Keeping Your Pets Veggie

[Molly]

When my ex and I (both extremely strict vegans, at the time anyway) got our first pit bull puppy, we decided to try keeping her vegetarian. We used an adult vegetarian dry food and added supplements, cooked lentils, oils, etc. As a puppy, her coat wasn't nearly as shiny as it should have been, and you could see her ribs, so when my ex and I broke up at her sixteen-week mark I switched her to chicken and whole foods. It was a bit of a moral quagmire for me, but she's now two and a half years old and healthier than ever. Any opinions on being a veggie/vegan and feeding your animals meat?

[Ihadira]

Yes I feed my boy meat, it is grass fed beef from a farmer that I know. I see the cows and I feel guilty in taking a life but not so guilty that I would refrain from fulfilling my boys needs. I also thank the cows for giving up their lives to feed my boy. I am grateful to them so that my boy can stay alive and remain healthy. In his meat I also use eggs from a neighbor, organic flax oil and organic carrots. I also buy some herbs from Humboldt Herbals called Dots Wonder Dog Powder to add to the mix. I am also trying to be a strict vegan but I just recently realized that a product I was eating from Amy's Organics was not vegan which the Veggie pot pie is vegan but the veggie pocket isn't, it has honey and they both taste the same and everything , go figure! So for me it is important to know where my pooches meat comes from, there are farmers everywhere and I am sure you might be able to find one near you where you can purchase a whole/half/quarter cow for your girl. I don't think it is good to deprive our babies from what they need to be healthy.

[Julia]

Yes, a huge moral dilemma that throws up loads of questions we need to ask ourselves. Basically, I believe you were right. Being vegan is your choice and a decision you came to after much thought, I'm sure. However, our animals cannot make that decision or understand the reasons. As their guardians, we owe it to them to provide the best that we can for them, whether we would eat it ourselves or not. My main reason for not eating meat was that I realised I could never kill an animal for food, so therefore it would be hypercritical for me to eat meat that had been killed for me. I expect our animals would have no such qualms if it came to it.
I know there are some vegans that won't use medicine because it has been tested on animals. But what would they do if they suddenly developed a life threatening condition which meant they couldn't survive without modern drugs? I'm involve in animal rescue, and once did a home check on a really lovely couple who wanted to adopt a cat. They had a lovely home, and would have loved the cat so much, but I had to turn them down as they said they would not take the cat to the vet if it was ill, but would treat it with Reiki, which worked for them. To me, that is irresponsible, and imposing their beliefs on their animal. I haven't yet come across someone who would only feed their animal a vegan diet, but if I ever do, the decision would be the same as for the Reiki healers. I know that dogs are omnivores, and therefore should be happy enough on a veggie diet, but care should always be taken that you are doing the best for your dog and not let your personal beliefs interfere with that. I once had a German Shepherd that I fed a veggie diet to, but had to stop in the end as he seemed to have constant runs and was losing weight. Cats are a different matter altogether, as they are by nature carnivores, and my personal belief is that to try and make your cat survive on a veggie diet is morally wrong and totally unfair on the cat.

[hectori12]

Hmm, a difficult question.

But it is an animals right to eat meat, and dogs, being primarily carnivorous, have evolved to eat meat only, and it would be cruel to stop it from eating meat.

Of course, that means vegans and vegetarians have to buy meat for their pets.

I honestly don't have an answer.

[the delivery man]

my ex kept (and i assume still keeps) her dog veggie. i forget the brand of food, but there is a vegetarian formula that he loved (and he was a husky/shepard mix, and by NO means was he small). i think it was something like natural balance or something, but i'm not sure. his vet said he was healthy and that the diet was absolutely fine for him. it was a dry food, but they also made a wet food that we combined for him. he loved it and like i said, i saw no signs of him being in any way unhealthy. i'd ask her for the specifics, but we're not so much talking anymore. sorry. i'll see if i can dig it up...i know it was somewhat hard to find, even here in nyc........

