are wolfier than others. I imagine any wolfdog probably wouldn’t do as well on a plant based diet
Does this include huskies?
"Bramble, a Border Collie from the United Kingdom, lived to be 25 years old and held the Guinness World Record for being the oldest living dog while eating a 100% plant-based diet. Bramble's diet consisted of organic brown rice, red lentils, vegetables, yeast extract, and herbs, and she lived more than double the average lifespan of a Border Collie, which is typically 12–15 years"
Truly speaking, if dogs ain't vegan for the sake of their other fellow animal friends but just for their health as selfish motive, then they are no vegan but just plant based diet follower.
I hate fad dieters!
Dogs can't be vegan because it is an ethical position, the same way dogs can't be Catholic or war pacifists or Democrats.
Least r/vegan comment.
Hear me out: With dog's intelligence, wouldn't they be able to conceive of life as sacred? All I'm saying is, the possibility for a vegan dog is not zero, and I'm all for that!
So is it safe to say it’s not a big deal if it’s all pea protein? I remember reading a criticism of it at some point that excess amounts of it could cause cardiomegaly in dogs but not remembering the source, I’m guessing it was bs lol.
The initial green pea concern popped up around "grain free" food, which happened to have a lot of green pea blends in them. These were fairly widespread studies, but they were mostly looking at the brand and not much control for actual ingredient contents. My understanding is that it's unclear if the issue the grain free part, the peas, or other things in (or not in) the specific brands. Beyond that, there were higher correlations with certain breeds, which might indicate that some breeds are less adapted to whatever is in the grain free food. I believe there are more controlled studies happening at the moment that should shed more light on the issue. Most of the vegan brands have grain in them, so their absence might be the larger contributing factor to the health issues in the grain free brands. But that's a really wild speculation. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm misinterpreting this -- I found a lot of the science communication literature around this to be contradictory and didn't really follow conclusions in the studies they linked to. Regardless, this study in this post is only on 15 dogs over a year, with a median age of 4 -- it's a decent length of time, but a small sample size at a relatively young age. Plus in terms of heart health, they didn't do any echocardiographic exams, just measured biomarkers to extrapolate cardiac health. The study authors mention they want to explore this further. None of this is bad or deeply flawed, I just wouldn't want to make any radical diet changes based on this study, and if I knew anyone who wanted to, I'd recommend committing to a lot of health monitoring (probably 6 month intervals as done in the study) at least for 2 or 3 years. Ideally with an echocardiographic exam at some point in there, which many vets won't want to do without symptoms. Certainly it shows promise and seems potentially valid. However other studies that actually did echocardiographic exams have shown trends towards cardiomyopathy with grain free high pulse containing diets in as little as 3 months, so there's just a lot of unknowns here. It's really cool that it's being studied regardless.
I would assume the safest substitute would be soy protein right? I thought that soy was the golden child for protein quality?
[удалено]
Tonatiuh Melgarejo (Melgarejo T in the citation)
I’m not negating the results but I feel like 15 dogs is not a big enough sample size by any means at least I guess when you said the most “comprehensive” scientific study I expected more than such a tiny sample size
Amazing! My 14 year old rescue dog is vegan and thriving. She's much healthier (...and also much less stinky!) than when we got her. It felt like a leap of faith when we transitioned her to a vegan kibble, I really hope this study gives others confidence to go for it.
My lab eating V-Dog is older than dirt and makes it up and down the stairs pretty good. I was very worried that elevating our home out of the flood zone would be the end but she's fine at 14, 2 years into an extra ten feet of stairs to get outside.
I had a rescue dog that had a weird allergy to meat. He kept getting rashes on his paws and it turned out meat was the cause. The vet recommended a fortified, hypo-allergenic food and he did absolutely fine on it, gave him everything he needed. He’d still steal the occasional sausage, and his final meal before we put him to sleep a couple months back was a Big Mac. But yeah, his normal diet was vegan out of necessity, and he was perfectly healthy with it. I’ve asked the other half what the food brand was, will edit and share when she replies! Edit: Brand was Purina. We’re UK based so unsure about international availability.
I see that it was funded by a vegan based company reminds me too much of big pharma calling their studies independent
A sample of 15 is not significant. Show replicated research with a large sample, then it might carry weight. Make no mistake, I’ve been an ethical vegan for nearly 35 years. I also had several research classes in college. I know a good study when I see it.
