this assumes the animals are slaughtered for pet food, but they aren't. the meat fed to pets is generally the worst cuts of the animal and the offal, meaning that feeding this to pets is a conservation of resources.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

tbh, i don't understand those mathematics from this study xd

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0291791#sec014

Around 75% of the animal-based ingredients of pet food are byproducts of making food for humans. These byproducts include ears, snouts and internal organs, and are usually considered inedible by people. Some are sold cheaply to pet food manufacturers, and it’s long been assumed that this lowers its environmental impact by curbing the number of livestock animals that need to be killed.

However, my research using additional meat industry data demonstrates the opposite. I found that a smaller proportion of carcasses are used to make byproducts than meat. This increases the number of carcasses required to produce the same quantity of pet food ingredients. Demand for byproducts from the pet food industry actually increases the number of livestock animals killed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

this is hard to understand. has anyone else independently reproduced this? if not, we should probably just suspend judgement on their claims until we have more information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0291791#sec014

this study also relies on poore-nemecek 2018, a study that misuses source data and doesn't disclose this, and which draws some pretty hyperbolic conclusions. I disregard poore-nemecek entirely, and find papers that cite it dubious at best.