You're viewing a single thread.
There was a post about making cats vegan. The mod then decided that people posting information on why that is a bad idea were antivegan or something. The mod started then removing any information that pointed to cats not being able to be health while on a vegan diet. The Lemmy.world admins them stepped in stating that improperly feeding your cat constitutes animal abuse and is unethical. This made many die hard vegans very mad.
For the record, cats can not be vegan. They can survive on it but they will have shorter more painful lives and they will go blind. There bodies start breaking down without the proteins and amino acids found in meat. I understand why vegans would be unhappy with that answer but it is the way it is.
Interesting enough, that's not the case for dog. You can put a dog on a vegan diet as long as you are very careful and are constantly monitoring. It isn't for the faint of heart and can have very sad outcomes. It isn't something you can arbitrarily do.
It's bizarre to me that harcore vegans want to own a pet to begin with. Keeping bees for honey is bad, but separating a kitten from its mother at an early age and castrating it for your convenience and deciding how they live (restricted to an apartment or not) is totally fine?
I understand that most pets live a good life, but man, I can't bring myself to make choices like these. I mean there are ways to circumvent it (get an older cat from an asylum for example) but it doesn't really remove the "pet dilemma" to me.
Most people I know adopt from rescue shelters and all the vegans I know do that, often even focusing on pets that are somewhat "disadvantaged" regarding getting adopted, i.e. disabled or chronically ill animals. They go to an animal shelter not primarily with the wish of having a pet but providing a better life for an animal (because let's face it, even the best-intentioned shelters are understaffed and underfunded).
This is a good, nuanced take that I as a vegan have struggled with believing. We don't want pets, but animals are very much still suffering in this imperfect world.
I wouldn't say we don't want pets per se. Some of us do but the difference is trying to find the most ethical way of obtaining and taking care of them.
To be honest, I've never seen anyone take a dog from a shelter. With cats - yes, and I only know a handful of people who own a specific type of cat. But everyone I know and all people I meet have specific dog breeds or known mixes that were planned - both in the making and adoption.
That's just bizarre, I don't know anyone that has a purebred, their all mixes. Usually part pittie, because I live in an urban area and that's mostly what's at the shelters.
It's probably area and/or country dependent
Well, my family's dog when I was young was a rescue dog, no purebred (should be illegal anyway) or "targeted mix". Tbh, no one ever knew exactly which breeds she was from, and I will probably never understand why people are so fixated on this shit.
A friend who had two breds from the same parents (different litter) said that you can predict the personality better in breds, while with unknown mixes you can get a manic dog and that they all have behavioral problems.
As you might have guessed by now, I am very much not a dog person. And I have no place to judge her statement. But I can imagine that there are a lot of dog owners who think like that.
Btw I'm in Germany, so is the friend. There is some Nazi joke in all of this that I am too lazy to make.
"Nature vs nurture" is an old debate that has not yet been concluded and data is hard to obtain. But it seems at the moment that how you training and upbringing has more impact on how an animal develops.
Also, i was more speaking ofphysical traits like a flat back for shepards or stubby noses for pugs etc. Generally, "purebred" pets are far more prone to develop detrimental traits and illnesses, i don't see it worth the risk and more like torture than anything else.
But it seems at the moment that how you training and upbringing has more impact on how an animal develops.
Is this take based on anything? There are significant and specific behavioral differences between dog breeds.
Yes, it is based on this.
Dog breed stereotypes are frequently used to inform people’s expectations about canine behavior, despite evidence that breed is largely uninformative in predicting individual dog behavior.
Thanks for the article. From further down the introduction:
This is despite numerous studies demonstrating that variability within a breed is greater than among breeds7,11,12. While heritability for certain behavioral traits such as human sociability and biddability have been convincingly demonstrated7,13,14, breed is largely uninformative when it comes to predicting behavior in an individual dog7.
So it looks like while breed stereotypes might not be helpful in predicting an individual dog's behavior, they could still have an effect on the average behavior of that breed. I'll have to look more into this, the subject is less concluded than I had thought.
Edit: It looks like this study is just self-reporting on how people feel about different breeds?
Edit: It looks like this study is just self-reporting on how people feel about different breeds?
It is, but the statement I cited is not a conclusion of this study but a reason why the study was conducted. The study itself wants to learn how strong the bias is that leads to these stereotypes, because one of the issues of gathering data is bias. Basically, people buy certain breeds expecting a certain behavior and then train these breeds to express said behavior, which makes it difficult to examine whether said behavior is due to the nature or nurtured or how big a role either plays.
You do find purebred dogs up for adoption, I have a border collie that was adopted as an adult.
All three of the dogs in my house are rescues that would have been put down if we hadn't adopted them. I work with The Barking Lot in San Diego, and we routinely drive up to Orange County to rescue dogs that are going to be out down. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with these dogs, they just didn't get adopted "in time." There are rescue organizations all over the US, and while you will have to jump through some hoops and pay an adoption fee, that is simply because we absolutely don't want these dogs ending up in puppy mills or fighting rings.
am not vegan but I'll point out:
giving a cat a home, and fixing it so it won't breed further rescue cats, is not a dilemma to me.
Imagine you wanted children and then someone would come along and castrate you because there's a problem with overpopulation. You take away an individaul's choice of reproduction for the greater good. And it makes sense, but the lack of consent or even understandment does not sit well with me.
Putting down pets is another thing. You make the decision whether a (sick/suffering) animal is going to die, while we are refusing to allow people to make this decision for themselves in most countries.
I absolutely see your point and I would not say you are wrong about it. But to me these are ethical questions that I just don't wish to answer because there is not really a right answer.
Imagine you wanted children and then someone would come along and castrate you because there's a problem with overpopulation. You take away an individaul's choice of reproduction for the greater good. And it makes sense, but the lack of consent or even understandment does not sit well with me.
You're anthropomorphizing animals too much. Cats don't "want" children. Beyond a basic biological need they don't give a shit about procreation. It's not even a difficult question, ethically speaking. In almost every environment they exist in cats are considered invasive, reproduce like crazy, and tend to be incredibly destructive to local species. To be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with owning a cat, but it's important to do so responsibly.
Your second paragraph is an indictment on how we treat humans not how we treat our pets.
On the fixing side of things, this is traditionally decided throughout animal husbandry by whether or not it positively impacts the animal's ability to do it's job. A housecat's job is to provide companionship and occasional mouse removal for which fixing positively impacts companionship while have no impact on the secondary role. A dairy goat obviously won't be able to produce milk if fixed so they generally remain able to reproduce, but goats kept for their wool are fixed more based on behavior and population control needs. Horses might be fixed to prevent behaviors that affect their ability to pull/be ridden, etc. etc.