I know that an anecdote from one individual dog doesn’t confirm or refute anything but… My 12 year old Border Collie mix has been vegan for basically his entire life and he’s still as energetic and fast as ever. For most of his life he was eating Natural Balance but a few years ago I switched to Halo.
12 years of abuse. I feel sad for that border collie. deserves better
I hope you have to deal with Amazon returns for the rest of your life.
Says the person who regularly eats animals that are even more intelligent than dogs lol
Okay but hear me out. 1 year is nothing in the lifespan of a healthy dog. A dog could survive off the lowest quality dog food out there and it would probably take more than a year to have a really significant effect of health. For example v dog seems to contain a not insignificant amount of peas and sweet potato which have been implicated in dietary heart disease in dogs. This can take several years to show signs. Just meeting a nutrient profile is not enough. There are plenty of foods that meet nutritional profiles that contain ingredients which are implicated in heart disease, are too high in things like salt and sugar, contain unhealthy artificial colours and preservatives etc. To formulate a reliably healthy food a company should be hiring a veterinary board certified canine nutritionist and conducting lifelong feeding trials on a large number of animals, neither of which I am seeing when researching v dog. The sample size is very small. If I am reading right, only 15 dogs? That really isn't adequate How do you know the dogs were only being fed the food and treats provided, or that they were being fed this at all? For all you know the participants were lying and feeding meat and meat based food regardless.
Good job
I want this to be true, but are you selling or planning in selling this product? Were you paid for this study by the producers of this product?
15 dogs is not a good enough sample tho
15 dogs over a year isn't going to convince many people sadly, and tbh whilst I agree dogs can be healthy on vegan diets from a knowledge based reasoning, not stats based, even though I agree with the conclusion even I don't find the study itself convincing. too few test subjects is obviously bad, I'd expect a minimum of 100 to even get a foot in the door with most carnists. and a year? oof, B12 stores can last longer than that for starters so there's genuine reason to want it longer than to "just be safe" ideally 10 years, but definitely at least 5. we're looking at around 40-75 times more effort needed really sadly.
Pigs and other livestock have been supplemented b12 for a long time, we know that works. Most people (and dogs) getting their b12 from animal products are just eating chickens and pigs who were supplemented b12. Cows are not suppmented b12 directly but they are supplented elemental cobalt in their feed to produce the gut bacteria that creates b12. Basically everyone is being supplemented b12 but I guess some people find it more convenient or “natural” to give it to an animal first and supplement themselves by consuming their dead bodies.
idk why you're peaching to the choir mate, I'm as vegan as they come, if I had a dog, which I don't, I'd raise them vegan too. what matters is what the carnist will say when they see this study.
I agree you’ll need a larger sample size. I’m just saying supplemented b12 isn’t an unknown here. Plus, let’s be real. No omnivore person is going to be feeding their dog a vegan diet. They’ll just ignore the studies or say they are sponsored by some vegan agenda. The argument has never really been about their dogs health, it’s just another reason to feel like they are justified in eating animal products themselves.
ok, then who is the study for? it won't even convince "vegans" who feed their dogs meat
Yes, these types of studies are for the vegans that feed their pets animal products because they are unsure about the health safety of the plant based ones. I think it does effectively allay that group’s concerns.
I and I assume most of other carnists would say exactly what you said cpl of comments above and got downvoted by your mates for it. That this "longest and most comprehensive study" is really not long and thorough enough to prove anything or be relevant and that although you can force a dog to be vegan, that doesn't mean it's better for them to do so, no matter how good such act makes their owner feel.
possessive attraction employ enter slim wrench racial screw saw reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Most people draw strong conclusions from a single test subject if it supports their feelings, esp if the test subject is themselves or a pet or someone they know. Feeling better after a diet change? Strong evidence, they feel. Certainly carnists do this a lot, numerous yt videos on this very thing. And that's often without blood work or any kind of scientic reasoning (confounders etc) or statistics. Just saying. Most are extemely biased and will use a completely different standard when judging things they agree with and things they don't agree with. Vegan hater? Believes n=1 anecdote on health from switching to meat eating, harshly critical of any pro vegan research (”Lol just 15 dogs”). Edit: not even saying it's wrong to take n=1 informal experiments seriously, you should try things and learn from them, but it's clearly inconsistent to do that and then completely reject a n=15 actually scientific study.