[Robin]

One of the biggest reasons that people become vegetarian or vegan is because of animal cruelty. In my mind, taking an animal (like a cat) that is carnivorous by nature and making them convert to a vegetarian or vegan diet is cruel. To adjust their diets to be something other than carnivorous would be hypocritical, moreso than for me, a vegetarian, to feed them meat.

[Cassandra]

I have a cat. I give him regular catfood with wet catfood like the elegant medley that does contain vegetables. My cat will only eat vegetables if they are hidden in regular catfood. There's no way he would convert to a vegetable based diet. The cat I had before him loved vegetables. You could get that cat to eat mandarin oranges, green peas, chinese cabbage, tomatoes, mushrooms, etc. But I will only buy the canned stuff. I can not stand to cook meat or handle it myself due to it making me sick if I smell the meat or handle it.

[pradtf]

this really is not a huge moral dilemma nor is it a difficult question.

there are 2 issues here.

1. the first is whether a veg diet is good for dogs (since dogs are what is primarily being talked about here). the answer to that is a uncontested yes. not only are veg dogs healthy, they don't experience the same problems that meat fed dogs experience (worms, allergies etc etc) for 3 primary reasons:
1.1 dogs are omnivores which essentially means that they have the equipment to eat all sorts of things (including veg)
1.2 veg dogs don't have to consume the corpse junk that is in meat based foods (and there is an abundant supply - check out the airing of a dog's breakfast: http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/dogsbreakfast.html
1.3 most domestic dogs really just don't go around hunting down cattle and lambs etc, so exactly why should they be fed those carcasses? (do people think that all meat is equal for some reason?)

2. the second is whether it is ethical to kill another animal so your pet can have meat because for some reason you may think that dogs have to eat meat. here are the 2 possibilities:
2.1 if you really believe your dog must eat meat to survive, then you are faced with coming up with a rationale for why your dog should live and a cow should be slaughtered just so your dog can survive.
2.2 if you really don't believe your dog must have meat to survive (which is the reality going by dog years of evidence), then you might as well turn yourself in as willing accomplice to murder (assuming you accept the 'meat is murder' concept) because you are supporting the very industry you are supposedly, as vegfolk, shunning.

you are not doing your dog a favor by feeding him or her corpse parts. veg dog diets have been encouraged by well-known vets like pitcairns (and others) for a long time, tons of stuff about this on the net and there are lots of veg dogfoods on the market. even commercial meat dogfood producing companies like avoderm, natural balance and natural life provide vegetarian stuff, not because of their high standard of ethics, but because some dogs get allergic reactions (or worse) to the ridiculous dead pieces of formerly living creatures that go into the non-veg staple.

once again, being an omnivore only means you have the equipment to eat all kinds of things - it doesn't mean you have to eat meat or even should eat meat.

(oh and just in case anyone wants to know, we have 2 dogs from the spca who have been strict veg for more than 9 and 10 years respectively)

in friendship,
prad

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

What brand of veg-dogfood were you using Molly? (if you're still here)
because, for example...
Puppies have special protein requirements, whether you're including meat in their diet or not.... and the only way I know of, to get a puppy-formulation in a veg-dogfood is to special-order it, but I could be wrong... Today, as an adult, she might be fine on a regular (non-puppy) veg-dogfood -- and dogs on average actually live longer on a good quality veg-petfood, according to the only study I've even seen which tracked the life of more than 1 dog (This study did 300 dogs to be exact: http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/Dog_Health_Survey.pdf : Less animal-products eaten by dogs yielded LONGER lifespan for dogs, but they need to do more research.)

Both of my dogs are...TOO active for me to keep up, and they're vegan. :-) 5 and 4 y/o. My vet says they're healthy. One of them is a breed that just doesn't shed, but my other dog...He sheds about a few ounces every day (hair growth like that suggests uber-health).
--------------------------------------------------
I thnk Prad's is the best post here, covered it pretty well using logic, w/o getting as pedantic as I occasionally do. ;-) What really comes to mind as I read the male-vs-female positions in this thread are the theories of a prominent researcher, Simon Baron-Cohen.