So ultimately part of the ethics debate surrounding fixing your pets ties straight into the ethics of animal husbandry to begin with. I personally struggled with this when I moved from the city into farm country and saw first hand how the care for cats flipped from "every cat is special" to "yeah they're just like there and kinda cute plus they kill the mice so I feed them sometimes so they stick around." And I had to grapple with how there is no consistent line for what animal is special and must be saved and what animals are just there and the circle of life is up to them. I don't have any easy answers to give on this subject, so I generally go with whatever is socially acceptable balanced out with concern for the animal's happiness and well-being within the context of them still filling the job(s) they are being kept to fill
In my mind its all about acting in the animals best interest. Childbirth isn't easy on a cats body and neither is the stress they will obtain if they desire reproduction and are not able to do so. Spay and neuter are therefore in the cats (or dogs) best interest
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that we need to neuter cats and dogs. I just personally cannot bring myself to make this decision for an individual cat that I have to decide for. If I was getting a pet I would absolutely neuter it, but I prefer to just not get a pet to not have my mind wander down that road of "damn, did I just assume what my pet would want and put my values on them or did I do something responsible by interfering with their body". Same for most decisions.
I get it man. Having to act in the best interest of someone who can't communicate can be stressful. That's why I'd never want to take care of a baby or adopt an animal. I would like to volunteer at a shelter, however.
When "keeping bees" you are ever only hosting them. If the conditions are not to the hive's liking, they will find somewhere else to live. This is a significant problem in North America where honeybees are not native, as they will displace native species. But if you have a productive hive, they are happy and well treated.
My understanding is that the queen bee is generally restricted from leaving the hive by a physical gate. The workers won't leave without her.
Only when being transported into a hive. Other than the honey super, the queen is given full run of the hive in order to lay new brood. The physical gate is to keep larger things out.
I knew a hardcore vegan girl like a decade ago when it was rather rare to see someone to that extreme, or at least to me. She said she feeds her cat only vegan food, and i was pretty sure that that's not a thing, but i didn't really know. Her roommate then told me that she goes through quite a lot of cats, because they either die or run away.
That's actually really terrible
Yeah, adopt don't shop. But I've met many vegans who don't want pets at all. Including myself, I find the concept of owning a pet a little strange. But that's something everyone should decide for themself.
But that's something everyone should decide for themself.
Honestly I'm not so sure about that. I'm actually annoyed by the lack of regulation. Why is pet breeding still a thing? Owning a pet seems like something that should be phased out (while working on getting the numbers of new born pets down).
Don't get me wrong, I like animals, I've grown up with a cat who lived to 21 years and I consider him more of a brother than a pet, and I love cats, but I wouldn't want to repeat this again. With cats you are damned if you let them outside and damned if you don't. Dogs should just not exist in public spaces. A lot of people are afraid of dogs and every dog "doesn't bite" before he bites one for the first time. I also don't care if they bite or not, I don't want an animal touching me or my stuff, period. The trees suffer, the playgrounds are surrounded by shit, and people tense up in a subway or restaurant when there's a dog. Unless you are a farmer with a huge piece of land you just should not have a dog. (Or need an animal for disability reasons of course.)
Sounds more about bad owners (not having their dog on a leash, not respecting others personal space, or not pickingnup the dog shit) than about dogs.
In a sense I think it is about dogs being in an urban environment. There is just no good place for them to move from a to b. Even if you pick up the poop in the park, there are parts of it left in the grass. The few trees in a city (next to sidewalks I mean) will be peed at and a lot of trees don't take this well. If I am on a narrow sidewalk and someone with a dog passes they can hardly keep their leashed dog at such a close distance that they wouldn't end up striving me. And the question is also, is this the life you want for this animal? Having it on a short leash for 99% of the time?
No one would argue that keeping a horse in your city apartment is a bad idea. Yet somehow for dogs it is normalized.
Depends on a dog. Many cities now have dog parks nd you can still take them out of the city.
Dogs are social animals bred for hundreds of years to be our companions. Most will be happy to be inside on a couch with their human, rather than outside alone (obvioualy not exclusively, they need the walks and free time. And every dog may have different needs).
I was just talking about the world we live in. If i could abolish pet animal breeding I would. :)
Cats are also invasive in some areas. Outdoor cats are the leading cause of songbird mortality.
Why would you need to separate a kitten from it's mom? There are so many cats in shelters, usually castrated already, that need a forever home.
My understanding was always that seeking out new pets was bad, but it was also bad to get rid of one if you already had it. I'm not a vegan, though I did date a couple many years ago and am basing this on what I remember from conversations.
I agree that it seems the obvious choice for a vegan is to not own a pet cat.
I don't know whether you're a vegan yourself, but basically all the vegans I know agree with that.
No, they're hypocrites. These are practices that vegans should not be ok with, and said actions certain don't constitute a harmonious world view and philosophy. They should be ashamed of themselves. The real actions and ideas they should be putting forward is to not have pets, and to try to reduce invasive species impacts on local ecosystems (in which case cats are neutered to stop reproduction).
I understand why vegans would be unhappy with that answer but it is the way it is.
I don't. Veganism is about the fact that humans can live without animal products, which is true. Not accepting that actual carnivores exist, even being unhappy with this means you're well in extremist nutjob territory.
There are plenty of vegan friendly pets to choose from too. Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, chinchillas, pygmy goats ect. If they are willing to accept insectivorous animals that list gets longer.
Why choose a pet like a cat if their diet is a philosophical problem for them? Choose a different animal.
Rabbits? Have you not seen Monty Python’s documentary about the beast of Aaaargh?
A lot of vegans seem to view even owning a pet, of any kind, as evil.
I'm aware of some vegans stances being against having pets, but if people are feeding their cats and dogs a vegan diet at least some portion of vegans aren't against it.
For folks who want pets who are also vegan they should choose a species compatible with that instead of forcing it on an animal who's biology isn't going to thrive under those conditions.
How can an animal's diet even be a philosophical problem to someone?
I am a vegan. While my dogs were alive they ate meat as well as veggies. It seems to me that a lot of vegans don't realise that it's a scale and not binary. The whole philosophy of veganism is "as much as you are able" so I guess there is extremism everywhere.
And veganism is about living a lifestyle that causes the least amount of suffering. And not solely about not eating animal products. (Cultivated meat can be considered vegan, if it has been produced ethically and no animals or humans suffered) Not giving your cat meat causes suffering so is by definition not vegan.
Side note: Veganism is also about reducing human suffering so cocaine is not vegan. Just a reminder to vegans who use cocaine. Met a bunch of those last week.
I have so many questions
I wish people didn't have such a tendency to think of things as binary, when basically nothing is. It's super unhelpful.
I bought some veggie dog food once and when i gave her the choice she would prefer the veggie dog food like 9/10 times. But it was super expensive in comparison.