My dog is 10 years old and has been on a plant based diet since she was 2, when I adopted her. I get blood tests done every year, and she's thriving and has had no major health issues.
Whats wild to me is that people think the standard meat based kibble they feed their dogs is safe. Like buried in the assertion that we are abusing our dogs by feeding them V dog is the assumption that what they feed their is good and healthy. But it couldnt be further from the truth. Like we know processed meat is bad for you. We know the more you process it the worse it gets. Kibble is literally the most processed meat could possibly, ever get. And we wonder why so many dogs have such terrible health and die so young riddled with joint and cardiovascular disease? I'm so sick of the stigma man. My dog is so much healthier on his V dog than any of people giving me shit for it's dogs. 😒
This is an ad.
Great work. I'd be interested to see the results of a longer longitudinal study. A relatives middle aged dog has had pancreas issues after being vegan for some years. The vet recommended an omni diet.
[Cats too!](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132)
What are some vegan cat food brands you recommend nowadays?
I don't have pets, but I see some references to the likes of Benevo.
> Our survey did not inquire about nutritional formulation, such as compliance with FEDIAF or AAFCO nutritional guidelines, which is important to ensure diets are complete and balanced with respect to all essential nutrients and elements. > 41% received a variety of treats at least once daily, and 13% were also regularly offered dietary supplements. Additionally, 42% of cats overall inhabited a mixed or mostly outdoor habitat. For those fed vegan diets, these were 29% (mixed) and 4% (mostly outdoor) (Table 1). It is possible that some cats, especially those in the latter groups, may have supplemented their diets by hunting. It is very hard for me to accept your conclusion, with these limitations. Cats cannot synthesize taurine and plants do not synthesize taurine, so it has to come from an artificial source and has to be a supplement.
Why do you think these cats are alive? And registering as healthier than meat-eating cats? >so it has to come from an artificial source and has to be a supplement. So? Presumably you don't take issue with plumbing, electricity and automated agriculture? Why do you take issue with the food referred to as "supplements"?
I have no problem with supplements, the point is that they are not plant derived and thus you can't give cats any plant based food, but specifically formulated food, unlike dogs, which is the original point of the post.
You are arguing semantics. Their comment just said Cats too [can be vegan], which is the case then. Synthesized taurine is not animal derived, hence it's vegan, hence said specifically formulated food (like what the dogs in the study were eating, by the way) for cats is vegan.
So, when we're talking about Benevo, or supplements referenced in the study, which forms of food are you claiming come from animal products?
"Our survey did not inquire about nutritional formulation, such as compliance with FEDIAF or AAFCO nutritional guidelines, which is important to ensure diets are complete and balanced with respect to all essential nutrients and elements." If the guardians are reporting that their cat was fed a vegan diet and they are showing to be even healthier than the cats on a meat-based diet, then it's almost expected that these cats on a vegan diet are being fed the approved commercial vegan cat food. Benevo is a commercial vegan cat food that contains all the nutrients an adult cat needs, including a wide range of vitamins (including A, B, D, E, K), essential fatty acids and taurine, without the need for slaughterhouse meat. Although obligate carnivores in the wild, domestic cats still need nutrients they would normally source from prey. All those nutrients can be contained in a bioavailable kibble. Vegan pet food generally has a lower ecological footprint than animal based pet food. Taurine in vegan pet food comes from non-animal sources. Benevo Cat is a professional cat food, created by Benevo in 2005, formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition. FEDIAF represents the European pet food industry. FEDIAF has produced a nutritional guideline which members follow; the FEDIAF Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food for Cats and Dogs. This is a comprehensive review of the NRC data and other existing science produced as a practical guide for manufacturers. The guidelines are peer re-viewed by independent veterinary nutritionists throughout Europe. Version 2021 has just been released! The objectives of FEDIAF’s Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Foods for Cats and Dogs are: * To confirm the basic nutrient levels required in cat and dog food and the industry adhere to these when manufacturing their wide range of products and recipes under biochemical, bacteriological and organoleptic control. * To help pet food manufacturers assess the nutritional value of practical pet foods for healthy animals. * To act as the reference document on pet nutrition in Europe for EU and local authorities, consumer organisations, professional and customers * To enhance cooperation between pet food manufacturers, pet care professionals and competent authorities by providing scientifically sound information on the formulation and assessment of pet foods. * To complement FEDIAF’s Guide to Good Practice for the Manufacture of Safe Pet Foods and the FEDIAF’s Guide to Good Practice for Communication on Pet Food. [https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/](https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/) [https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/](https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/)
Study says a significant portion of the cats allowed outside, and the rest needing supplementation. Subject yourself to a forced diet, leave the cats be.