[Melissa McMahon]

I am veggie and I feed my beloved dog, Fu, meat products. Dogs evolved from wolves, who are strictly carnivorous, and while domesticated dogs are able to survive on pretty much anything, that does not mean that their quality of life is as good as an animal eating what they were physiologically built to eat. Domesticated dogs have virtually the same digestive tract as wolves, and as such are built to digest proteins more efficiently than grains and vegetables. Obviously, wolves and dogs alike can digest some vegetation and do so merely for fiber content and not nutrients. The commercial dog foods we feed our dogs, however, are not appropriate for a dog's digestive system, veggie or not, because they are mainly grain based, and dogs do not have adequate length in their digestive tract to digest these products efficiently, not to mention all of the nasty byproducts that go into the dog foods lately. That being said, my dog eats meat and avoids all grains possible to avoid an upset stomach, as his is quite sensitive.

Bottom line, I am against animal cruelty, and I feel that it's cruel to condemn an animal to a life of digestive upset when there are simply readily available ways to stop it. Imposing your beliefs on another species for "ethical" reasons is no better than a farmer imposing his beliefs on his livestock for "financial" reasons.

[pradtf]

melissa,

your statements about dogs are only partially correct. dogs do very well as strict vegetarian as do cats and neither endure a "life of digestive upset".

you may want to read the two posts just above yours one by myself and the other by jeff.

from an animal ethics standpoint, how can it be justified that cows, pigs, lambs and chickens be sacrificed for the sake of feeding dogs? is that not an 'imposition of your beliefs' on those species - specifically that they are suitable for exploitation? do we not need to remember that these are also "another species" with sentience and just as much entitled to live as dogs?

in friendship,
prad

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

First, I'll just add scientific support to show what Canidae (Canines) are "supposed" to eat that contradicts Melissa's "facts" (the "facts" that she bases all her beliefs/conclusions on):

This is just the first falsehood: "wolves, who are strictly carnivorous"
PROOF OF WHY IT IS FALSE: e.g. #1 see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110485545/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 for wolves compared to dogs, and notes that wolves in zoos are being fed too much meat, i.e. their not "strictly" carnivores. Note that wolves also benefited by actually being fed MORE dogfood and LESS prey: That's basically the opposite of the diet Melissa says she feeds her dog and is 'healthier' 'because wolves would eat that' instead of processed/fortified dogfood; I'll also link below to the largest group of veterinarians agreeing, and they add the well-documented early deaths (from both acute and chronic poisoning) of DOMESTICATED dogs, that they've observed from people giving their dogs home-prepared natural meats). And see e.g. #2 http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_latrans.html as a fox example (but no comparison to dogs in this one); I showed this "foxes" link b/c as I'll point out below, domesticated dogs could be related to foxes, not just wolves... In contradiction to Melissa's "fact" that they descended from wolves, they could be "cousins" so to speak...or not related at all, rather than the "descendants" of wolves as you said. Reminds me of my sole Creationist friend who thinks "Darwin said man descended from apes, I aint no son of a monkey" xD LOL when Darwin really says we are COUSINS of apes). Scientifically proven fact: Canine species are omnivorous in the wild, just as much as domesticated dogs are.

I was just reminded that the 2 closest relatives of today's Canines (that scientists know of) both evolved to become "strictly carnivorous" (to quote Melissa) and they became an evolutionary 'dead end' possibly as a result... (died out more than 30M years ago) whilst only the omnivorous Canines survived: Van Valkenburgh, B. (2004). "Cope's Rule, Hypercarnivory, and Extinction in North American Canids". Science 30: 101. It's only circumstantial evidence, but this suggests it's in the species' best interest to remain omnivores in the wild, and for domesticated dogs to be vegan only if they're fixed (no progeny with a lost disease-tolerance against meat)...and most dogs ARE fixed.