I make veggie dog food for my dogs, and add in a half pouch (or can if I cannot find the pouches) of salmon on Monday morning. They like the old kibble when I accidentally forget to thaw a bowl of the plant based food, but they absolutely go nuts for the fresh food, salmon or not. They love their morning banana.
https://mrsplantintexas.com/2021/02/25/homemade-vegan-dog-food/
I use a variation of that recipe, basically I add a lot more oats and rice, and make a quadruple batch for my 3 × 70 lb dogs. Their coats are shiny AF.
I also make it in a slow cooker, so it takes either about an hour and a half to prep, make and cleanup, or about 6 hours total. The best part is that I'm now spending about 60% of what I used to spend on kibble.
I'm vegan and I don't know why these "vegans" are towing the line to to include non-human species. It's just as gross for vegan humans to apply their values to values in a dominant manner as it is for non-vegans to. Literally vegans doing this is antithesis to the entire cause.
I'm glad they got slapped. You'll always have idiots in a movement I guess...
What I don't understand about all of this is the consent aspect: your cat/dog/pet did not consent to a vegan diet, so why are you forcing it on them? Obviously you can't ask your pet what they want for dinner, but left to their own devices, I doubt any of them would choose a vegan diet, so... Why force it on them?
Even ignoring all of the science and everything, morally/ethically, it just feels messed up to me. It'd be like forcing your child to eat food they're allergic to because it's healthier/more ethical, despite it causing health issues for them.
Absolutely wild
I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems to me the obvious answer to your consent dilemma is "no animal consents to being eaten." I feed my cat a non-vegan diet, for the record. I'm just not pretending that the fish likes it or anything. If a perfectly healthy vegan diet is possible for a cat, which I'm honestly not clear on, then it's definitely ethical to do so.
If you extrapolated the moral dilemma to the extreme, it would be like saying "it's unethical to take the knife away from that serial murderer. He just wants to murder and he didn't consent to stopping!" Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but so is making the consent argument. My point isn't that feeding cats meat is wrong (again, I feed my cat meat), it's that making a consent argument against veganism is silly.
True, no animal consents to being eaten, and I understand veganism is meant to eliminate or mitigate unnecessary animal products from one's diet, but I don't think "no animal consents to being eaten" works here. That's nature (and yes, I'm ignoring that humans are part of nature, despite our best efforts to think we aren't), you can't change nature. You're not going to get a lion or a shark to stop being a carnivorous predator because that's just what they are.
I also don't necessarily agree with your knife argument: a serial killer does not need to kill to survive, whereas living things need to eat to survive. I don't think the consent argument is as ridiculous as that, I would more equate it to an infirm cancer patient being given chemotherapy drugs versus homeopathy treatment. They can't consent to either, but one is clearly meant to try to fix the issue, whereas the other is a personal choice.
Veganism is a personal choice, cats needing meat in their diet is not. I have nothing against veganism, and I appreciate your arguments (I hadn't considered the "not consenting to be eaten" aspect). Idk, to me, people who force their diets/lifestyles onto their pets that aren't equipped for it, it's just... Immoral? I'm blanking on the word, it's been a long week.
The premise of your previous comment was that regardless of the health effects (ie: if vegan cat food is healthy), the cats didn't consent to it. That argument doesn't make any sense. I don't disagree that cats need proper nutrition, again, I feed my cat meat. I just think your argument based on consent is not well founded and there are better ways to argue your point without making a strange implication about ignoring consent. I don't think forcing a cat to be vegan is okay, unless that diet is properly supplemented with all the nutrients the cat needs, which may or may not be possible. I don't know. Again, I'm not arguing for cats to be fed vegan. I'm arguing against using consent as the angle against veganism, because that opens up a whole can of worms as to hypocrisy. I'm not vegan, and there are perfectly good reasons to be or not be vegan, but animal consent definitely isn't an argument to be made against veganism unless you want to confront the issues with animals just as intelligent as cats, or more, being consumed as food.
animals don't consent to anything, any more than trees or machines. it is absurd to discuss consent from something that can not be informed.
That’s a really good point I’d never thought of. Veganising an obligate carnivore is unvegan. Mind blown 🤯
It's a microcosm for science denial or misunderstanding of all kinds. Vegan cats and antivax may not seem related but the underlying misinformation is not dissimilar.
I tried following up on the vegan cat research being posted and it was very difficult to get a solid answer. There are multiple brands of vegan cat food marketed and sold, and it isn't outrageous to believe that our industrial society could find an ethical way to source the necessary nutrients and enrich the cat food.
But also there's very few studies that test the claims of the vegan cat food. What few meta-analysis exist, and anecdotes online, would suggest that all those foods lack certain critical nutrients for long-term feline health. But the anecdotes are drowned out by well-intentioned people who want to believe it works, and the studies are small, rare, hard to read, and locked behind paywalls.
Why do people even try to keep cats on vegan diet? It was your fucking choice, not the cats.
Im vegetarian, my cat eats meat. Im not gonna force anything on him unless he comes to me and tells me he wants to try it.
Often people watch something like Dominion, get shocked, and decide to go vegan. It's a purely emotional decision. Don't expect any rational choices here.
Ummm. It’s pretty rational to go vegan/vegetarian. Humans can be healthy and we are capable to decide for ourselves. Cats on the other hand…
What's the rationality behind this?
Industrialised meat is a nightmare...?
How's this rational? That's an emotional evaluation. I'm not even arguing with that. But that's not the point of the discussion.
Maybe "nightmare" is too subjective/emotional. But it's undeniably unsustainable, inhumane, barbaric and outdated. We know better is the biggest issue. We don't need to treat our food that way.
(P.S. I'm not vegan, I'm just full of cognitive dissonance lol)
That's never been the point of this discussion, stop flaming. That's just toxic.
I'm flaming? Sorry, just was trying to point out that becoming vegan can be more than just an emotional choice.
Meat production is a prime contributor to climate change. Large amounts of resources go into raising meat. Further, cattle and pig production (not so much chicken) is the prime pathway to food contamination. Whenever you see lettuce recalls because of e. coli, that's because animal shit got mixed in with the lettuce or the water for the lettuce.
Choosing not to eat meat because of these facts seems like a pretty rational choice, no emotion involved.
Oh boy, why are you arguing about things that you clearly don't understand? "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Veganism doesn't care about climate. People don't go vegan to save climate. Some adopt a plant-based diet though, but these are separate bubbles that just barely intersect.
Got it, so you are emotionally defining veganism in such a way that you aren't actually vegan if you don't get there for emotional reasons.
If that's your definition of veganism then of course nobody can get there with reason. You've created a tautology with your emotion filled definition.