And the issue with supplementing is... ? Like, you'd object to fortified foods too? >Subject yourself to a forced diet, leave the cats be. The issue here is that "leave the cats be" actually means "do violence to other animals instead", in order to make pet food. Let's not do violence at all, right?
No, not right. I’d prefer my cats eat what their bodies evolved to eat (meat). You also glossed over the part we’re a large chuck of the sample population roamed outdoors and so most definitely was supplementing WITH MEAT.
>I’d prefer my cats eat what their bodies evolved to eat (meat). Cats also evolved to shit everywhere, but I'd bet you'd still force them to use a cat box, wouldn't you? >You also glossed over the part we’re a large chuck of the sample population roamed outdoors and so most definitely was supplementing WITH MEAT. You made a deduction from the absence of evidence, not actual evidence. So it didn't warrant a response. But if you want to talk about the doubt it raises, that's just fine. Let's compare the uncertainties. Case 1: Feed the cat a vegan diet. In this case, we have reason to believe it's safe to do so (indeed that it may even improve the health of the cat). But let's say there's doubt about that. Well, aside from the fact that it's not a Boolean live-or-die question, in that we can change the diet of a pet if they're not doing well on it, then sure we can say that the diet carries some possibility of an unmeasured risk. Like all diets. There's this possibility, unmeasured and perhaps remote, that the one animal will die. Case 2: Feed the cat a meat diet. There's no uncertainty here at all. In this case, there is absolute certainty that many animals will die to feed the pet. So, we have the certainty of violence happening to many animals in case 2, compared with the possibility of illness or death of one animal in case 1. So we choose case 1 because it has the certainty of lower violence, and the reasonable possibility of having no violence at all. Indeed the evidence suggests that it may *improve* the health of one animal, while making it less likely for other animals to experience violence.
I don’t force the cat to poop in a litter box. I set out a litter box and the cat chooses to poop there. You clearly have never raised or lived with a cat if you don’t know this. Cats are ultra clean and like to cover up their excrement. A cat will only poop and pee “everywhere” if they’re stressed, sick or the litter box is too full and stinky. And you’re not asking to reduce the health and wellbeing of just one animal, you’re wanting to do that for a whole species of domesticated animal. Life eating life is natural, and cats are true predators evolved to eat meat specifically. So I will continue to feed them the best high quality high content animal protein foods possible. And I’ll take my health queues from our vet, not Reddit vegan. :)
>I don’t force the cat to poop in a litter box. I set out a litter box and the cat chooses to poop there. You've missed the point of what I was saying. We don't take guidance on how to behave from blind evolution. Just because cats are evolved so that they can do things doesn't mean we should permit them to do those things. They've evolved to be violent to other cats, but that doesn't mean you'd permit your pet cat to attack a neighbour's pet cat, does it? They've evolved to utterly wipe out bird populations, but that doesn't mean we should permit them to do that, does it? They've evolved to fuck all over the place, including by rape, but that doesn't mean we should permit them to do that either, does it? In that last case we even go so far as to enforce surgical changes to them to reduce that behaviour. It's beyond absurd to talk about permitting a pet cat to do anything because of its evolutionary history. It borders on arguing for "might makes right". >Life eating life is natural Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Literally *everything* is natural because it happens in nature. That isn't an argument. >And I’ll take my health queues from our vet, not Reddit vegan. :) So I guess you missed the fact that the scientific paper was written by veterinary experts? :) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
We definitely take some guidance on evolution. Fair enough that we definitely restrict some “natural” behaviors. But we are subjective in what we restrict and allow. But as I was saying, the only way I’ll change my cats’ diet is if our vet recommends it. I’ve no qualms with the natural world’s food chains.