From the first link I gave: "Dietary management of maned wolves should minimize excess protein intake by limiting prey consumption and acclimating animals to extruded diets for domestic dogs..." See, you got it right that they thrive on "virtually" the same diet, but got it wrong (completely backwards) that dogs need a wolf's diet: instead, wolves fed a dog's CANNED diet thrived (strange as it may sound), and by reducing animal-protein intake at that (which just corroborates the research I mentioned in my last post). Let me guess: When was the last time you analyzed a wolf's poop, longevity, etc, after feeding him a certain diet, as these guys do? ;-)

Ok, enough about WOLVES.....

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Next issue:
"that does not mean that their quality of life is as good as an animal eating what they were physiologically built to eat."
But it doesn't mean a vegan dog's quality of life is worse, either! (you're using the logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance" here: No, I'm not calling you ignorant ;-P it means you're trying to say that if you haven't seen evidence to the contrary, this...absence of evidence makes you right; what you need is evidence supporting your claim(s), not for your debating opponent to have no evidence of their claims...but firstly, I did provide evidence about 6 months before you joined this discussion, so you're wrong to assume that vegan dogs are less healthy based on that alone. But you're also wrong for contradicting the old saying: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".) i.e. You're accusing people like me of being "cruel" to our dogs, then putting the onus probandi (burden of proof) on us, when in logic (and our court system took this rule from logicians), the onus is on you, to prove your accusation. Well, I provided proof that your accusation is wrong anyway :-) and you've still provided no proof your accusation is right. What's more, Prad and I provided proof that what you feed your dog...I wouldn't call you "cruel" except to the animals you're feeding to your dog (the reasoning for that...should..be...obvious ;-P )...but instead I'd just say you're "measurably shortening your dog's life, most likely". Dogs look up to their pack leader -- whether dog or human...or even monkeys so I've heard-- because they realize their best bet is for the smartest or fastest (etc) dog to lead them: I sure aint the fastest one :-) but when I say "let go!" in a fearful voice, my dogs let go even if it's something tasty and tempting like a dead fish on the beach, cos I'm worried they'll get infected from it (see WHY in the "E coli" paragraph ;-) ). You were probably also given a brain more logical/less instinctual than your dog's; I'd suggest you use the logic part, because H sapiens flourished as we put logic over instinct. Sure your dog instinctually wants meat, and children in instinctual curiosity often want a lighter or the keys to your car: You wouldn't give the child a lighter or the keys either, I hope. Our fast running, big tough teeth, and keen sense of smell sure isn't what kept humanity alive xD so trust the scientists rather than your dog heheh.

Maybe this is the best way to make it clear, instead of all my fancy "Argumentum ad Naturam" and "proof" talk: Detaching your dog's balls or ovaries might deprive them of the greatest joy in the world, and it's not natural. So shouldn't you be consistent in your advocacy of giving them "what they were physiologically built" for (what's natural), and let them fuck like bunnies, then go thru euthanasias and starvation even more massive than what American society does to dogs today? I mean, population swings like that are natural...as natural as their meaty diet. (I'm too tired to give proof if you disagre about population swings and massive deaths, but feel free to ask another day: ecology is one of my specialties.) It's natural for them to also fight for 'pack position' but I break up my dogs when they get 'more than playful': And they listen, again they trust me and realize I know a lot that they don't. It's natural that they eat wood, my Pepper even ate ROCKS until she puked; she seemed not to understand that the puking always comes after she ate wood or rocks. ;-P She didn't understand why I told her to stop. So should I let her keep doing whatever comes naturally...or give her a very-unnatural nylabone that CAN'T SPLINTER like wood or a real bone :-) so she won't hurt herself?