For the record, veganism is defined by MW as
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals
also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
That was the definition I was operating under. Sorry I didn't Intuit your arbitrary definition you pulled from "eat meat.com" or whatever you got it.
They got that definition from The Vegan Society, the leading charity/group representing the movement.
What would be the rational choice after watching it?
When I made the change, I found that there are three major points that tip people to go vegan. They are: sustainability, health, and morality. And really the former two points boil down to the third if you think of it.
Eating animal products is terrible for the habitat which we call Planet Earth. Cows are one of the leading contributors of methane to the atmosphere, a gas that is 30-90 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. The IPCC is just now, as in the past few years, turning the corner on getting a handle on how to model CH4 as well as its contributing factors to global warming. Then you have to consider the other aspects of animal agriculture like resource demand and waste. Animal agriculture uses a disproportionate amount of water, not only for keeping the animals alive but also for growing the crops to feed the animals. Many times vegans actually raise the point that all the water we use to grow the soy and alfalfa for cows could be diverted to growing crops directly for human consumption. It's much less water intensive to do so, and we know that some areas of the world are already experiencing climate change in the form of less snow pact accumulating on mountains, countributing to less snow melt and less river water from which we draw for animal agriculture and lots of other uses. If we want to truly grapple with our changing climate, we really ought to change our behaviors about how we use Earth's natural resources. Ok, what about waste. I'll talk about this in two ways. First, since more plant agriculture is dedicated to animal consumption and raising than for human consumption, there is a disproportionate amount of fertilizers and pesticides used on that portion of crops. And for farmers, one of the cheapest and most convenient ways to fertilize/innoculate their crops is to be super inefficient in using way more chemicals than what they need to to get the job done. These chemicals don't holdfast in the soils (since our agricultural practices are also diminishing that too), so they wash off into canals, rivers, and eventually the ocean and aggregate just enough to accelerate local algal growths and deplete oxygen in the sea. This leads to dead zones where aquatic wildlife can't breath and end up dying. Ok, that's one aspect of waste. The other essentially follows the same casual relation, where manure if not captured by farmers drains off into waterways, carrying the same chemicals as were applied to the crops initially. Then you have other instances where farmers will manage animal waste and pump it into open pits where innate bacteria will try to reduce the toxicity of that substance over time. The other effect of these open pits is the stench they can originate and send for miles on end. Humans who live in areas nearby these farms have incredible distaste as they feel their quality of life, their clean air is polluted. Then we have to talk about animal agriculture and land use in general. Animal agriculture represents the largest biome on the entire planet. We as humans have domesticated the planet such that wild habitats are the minority today. There is less of the wild today than there has ever been in the history of the human species. These shrinking wild lands means that wild animals have less land to roam and exist in, leading to overcrowding, higher rates of disease contraction, higher rates of competition, and in general extinction. Many scientists attribute parts of the current extinction we're experiencing, the Sixth Great Extinction, to the habitat lost to animal agriculture. A lot of essential, environmental services that ecosystems provide to help make this planet livable for humans are deteriorating, and who knows if and when we'll reach tipping points that we can't return from. Land use can also affect global weather patterns. The Amazon rainforest is one of the largest, single biomes on the planet, and much of it has been deforested to make way for animal agriculture. That rainforest contributes to global geography and meteorology as a sink for tropical storms from the Sahara desert. If the Amazon fundamentally becomes a different biome, then its function may destabilize weather patterns that might make weather worse for other areas in the same region. I haven't even scratched the surface of environmental effects here.
Ok, then we turn to health. Consuming some animal products contributes to a greater chance of developing cancer, as the WHO classifies red meat for instance as a carcinogen. Another prominent disease that can develop on an animal/carnist diet is cardiovascular disease. People have heart attacks younger and younger as a result of this, which might be a contributing factor to countries like the US experiencing lifetimes decreasing as opposed to lifetimes increasing in other countries around the world. Let's talk about the contamination issue. Animal products like milk, cheese, and meat all tend to be recalled more than plant products because of the associated risk of disease within the products themselves. And when plant products are recalled, it's likely because there was cross contamination from animal products somewhere along the supply chain. Animal products also introduce more cholesterol to the human body than plant products. Cholesterol is one of the leading factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease, like I mentioned before, but in this sense animal products promote Low Density Lipoprotein (LDLs) production as opposed to High Density Lipoproteins (HDLs) in the blood. When you have more of the former and less of the latter, less cholesterol is swept up from the blood stream and taken to cells, meaning more free cholesterol floats in your veins. This free cholesterol is what contributes to plaques and blockages. There are more heavy metals concentrated in animal products too. It is often thought of by biologists that the more you ascend the food chain/web, the more heavy metals like mercury and lead build up. The is especially true with fish. So, if you eat animal products, there is a greater chance you introduce these poisons to your body that your body has to work harder to filter out and remove. People often say that vegans don't get enough nutrients on their diet compared to omnivores/carnists. B12 is really the only nutrient that's an issue there, with all other vitamins being supplied in abundance on a whole foods diet. Many omnivores/carnists are actually deficient in vitamins and minerals themselves, like in magnesium, zinc, and K2. A lack of magnesium, for instance, can lead to detrimental impacts on the brain over time (just as B12, mind you). Those are readily available from plant foods, but not so in animal foods. A lot of people suffer from allergies that develop from consuming animal products, and plant foods offer that escape to have good food without the downsides.
Lastly, we have morality. Animal agriculture existing is a form of genocide and oppression on a specific group for no other reason than to extract their resources for human pleasure/gain. This is no different than how humans treat other humans, especially so in the 3rd world. If anyone in this comments section believes in the emancipation of the Palestinian people, for instance, or of the countless others forced as slaves in the fishing industry (an added bonus against animal agriculture), sex work industry, agriculture, textiles, mining, etc., then your argument must also apply to animals. Humans are biologically capable of surviving and thriving on whole food plant based diets, and our choice to continue our damnation of animals is immoral and unethical. The leading practice for meat processors to turn live, emotion, morally worthy beings like cows, pigs, and sheep into commodity products is by first using gas chambers on them to asphyxiate and kill. The last time humans used gas chambers on other humans was during WWII when the Nazis mass slaughtered people of a common creed: the Jewish people. Nazis were and still are considered the absolute worst moral offenders in the entire history of the human species. The fact that we've continued their practices, this time only applying them to a group that has no voice to speak out against or warn others about is cruel, unusual, reprehensible, and condemnable. If you support animal agriculture today, you support Nazism. If you don't, think about changing the foods you buy at the supermarket and order at the restaurant. And yes, animals have no voice. We slaughter them for consumption without their consent. We have them as pets without their consent. We take them away from their natural habitats, and use them as emotional support devices without considering what impacts doing so has on THEIR wellbeing. Humans breed animals like this so others might adopt them as pets later for profit, without considering how that impacts the animals themselves. Mothers and children are separated, often at birth, and fanned off to pet owners before those crucial, biological, sociological, psychological bonds develop between offspring and parent. This happens too when calves and piglets and chicks are separated from their mothers, causing distress for both individuals that can emotionally scar them for life. Again, if you were against what Donald Trump during his presidency did to Hispanic families trying to cross the southern border of the US, with border agents ripping children away from their mothers and fathers with no prospects of the two ever returning, then you MUST be against the same actions that happen to animals. Again, animals can't communicate as effectively to us what they're feeling or going through, so it's even worse for them, and we have an even greater obligation to stop and do something about it. Animal agriculture also involves rape. Farmers often have to artificially impregnate cows such that they'll produce calves, and the more coveted item, milk. I could go on and on and on but I'm out of text.