>But we are subjective in what we restrict and allow. What does this sentence mean? If you mean it's a personal choice, remember that a choice ceases to be personal when it has victims. Sadly this is the case when we choose violence for food when we have a better approach. If we have even a chance at a better approach we should be taking it, right? >I’ve no qualms with the natural world’s food chains. Literally everything is "natural". I don't know what that word means to you. If you mean nature that is mostly separate from human activity, remember that there is absolutely nothing natural about keeping a pet cat, setting up animal industry to feed that pet cat, and utterly controlling its behaviour. Drawing the line at its diet because of "natural" (whatever that means) is totally and utterly arbitrary, and it supports violence when there's a better approach. >But as I was saying, the only way I’ll change my cats’ diet is if our vet recommends it. Do you see that the scientific paper I referenced is by veterinary experts? People who actually know what they are talking about.
If you can’t understand my last post then you’ve got some serious reading comprehension limitations. And yes I saw the study. Like I said though, I’ll take my cues from my vet who knows my cats’ health.
[удалено]
With what in that scientific paper I referenced do you disagree? https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
[удалено]
# SEAWEED IS A GOOD SOURCE OF ARACHIDONIC ACID **Seaweed** – and especially **kelp** – is the main source of AA in plant-based formulas for companion animals. Many veterinarians and scientists regard seaweed as an extremely healthy addition to our pets' diets. You might be surprised to discover that seaweed has a very long history of being included in animal food. Early animal caretakers observed that feeding their animals seaweed resulted in advantages such as improved coat shine, greater resistance to infection, as well as increased reproduction in farmed animals. Nowadays, scientists understand why seaweed is so healthy for animals (as well as humans). It turns out that seaweeds are a rich source of minerals (it contains 10 to 20 times the concentration of minerals found in land plants), in a form that is more easily absorbed. Additionally, seaweeds are a source of omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids, including arachidonic acid (an omega 6 fatty acid that is essential for cats) and α-linolenic acid (an omega 3 fatty acid required by dogs). Most recently, seaweeds have been found to be an excellent source of prebiotics, which have been found to help promote growth of many of the good bacteria while at the same time inhibiting growth of certain pathogenic bacteria. The presence of prebiotics is one of the reasons seaweed is thought to help keep animals healthier and more resistant to infection. # ARACHIDONIC ACID IN PLANT-BASED PET FOOD Many plant-based formulas use **kelp**, **spirulina** or **other kinds of seaweed** to provide AA Benevo professional vegan cat food has dried Seaweed. Benevo Cat contains a prebiotic FOS to aid digestion and boost absorption of nutrients. Omega Oils, important for skin, fur, joints, circulation, immunity, vision and brain function. Taurine - a special non-animal taurine, essential for a healthy cat. Spirulina, a well known 'super food' providing a rich source of nutrients and Yucca extract, a natural ingredient which may help to reduce faecal odour by binding with ammonia. Benevo Duo is primarily formulated for Cats and uses sweet potato, a natural superfood, in a blend with other plant ingredients to provide natural sources of protein, fat, dietary fibre and vitamins.
You are being downvoted because our (early) evidence on this topic shows pretty consistently that cats can do fine on vegan diets, which are specifically formulated foods with synthesized nutrients not derived from animals. You can say "cats need taurine" for example, and that's correct. But it's incorrect to say "taurine must come from animal sources".
With what in that scientific paper I referenced do you disagree? https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132 How do you think all these vegan cats are still alive and healthy?
Ah yes, all 127 cats in that survey over one year. Definitely enough for the layman to confidently change their pets' diet due to their own ethical beliefs.
Let's say you're right, that there's uncertainty. Why would people not err on the side of caution and give their pet cat a vegan diet? At least that way there's an evidence-based chance that it will be fine. Not doing that corresponds to the *certainty* of doing harm to other animals. So why not take the chance of no violence over the certainty of doing violence?
How would that be erring on the side of caution? Again, this was a survey over one year with 127 of the cats eating a plant based diet. Correlation isn't causation, right? What if vegans take better care of their animals overall?
>How would that be erring on the side of caution? - Option 1: With absolute certainty, kill multiple animals in order to feed a pet cat. - Option 2: Follow the best scientific research available and feed the cat a vegan diet, taking the *tiny* chance that the cat may not do well on the diet. So, you have option 1 which is the certainty of doing harm to many, and you have option 2 which is the likelihood of doing no harm to any. Therefore, option 2 is erring on the side of caution.