Dogs can even be allergic to meat or dairy, which is Wysong's stated reason for making a veg*n dogfood. (But they left out an important nutrient, as of last time I checked a few years ago, and then they made excuses for leaving it out...which I know are contradicted by neutral scientists in peer-reviewed journals, so I won't recommend their veg food). Of course I'd eliminate grains from my dog's diet if I fed the dog no grains for 1-2 days, then gave him lots and you discover that's what's making him sick. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I will point out that even if your dog might be allergic to grains, you can feed your dog a vegan diet without grains. ;-) And so when you say: "I feel that it's cruel to condemn an animal to a life of digestive upset when there are simply readily available ways to stop it," you seem to be using the black-and-white fallacy, or fallacy of false dilemmas: There's a 3rd option (save your dog from pain AND save the cows/chickens...or pigs or whatever you feed him, but you're trying to claim there's only 2 options (help your dog by killing more farm animals, or help more farm animals but making your dog suffer. Instead, the true hero would save both the domesticated and farm animals, instead of ignoring that third option... Easier said than done though. But then again, it's as easy to make them no-grain vegan food as it is to make them home-cooked meat. :-)

"Imposing your beliefs on another species for "ethical" reasons is no better than a farmer imposing his beliefs on his livestock for "financial" reasons."
Yes, I agree, that's why I'd find a way to save the farm AND domesticated animals. Now tell me, why do you impose your beliefs on cows/chickens/whatever you feed your dog...for the "ethical" reason of giving your dog a natural diet that will shorten his life? Sounds like your "ethics" are Naturalism, and your dog won't live as long (and obviously farm animals won't), all for your "ethics".

There's the E coli/Salmonella risks of the raw-meat/BARF diets, then there's also this: http://www.avma.org/press/releases/070717_homecooked_food.asp (sorta corroborates the first link I gave). And with that...I've written a lot and too tired to find the E coli link unless someone reminds me.

"that does not mean that their quality of life is as good as an animal eating what they were physiologically built to eat."
Sure, the study I linked to in my last post is what "means" (proves) they live "as good as" (or actually even better than) a dog eating a "natural" diet, HAHAHA! ;-) In this section, Melissa is promoting (in the underlined text that I put a few lines up...) the false belief that "whatever is natural is in their best interests":
. . . The act of promoting any belief that "what is natural is ideal" has been known as the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Naturam" (people should google that if they never heard it ;-) ), and you're basing your decisions that affect your dog upon this flawed logic that has been proven to mislead people for oh, only 2600 years now, ever since Aristotle first noted the reasons WHY arguments like your "Argumentum ad Naturam" are fallacious. Of course they're more carnivorous than most omnivores in the wild, but you can't use that fact to draw the conclusion, "They are therefore harmed by a vegan diet". You would need to contradict the research I cited above, with your own research that (1) shows that carnivorous dogs live longer, and (2) do it using more points of data (more dogs), or with superior methodology, etc. AFAIK, no researcher has even attempted that, but like all science, it's a process of refining our knowledge. In any case, the "natural" diet of meat proves (within a scientific degree of certainty) Aristotle correct: because it has already been shown to be LESS healthy than a vegan diet for dogs.

One thing in your favor is that IF you're observing your dog scientifically (you never said how you determined that he's bad with grains...), you can indeed draw the conclusion that your dog is harmed by grains. But that's a big if, and even if you are doing so, that is only anecdotal (inductive logic instead of deductive); you are a very poor scientist if you say, "One dog is albino, my dog. Therefore all dogs are albino" (the way you've said "OH, grains aren't "appropriate" for dogs (plural)!!" As if your word alone makes it so (without giving us proof for why you disagree with all these experts...like you've seen I was careful to give proof for everything in here...even though I am tired lol). Lots of things, I don't like lots about commercial dogfoods --since I think we'd all agree they have ingredients that aren't healthy (besides grains) in there, I won't give proof for that cos it'd be like telling you "The sky is generally blue"-- but just because your dog reacted to something in there doesn't mean it was or wasn't the grains (I'm neutral, agnostic on the issue; but since you've blamed grains, again the onus is on you. ;-P ).