Animal agriculture existing is a form of genocide
it's not genocide: we don't want to wipe out cows.
If you support animal agriculture today, you support Nazism.
this bombastic pigeon-holing is laughable. there are plenty of anti-fascist people who eat meat and dairy.
If anyone in this comments section believes in the emancipation of the Palestinian people, for instance, or of the countless others forced as slaves in the fishing industry (an added bonus against animal agriculture), sex work industry, agriculture, textiles, mining, etc., then your argument must also apply to animals.
no, it doesn't.
We slaughter them for consumption without their consent
it's absurd do discuss consent from something that cannot be informed. do you get consent from a door before you jam your keys in its holes? do you get consent before you put your whole body through it?
Humans are biologically capable of surviving and thriving on whole food plant based diets, and our choice to continue our damnation of animals is immoral and unethical.
this might be true for some people, but i think you will find that most people will say they need meat or dairy or eggs.
. First, since more plant agriculture is dedicated to animal consumption and raising than for human consumption, there is a disproportionate amount of fertilizers and pesticides used on that portion of crops
this is simply untrue. globally, about 2/3 of all our crop calories go to humans, and, by and large, what is fed to livestock are parts of plants that people can't or won't eat.
Eating animal products is terrible for the habitat which we call Planet Earth
eating animal products has no impact at all. the problems that exist arise during production.
Eating animals does have impact. It has impact on your body and the animal.
Eating animals does have impact. It has impact on your body and the animal.
the animal is already dead, and i dont' see the case that the effects or my own body of me eating food is really a detriment to the environment.
Cows are one of the leading contributors of methane to the atmosphere, a gas that is 30-90 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
all of agriculture, including cows, is only about 20% of our ghg emissions. you are using vague and scary language to mislead.
Most agriculture is pursued for feedstock for the animal agriculture industry. This is true all across the planet. Also, CO2 != CH4.
Most agriculture is pursued for feedstock for the animal agriculture industry.
kindly, cite a source.
Animal agriculture also involves rape. Farmers often have to artificially impregnate cows such that they’ll produce calves,
this isn't rape. it's a veterinary procedure.
when plant products are recalled, it’s likely because there was cross contamination from animal products somewhere along the supply chain
broccoli or lettuce covered in e. coli is not due to cross contamination with animal products, it's due to inhumane working conditions or simply bad farming practices. you're really stretching on this one
Many times vegans actually raise the point that all the water we use to grow the soy
the vast majority of the global soy crop (about 85%) is pressed for soybean oil for human use. the waste product from that process is called soy cake, and if it were not fed to livestock, it would simply be industrial waste. feeding soy to livestock is a conservation of resources.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
Animal agriculture uses a disproportionate amount of water, not only for keeping the animals alive but also for growing the crops to feed the animals.
water isn't destroyed by being used for animals to eat or drink. even if it were (which makes no sense and, again, is not true), using water to make food is a good use for water. additionally, myopically focusing on any single metric really harms our understanding of the system as a whole. for instance, cows are fed cottonseed, but cotton isn't grown for cottonseed: it's a waste product. why should the crop weight of cottonseed be calculated as a portion of the water use of cows, when that's a conservation of resources? it shouldn't. this metric is a red herring.
Using water to make food is a good use so long as it doesn't led to waste on the part of us humans throwing that food out. This is a larger issue than just animal agriculture, but animal products have larger water footprints and consequently make up a higher proportion of that waste.
Also, water isn't destroyed, but it's extracted and shipped to other parts of the planet. This virtually eliminates the water present in the origin biome. Again, this issue cuts across animal and plant agriculture, but animal products have a higher water footprint and make up a higher proportion of that water displacement.
I think my original comment points to a greater understanding of the system wholistically than any of your one-off comments have. If you want to convince the viewer of this point, do my comment but better.
Cottonseed isn't the only feedstock for animal agriculture. Soy, grain, and corn are all others. The fact that cottonseed is utilized doesn't negate the utilization of other crops farmed specifically for animal agriculture, and not as a byproduct of another industry. That byproduct could be used for other purposes, including continuation of cotton farmers' own biostock for future plantings. But of course most cotton grown around the world is genetically modified to withstand fungicides, and these fungicides don't just wash off. Many people have allergic reactions to cotton depending on how it's grown and where it's sourced. Imagine now that that cottonseed is going into your food supply, where it doesn't go away.
I think that the circular economy is a virtue and we as a species should aim for it, but you pointing to cottonseed metrics ignores the larger variables associated with soy, corn, grain, and alfalfa. Those crops are all grown directly, not indirectly in the case of cottonseed, for animal agriculture, and do not offset the savings you get from using a byproduct.
Cottonseed isn’t the only feedstock for animal agriculture. Soy, grain, and corn are all others.
the fact that your water use numbers, wherever you go, will be tainted with cottonseed or other crops that are actually being conserved by being fed to animals means that your myopic focus on this single metric is not giving you a complete view of the industry.
The last time humans used gas chambers on other humans was during WWII when the Nazis mass slaughtered people of a common creed: the Jewish people
and it was wrong precisely because it treated humans like animals. treating animals like animals is not wrong.
Again, if you were against what Donald Trump during his presidency did to Hispanic families trying to cross the southern border of the US, with border agents ripping children away from their mothers and fathers with no prospects of the two ever returning, then you MUST be against the same actions that happen to animals.
why?
I think it's great that you don't eat meat, that's a step many people refuse to take. If you have recognized the horror of the animal industry, then try to avoid udder milk as well. The dairy industry is the meat industry, they go hand in hand. Dairy cows are sold as food for humans and animals after they are no longer profitable, after just a few years. Don't force a life of misery on dairy cows.
Don’t downvote this guy, he is right.
Don't downvote this guy who says that guy's right, they're right.
Don’t downvote this guy either.
if the cat enjoys the vegan food and it is nutritious then there is really not an issue.
obviously you can't stop a cat killing things.