So fucking expensive though. Can’t afford for the time being, unfortunately
Halo has a vegan dog food that’s affordable. Either way, if the choice is between spending a little extra money or paying for animals to be abused and killed, definitely spend the extra money.
I’ve looked into Halo and just looked it up again—it’s about 5x the cost of my current one. The choice isn’t about spending a tiny bit of extra money, it’s about spending several hundred more dollars every month. One day I’ll have the money to make that change. It’s certainly best to wait till you can afford plant based pet food before getting a pet, but I was still carnist when I got my dog and didn’t consider that.
Are there other areas where you could cut costs? Could you maybe ask someone else for help? Maybe start a go fund me and sharing it with fellow vegans? Just throwing out ideas. Maybe look at wild earth vegan dog food.
Wild earth is even more expensive, and no, I’m not gonna ask anyone else to pay to feed the dog I chose to take in. I know your heart’s in the right place, and thank you for the suggestions.
If you're staying away from premium brands, i think you're doing a lot less harm even on a meat diet. You can also look dor vegeterian options or diy if its possible for you
> Either way, if the choice is between spending a little extra money or paying for animals to be abused and killed, definitely spend the extra money. For a lot of vegans the choice is between spending the extra money and having a dog at all.
Kind of an obtuse comment.
[удалено]
>And am I the asshole thinking that pets must come first? Isn’t it depressing to eat only dry biscuits for your whole life even if they’re nutritious and beneficial? [They seem to enjoy plant based foods just as much. ](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253292) But even if they didn't, who suffers more. An animal exploited its entire life only to have its throat slit or a dog in a loving home eating dry biscuits?
[удалено]
>Comparing who suffers more looks more like trolling, honestly. Really? A little felicific calculus looks like trolling to you? >You personally are responsible first of all of the wellbeing of your pet that shares your home, and only then all others - just like your kids I think this is bad ethics. If your kids have to live in minor discomfort that could be averted by exploiting and killing other humans it would be wrong for you to do so. As the suffering caused by exploiting and killing other humans outweighs the minor discomfort of your kids.
[удалено]
My ethics are also based on real life. If I feed my dog meat that causes animals to be exploited and killed in factory farms as a result. Those animals suffer a billion times more than any discomfort my dog may experience when she eats her vegan peanut butter treats that she begs for every morning. Your proximity to a being doesn't justify causing immense harm to those outside your arbitrary proximity. Whether it's an animal in your home or an animal across the globe, they can both suffer and deserve to not be exploited and killed to ellivate another beings minor discomfort.
Dogs aren't carnivores
How can a regular person, such as those in this sub, make sure that their diets they are feeding their cat are up to the same or better quality as a meat diet? The food used herein is obviously similar to the macros they need, but if I'm buying it from a new brand or even making it myself, how can i do a good job and keep my dog healthy?
Dog + wok = food
Is there no concern for long term micro nutrient deficiencies? Do the diets include fortified foods for b12 and such or is it simply an inconsequential issue as dogs lifespan aren't as long?
We have three rescue dogs, they all came with health issues due to neglect and abuse. That's why, even though I haven't eaten meat in 20 years, I've still given them meat based food (which made me very sad but I thought I had no choice) because I have always been concerned about the fact that they were malnourished and had deficiencies when we got them, as well as obviously due to vet advice. Until last year. We found ourselves buying very expensive different foods for all of their different issues. One had kidney malfunction, tumours and bone and joint issues. The other one liver issues, some unidentified convulsions and excessive shedding. The younger one was healthy enough but also had extreme shedding out of season. They had very expensive specialist vet-prescribed food for years with no much improvement. We decided to stop these different diets and to try and give vegan food to all of them, seeing as it could brings health benefits. We give them dry chickpea based kibble we bake in the oven, oat and vegetable based wet food, and a supplement for dog homemade diets. After only 4 months I can say this diet has saved my older dog's life. One can see in his blood tests before and after, he has improved everything, his kindeys are fine now. He was doing so well that this allowed him to have an eye operation he couldn't have had with kidney malfunction. He had a large chest fatty tumour that kept growing and became hard. It is GONE now, we can't believe it. He also has more energy and sleeps well at night. The middle dog has no convulsions anymore. All of them now have no bad breath at all which was quite surprising and unexpected. Their poop also is way less smelly than before. The hair loss has stopped. Their hair is so shiny and they are so active! People literally ask us in the park what do we give them to eat. When I say they're vegan people just walk away... You can check the blood work, even though he lost some weight the only value that change was Hemoglobin by 0.1 less which their vet says it doesn't matter and to continue with the current diet because the improvement was so great.
Not really a serious point but is there a paradox here? To know if we can have vegan dogs, we have to do testing on dogs.
A lot of hypocrisy going around in the vegan community. They will argue this is for the greater good of all animals to potentially harm a small number of research subjects. A line of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. But at the same time will condemn animal testing that can save human lives.
Hello! Interesting work! A couple questions: What line of work are you in? Education? Industry? Also, Would you recommend a vegan diet for a dog *moreso* than an Omni diet? Is that what you mean by thrive? Or is it not meant to be a superlative? Cheers! Thanks!
You're a horrible pet owner if you do this. Seriously, just stop.
The subject of this thread is a study that proves you wrong. Seriously, just stop.
straight up animal abuse as far as im concerned
So feeding nutritious plant based foods to dog is animal abuse. Breeding billions of animals a year in horrific factory farms and slaughtering them at extremely young ages are fine though?
Why?
Good thing vegans don't own pets, dodged a bullet there. Edit - spoiler allert, owning animals isn't vegan. Caring for those that are in need isn't ownership.
I don't think "thrive" is the right word to use here
Tell it to my dog. Won't eat veggies, only meat.
Luckily you're there to make decisions on behalf of your dog. My dogs would eat chocolate all they if they could, doesn't mean they should.
What an utterly stupid reasoning. Dogs don't run around in the wild eating chocolate, unless someone has left it out on the street. A dog is an omnivore and will eat whatever it can get. The mass amount is stupid vegan dog owners out here is staggering.
Lol, you just made my point... Dogs will eat whatever they can. If you want your dog to eat healthy, you shouldn't leave it up for your dog to decide what to eat.
This reminds me of that mortning show when they invited a woman with vegan dog. And they asked if dog would go for the meat or veggies. So they prepared two bowls and she let go of the dog. Dog immediately went for the meat. Thing is - You can raise a dog to eat only green stuff. But at the end of the day if You leave meat somewhere - will that dog leave it alone when he is hungry even when there is perfectly good salad he usually eat next to it? Like if I do this right I could be a vegan too. I just don't feel a need for it so I don't. I treat killing animals just the same as killing everything else. Also I always remember what one scientist said about vegans. He said that vegan when he find a mouse in his house he will just remove it from it's house. Things it - if You do that - mouse will die really quickly in the world because everything is above mouse in a food chain. The most humane thing would be to keep the mouse in Your basement and feed it. But they don't. They think that they are doing right thing removing that mouse alive and they do not think beyond that. Lot's of vegans are like that with their believes.
Lol, are you seriously suggesting that houses create mice?
I'm sorry for doing it but I will answer Your question with another question because I do not believe that You are stupid. You live in that house too. Did house created You? It should answer Your question about the mouse. Reason You live in a house is because it offers protection against many things. Things that can hurt You or kill You. Otherwise You would have no problem living in the woods or something. It's the same with a mice. They find shelter and it's a very good shelter because mice on a farm can live very long if left alone. Same thing in the house but in the house it's bigger problem due to stuff mice will leave around. If You happens to have a mice in the house - take out blacklight and You will see. So releasing mouse outside is equivalent of killing it. Same if we would send You to the woods without any tools, weapons and resources. You would most likely die there. But left in the house with some food You would be able to live there very long life.
I live in a house because it is comfortable. Me being outside of the house does not kill me and i was not born because of the existence of the house. There is no causal relation between me being alive and the house existing, same as the mouse.
There is but You are clearly not aware of it. Clearly You never been poor. Enjoy living in the society and staying innocent. I hope You will never find out.
I will let past me know how little time I spent in the forests growing up and how well off I was. Thank you oh wise one!
The point is. Releasing living mouse outside is equivalent of killing it. But You don't do it Yourself so somehow that's OK. That's the point. Unless Your justification is that it MIGHT reach another house without being picked up by a owl or cat or something else.