This guy has done studies into the very thing:
You NEVER fucking learn do you?
cats CANNOT survive on a vegan diet, they will go blind and die years earlier.
So fucking tired of wikipedia scholars liking some fucking rando on youtube to justify their ideological animal abuse.
wait, are you suggesting the learned professor in the video above is a Wikipedia scholar?
What learned professor? I watched 20 mins of the video and it was framed and delivered as propaganda. Also I blocked you, how the fuck are you showing up in my inbox?
the guy in the video is a professor. is that not learned enough for you?
You left your SI in the link
Thanks. first I have ever heard of that. changed it. not sure why.
I also feel the same way about making cats Democrat supporters
Yeah, as much as I love cats, I know they would vote Republican if they could, just because they love the chaos and suffering that Republican leadership naturally brings.
One meow for meat, two for vegan
A lot of vegans will hate this, but YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING SCIENTIST! Drop all the journals and research you want, but your pet is not a lab-controlled experiment. Besides, something being in a journal doesn't make it true. If it is regularly cited as true, and has swept into general understanding of how to feed a pet, then it's factual...
I'm all for vegans living their best lives. Don't force it on a pet that doesn't know better. Vegans harming animals through their own food choices isn't a new thing, ask most vets and they'll have seen the effects of malnutrition from someone that thought that they knew better.
The reason cats can't be vegan is that they cannot produce an amino acid called taurine, which is something dogs and humans can produce (but which we also get sometimes from dietary sources).
Most dietary sources of taurine are meat. This is why dogs and humans "can be vegan" but cats "can't". However, vegan taurine is made and can be bought as a supplement, both for humans (if you want to ensure you get some taurine in your diet), but also in properly made vegan cat food.
It seems to me then that cats can be vegan, just not without intentional effort to ensure proper supplementation of taurine. That is, they couldn't be vegan in the wild (where the only source of taurine is meat) and you can't just start to feed them a vegan diet without taurine and expect the cat to be healthy and survive.
In fact, cats fed a proper vegan diet tend to have better health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499249/
I think the question is really what you are feeding your "vegan" cat: if you have managed to find (or make) a properly fortified vegan cat food it is theoretically possible to feed your cat a vegan diet.
This all feels a bit like the "controversy" around feeding young children and babies a vegan diet: done poorly it can be catastrophic (pun not intended), but it's entirely possible to have a healthy vegan diet when enough effort is put into ensuring nutritional needs are actually satisfied.
That said, I also know of two other vegan responses:
- for some vegans, having pets is not vegan to begin with, so a "vegan cat" is a contradiction in terms even if you fed them a vegan diet, you still wouldn't be an ethical vegan by owning a cat. This is admittedly a less commonly held view which centers ethical veganism on the rights of animals to have autonomy, which if plausible in some ways seems at least impractical in the case of domesticated animals. There are questions of the harm that might be caused by choosing to treat cats not as pets but as autonomy-rights-bearing "wild" animals, but those ethical vegans might rightly point out this doesn't undo the cat's rights and the practical questions should be handled separately.
- most vegans I know IRL just feed cats a non-vegan diet, acknowledging it is safer and more reasonable for their cat than trying to figure out a way to feed them a vegan diet. Good vegan cat food isn't that common or easy to find as far as I know, and I assume it would be outrageously expensive.
Well put. Cats are OBLIGATE carnivores. They do not have anatomy to support extracting necessary nutrition from vegan sources that are available. It IS hypothetically possibly for them to survive and thrive on an engineered food source but, such a thing does not currently exist and the chemical complexity makes it unlikely in the near future.
this is hilarious, and 100% on brand for a vegan community.
It really isn't funny as there are real animals being harmed. There pet will die a slow and agonizing death.
That's half the point. These people are destroying what they love through their own malice and stupidity. I'd rather they didn't, but since they're not stopping any time soon I might as well laugh at them for it.
Maybe whataboutism here but there are beagles in the UK right now waiting to be experimented on them (possibly for a new dog food brand) and eventually killed. There are billions of animals all around the world dying a slow and agonizing death, trapped in CAFO facilities right now, of whom 20% alone are getting fed to dogs in the US.
I think some cat getting fed a well formulated vegan cat food containing taurine, vitamin A & D3, omega 3 & 6, magnesium, copper, iodine, selenium, manganese, zink & calcium is astronomically better off than any aforementioned animals.
I fed a cat I had to take in for some time the AMI brand. She was wild for it.
Making dogs vegan still doesn't sound like a good idea to me tho
My research said that it can work if you do it right. It is very hard and requires constant monitoring of the dog. I wouldn't recommend it but it will work better than cats. The problem I can forsee is a vegan owner moving there dog to a vegan diet and then refusing to accept that that there dog is having health issues because of it. They would need to be willing to start giving there dog regular food again but I don't see the extreme vegans doing that. They will likely just shove there head in the sand or blame something else like the vet.
Yeah, it's ridiculous to feed a dog vegetables. My dog gets a diet of pure meat. I drive around my city with a net gun and capture outdoor cats, and then butcher them for Fido. It's a win-win-win. Win: Fido gets meat. Win: I don't contribute to factory farming cruelty. Win: the native birds aren't driven extinct by predation. This is the only ethical way to feed a dog, since this way every living creature that ends up in Fido's hungry jaws lived a rich and fulfilling life.
Leave the internet
Oh great, another annoying vegan here to tell me that killing animals for food is wrong
For the record, science disagrees with you. According to an analysis of all current research, there is no statistically significant difference of cat heath when fed a nutritionally sufficient vegan diet. Of there is a similarly high quality study that finds that a nutritionally sufficient vegan diet is worse for cats I would love to see it.
The vegan diet we are talking about isn't a bunch of vegetables, it's a manufactured dry food specifically designed to have all the nutrients a cat needs.
People often use the obligate carnivore excuse, but use it in an unscientific way. Obligate carnivores have nutritional needs that can only be meet through meat in the wild, but humans are perfectly capable of manufacturing these nutrients. We are so good at it that we supplement these synthetic nutrients in meat based cat food already.
This is a contentious issue for most people, and it can be hard when you are very passionate about something to look at the evidence and change your opinion. I've looked at a decent number of studies on the topic recently, and they all seen to point to the conclusion that a diet without meat can be healthy for cats, so long as it contains all the nutrients they need.
A vet friend in a very trendy city encounters a lot of cats with significant health problems that stem from their owner's attempt at a vegan diet, so whether or not it's possible, too many people harm the health of their pets through attempting a vegan diet for it to be a safe thing to recommend trying
Yea that's the thing.
I'm sure a team of scientists could eventually design an ethically sourced vegan cat food with synthetic versions of whatever is missing that could work fine for some cats.
The odds of a random lemming doing it right after reading one comment about it online is next to none.