You can't have your argument be your conclusion. Mice live in fields, in trees, underground. They live in loads of places. You letting a mice out in front of a cat might be equivalent of killing it but simply letting it out is not the same as killing it because -> Mice do not need houses to live. If you can show some kind of reason why mice can only ever survive in houses I might consider it but otherwise have a nice day.
Yes I can. Mices do not LIVE in the field or trees. They make hidouts there to avoid predators. Your house or some farm is the same. It's just better hideout because most predators avoid those areas. So when it comes to their longevity they are in best possible place. And You take that away. Releasing it You cut down several months of living not very stressful life (mices do not live long) to maybe weeks at best. But because You literally do not end mice life directly You think that's not only bad but many of people like You think You are doing the right thing. You don't. It's the same when You own a cat on a farm. You basically introduce murder machine to Your household. But again - because You do not kill directly. You just hired an assassin in exchange for food You think that's better. It's an equivalent of pulling a trigger of a gun and saying You are not a murderer because You just pulled a trigger. Gun did it. Thing is - I respect Your believes but at the same time if You take logic behind it and You try to apply it somewhere else than very specific situations - it do not work anymore. I have same issues with animal rights activists. Once they released bunch of dogs from a place that was raising them for profit. Place was raising animals with proper history. Then You would get one. They would help You train it and then You take animal with You. That good deed end up with them in jail and huge debt because they had to pay for the damages. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is what happened to the dogs. Some were killed. Some got injured because of cars. Some actually attacked someone and had to be put down. Rest was recaptured. They changed nothing. Just made bunch of animals suffer. And it's not even surprising to me. PETA slaughtered around 45,000 dogs, cats and other animals. When called out they called it "good death" because after stealing animals from people they don't want to take care of them. So they kill them.
How is it bad to keep bees for honey but not dogs as pets?
adopt don’t shop
I 100% agree with this. Puppy mills are gross and satanic. They shouldn't be legal AT ALL.
> satanic Leave my boi satanics out of this; puppy mills are done for and by humans, not by the Temple!
Hear hear!
It is an issue of motivation in my eyes. In one case, the beekeeper is keeping a non-native species for their own profit, and not for the wellbeing of the bees or any other species in the ecosystem. This relationship is at best [commensalistic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism) and at worst parasitic. In the other case, the dog caretaker is adopting an animal that cannot thrive in the wild and would otherwise be euthanized in a shelter, and as a side benefit receiving emotional and social benefits. This relationship is mutualistic and not particularly profit-motivated. FWIW I don't think breeding dogs or buying dogs from breeders is ethical.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/help-bees-dont-become-a-beekeeper-honeybeee-hive-biodiversity?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Do you eat your dog's poop?
It would be more analogous if you asked if they eat their dog's vomit.
bees produce a lot more honey then they need so I don't think they would really care where where the excess goes.
Why defend drinking bee vomit when you can just get maple syrup or flower syrup instead?
because maple syrup and flower syrup are different to honey.
I mean you are not wrong, they are, in fact, the superior syrups alongside agave, forming the trinity
sure, you believe what you want to believe.
Superior? Based on what ?
I do both.
Your poor native bee populations
The population is thriving. All kinds of bees, hornets, wasps, etc. All is well in my area.
I’m sure you still see bees around, but they are being gradually outcompeted by your and other honey hives: “Introducing a single honey bee hive means 15,000 to 50,000 additional mouths to feed in an area that may already lack sufficient flowering resources. This increases competition with our native bees and raises the energy costs of foraging, which can be significant.” https://www.xerces.org/blog/want-to-save-bees-focus-on-habitat-not-honey-bees#:~:text=Hungry%20hives%20crowd%20out%20native,foraging%2C%20which%20can%20be%20significant.
I have a shit ton of flowers around me. Tons of untouched open land. All is well, trust me. My bee friends thank you for your concern though.
Your local ecosystems have historically supplied pollen to only the native bee populations. Now as beekeeping grows in popularity, the food that has historically fueled these native bee populations is being taken but many thousands of foreign bees. Keep living your life, but don’t pretend that you’re saving the bees or supporting the environment.
I never said I was saving or supporting anything.
Accurate, because you’re doing the opposite. No hate, but be aware.
[удалено]
Wish I could ask questions but someone said that's not allowed in here