Discussing it is one thing, recommending it and deleting anything that simply advises caution is weird.See, this is actually good reasoning for why owners shouldn't force a vegan diet on pets. It doesn't mean it can't be done well, but the difficulty in meeting dietary needs creates significant health risks for many owners' cats. And it's fine to leave it there, but it doesn't close the door on the idea forever.
Intresting paper. It is not the conclusive evidence that you think it is. It's ok, reading science is hard.
Paper concluded that the vegan diet did not seem to have adverse effects, but they had a very small sample size and the expiriment went on for a very short duration.
And then they site scientific papers that disagree with their findings. So there definitely is science out there that disagrees with the vegan diet being ok.
a bit less aggressive please and then this comment is almost perfect
Nah I matched the tone of who I was responding to.
true true, but:
An eye for an eye...
If you don't want a toxic internet, it's on us to start it
Did you actually read the article? Cause I did and here are some highlights from the article regarding felines specifically:
Sample sizes are tiny
3.2. Feline Studies-Meta-analysis was considered if more than one study presented the same outcome data. However, meta-analyses of these data were not possible due to (1) differences or lack of a comparison group, e.g., a meat-based diet comparator or (2) no presentation of a measure of central tendency or dispersion to input into the model.
Hypokalemia is: a low level of potassium (K+) in the blood serum.[1] Mild low potassium does not typically cause symptoms.[3] Symptoms may include feeling tired, leg cramps, weakness, and constipation.[1] Low potassium also increases the risk of an abnormal heart rhythm, which is often too slow and can cause cardiac arrest
3.2.1. Hematology/Biochemistry-Only three studies [27,29,30] have carried out hematological and/or biochemical analysis of blood in cats that were fed vegetarian diets, and it is worth noting that sample sizes were low. Cats on a high-protein vegetarian diet exhibited hypokalemia which accompanied recurrent polymyopathy [29]. There was also increased creatinine kinase activity, likely reflecting the muscle damage caused by the myopathy, and reduced urinary potassium concentrations.
Myopathy is: a disease of the muscle[1] in which the muscle fibers do not function properly.
3.2.3. Clinical Findings-In cats fed vegetarian diets that were supplemented with potassium, a myopathy was seen within 2 weeks of the dietary change [29]. This was characterized by ventroflexion of the head and the neck. The cats also showed lateral head resting, a stiff gait, muscular weakness, unsteadiness, and the occasional tremor of the head and pinnae....... Weight loss and poor coat condition have also been observed in cats fed vegetarian diets [29,30]. However, most cats in another study had a normal coat condition and no obviously diet-related clinical abnormalities picked up by clinical examination [27]. Clinical signs of lethargy with altered mentation, dysorexia, and muscle wasting, along with gut signs of bloating and increased borborygmi have also been observed [30].
These are guardian based reports which means there is significant bias from the owner to report positive effects and look over the negatives
3.2.4. Guardian-Reported Health Effects-Guardians generally believed that the transition to a meat-free diet had been positive. These studies are valuable, as large sample sizes of respondents (animals) are generally employed. Some guardians did notice an increase in stool volume but noted no issues with consistency [27]. When considering other aspects, coat condition was shinier [27], there was an improved scent of their animals (particularly relating to breath odor) [27], there was a tendency to be at the ideal body condition score rather than being obese [28,31].
This is about as close as you can get to justifying it , IF you fixate on ONE aspect and ignore everything else in the journal article:
Dodd et al. (2021) [31] collected dietary information for 1026 cats, of whom 187 were fed vegan diets. The latter were more frequently reported by guardians to be in very good health. They had more ideal body condition scores and were less likely to suffer from gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders than cats that were fed meat. No health disorders were found to be more likely in cats that were fed vegan diets. The reported differences were statistically significant.
So please explain to me how myopathy setting in and causing tremors after only two weeks of transitioning to a non meat based diet is good for cats?
So for the record you are dead flat wrong by your own damn source because you didn't read it or you ignored all the bad parts.
Happy to see someone who read through the analysis! I just looked back at your criticism and you make stone goods points. I did notice that almost all the negative effects are coming from the same citation in the study, so I looked into the study they are citing there. Here's a link to the PDF of that study.
The main take away for me from this study is that they were feeding the cats a "vegetarian human diet," specifically casserole mince along with a couple others. Feeding these cats a diet designed for humans is obviously bad, but it doesn't speak to commercial food designed for cats. You can use this to say that a homemade vegan diet is not good for cats. I've always said, don't do a homemade diet for your pets.
There were also negative outcomes from citation 30, but the full text is behind a paywall, so I can't really check on it. Of anyone has a copy I'd love to read it.
The studies that did use commercially available cat foods (literally all the other studies linked) found that the cats fed a vegan diet were within the range for regular healthy cats.
I am not making the claim that vegan diet is healthier. I am not claiming that you can make your own cat food at home. My specific claim is that there is not a statistically significant difference in the health of cats that eat commercially available vegan cat food. If you have a similar quality study to the contrary, please post it. Until that happens, I'm going to stick with the researchers who published the study, when they say:
Perhaps a take-home message is that use of commercially prepared vegan pet foods appear to be safe for use in cats and dogs but further research is needed.
I noticed you forgot to include a very important contextual sentence for your myopathy quote:
Only three studies [27,29,30] have carried out hematological and/or biochemical analysis of blood in cats that were fed vegetarian diets, and it is worth noting that sample sizes were low. Cats on a high-protein vegetarian diet exhibited hypokalemia which accompanied recurrent polymyopathy [29]. There was also increased creatinine kinase activity, likely reflecting the muscle damage caused by the myopathy, and reduced urinary potassium concentrations. Potassium supplementation prevented development of this myopathy, strongly suggesting a link between the potassium and myopathy.
Meaning there was a health problem when one of the cats' dietary needs wasn't being met, which no longer appeared when the deficiency was corrected.
Even so, no one was trying to claim every conceivable vegan food mix is healthy for a cat. Of course trying to switch an animal who would be a carnivore in nature to a healthy synthetic vegan diet would be difficult. But there only needs to be one diet that succeeds to show it's possible. And unless you're going to claim literally all of the vegan cat guardians who reported healthy cats are lying about their cat's health or diet, that requirement has been met.
You are a danger to animals. Stop believing what you want to believe and look at the research
It seems like they did
I'm happy to do research. Care to post some academic literature on the subject?
Disclaimer that I'm not even a vegan but you're spreading disinfo here to make vegans seem completely unreasonable. I suggest anyone check out the actual discussions instead of trusting this summary.
Cats are obligate carnivores, sparky. That means they can't be vegan.
I don't know enough about that topic to argue for or against which is not what I'm trying to argue
And yet you keep replying...
You don't know enough about the topic to argue but claim someone else is spreading misinformation.
Well if you don't know the topic but are making claims like this then it seems like you may be the one spreading misinformation.
Cats are obligate carnivores in the wild. This just means they have dietary needs that would normally require meat. But we can make vegan, synthetic food that meets these needs. In fact, studies have shown that cats on vegan diets tend to be healthier if anything.
they can't be vegan as that is an ethical choice. they can be plant based and live a perfectly normal life.
tell me where you disagree with this guy:
This asshole is a propagandist
a guy who is a professor of animal welfare?
Show me a scientific study that proves this. If you can say it with confidence, it should be no trouble at all for you to prove it. I, on the other hand, am lazy and don't care all that much, so I want the people confidently stating opinions to share their research to save me effort.
A quick search reveals quite a few sources and articles to read. I hope this helps. Not an exhaustive list.
Those aren't scientific studies. The vegans have scientific studies. You expect me to believe you know better than them, but you can't show me sources of equal quality?
One of those is a Wikipedia link which gives you primary sources. 🤔
Cat food is food specifically formulated and designed for consumption by cats. As obligate carnivores, cats have specific requirements for their dietary nutrients, namely nutrients found only in meat or synthesised, such as taurine and Vitamin A.
Hey look, your Wikipedia link says the nutrients cats need from meat can be synthesised in literally the second sentence.
Vegetarian or vegan cat food has been available for many years, and is targeted primarily at vegan and vegetarian pet owners. While a small percentage of owners choose such a diet based on its perceived health benefits, the majority do so due to ethical concerns, such as about the large environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
You also put have the thing where it says they are obligate carnivores in the second sentence of the first paragraph that is cited. I did NOT make those claims just provided you with links for further reading.
Edit: spelling and grammar
It sounds like you aren't very assured of the validity of your sources in backing up your claims. If you don't believe in your own sources, why are you so confident in your opinions?
Hey look, your Wikipedia link says the nutrients cats need from meat can be synthesised in literally the second sentence.
This is what I was referring to.
I wasn't making an argument either way. You asked for someone to help you with your homework and I gave you a place to start with the understanding that you were going to apply critical thinking and check source material after being shown a direction.
You want to bitch about having to think and do work? Stop getting into these types of discussions. I made no claims as to validity just that a quick search revealed many sources and articles that had info you were looking for.
Edit: spelling and grammar.
I suggest anyone check out the actual discussions.
I suggest not checking out some discussions in search for scientific data.
Yea better trust internet randos at face value. Don't follow up on anything when you can just consume rage bait and hate vegans.
So it's either "actual" discussions or this particular discussion, we have no other options, right? That's, my friend, called false dichotomy.
See my above comment that directly pulls quotes directly from peer reviewed primary scientific literature.
Vegans are by their very nature completely unreasonable
That seems like a very blanket statement to make about an entire group of people. I'm not vegan, btw. The vegans I know make that choice entirely independently for the sake of the environment, because they hate the conditions in factory farming, or any number of other totally reasonable reasons. They aren't forcing it on anyone else, or their pets for that matter. What makes you feel this way? They seem reasonable to me, even if I have no problem personally with drinking milk or eating eggs.
I agree.
I'm not a expert so you should read up on it. The problem is that the vegan community was only allowing random studies saying how cats were healthier on a vegan diet. None of those papers were peer reviewed or all that credible. On the other side there is tons of research and articles written by actual experts that say it is a bad idea. I looked it up before making this comment.
Ye I don't particularly agree that one should try to make vegetarian cats myself either and I also think it's not coop to simply delete opposing research which doesn't mean match one's worldview (so long as the research is not flawed). But I also understand and can painfully see how embattled vegan ideas and spaces are which explains them being extra defensive
Thank you for the summary! I found myself in OP. I am eating mostly vegan, and I have a cat, and I believe people who force a vegan (or even vegetarian) diet on their cats need mental help.
Cats have dietary needs that would require them to eat meat in nature. But we can make vegan, synthetic food that meets these needs. In fact, studies have shown that cats on vegan diets tend to be healthier if anything.
I don't understand why people upvote summaries that don't even try to be objective. I honestly think the mods there do notably abuse their power to remove comments, but let people decide that for themselves. This commenter is telling you who to support while being confidently incorrect on the original issue.
No we can't actually, not for cats. But you just keep pushing your irrational and hateful ideology to the empty void because you and every other fuckdamn vegan in this thread is getting blocked.
Look, block who you want, but I don't get this adamant rejection of reality. You think a thing is impossible, someone shows you a study stating that the thing does happen, and you still insist the thing is impossible. You don't even give a reason why. But you have the nerve to say others are being irrational?
To all the other free thinkers using the disagree button for dissent, reflect on if you are actually open to having your mind changed about things in the face of new information. Being occasionally exposed to sincere people that challenge your way of thinking is healthy. You may walk away with a more accurate view of something you previously dismissed, or even if you don't have your mind changed, you are enriched with the confidence that your views can withstand a degree of criticism. And you don't have to reply if you don't want to argue or whatever, but at least be honest with yourself so you can grow.
But... your study doesn't show that it is possible. It shows that even with the natural pressure of the owners to downplay the issues their pets were experiencing, they still had significant health problems.
Please don't speak down to people when it is abundantly clear that you are ignoring critical sections of your own evidence that disagree with your desired outcome.
Yes, there is the possibility that self-reported cases are untrustworthy. But there is no reason to think vegan cat owners would be more biased than non-vegan cat owners.
My desired outcome is simply showing that it is possible for cats to be healthy on a vegan diet. I only need one example to show that. And there are examples of such cats in the study my link had. At least for its tested disorders, reported vegan cats on average were slightly less likely to have at least one. The majority of both groups were in fact "healthy" (having no measured disorder). The difference between the healthy rates is small enough that it can be explained by variance and other factors contributing to health besides diet, and that's fine.
Before anyone starts, yes there could be health metrics not being measured that are relevant to the spirit of the idea being explored. But you need to measure easily quantifiable things. If you just asked "Is this cat healthy?", you would have some owners disqualify a cat for having a cut on their paw, and others disregarding serious concerns just because there hadn't been a diagnosis. This is as wide a scope as you can expect to explore a qualitative idea with.
Unless you are suggesting that literally every owner reporting a healthy vegan cat in the study is just lying, my claim is supported by the study. And if you thought otherwise, you invented a different claim and assigned it to me.
I genuinely want people to engage honestly with other people's arguments made in good faith. I know Lemmy is ultimately a collection of largely anonymous internet users, but still, I expected better than what I have seen in this thread.
I don't understand why people upvote summaries that don't even try to be objective.
I don't understand how you guys are ignoring your own sources, please see my above comment.
What? That wasn't my source, and it was a different comment chain created after my comment. How am I supposed to have read that?
Anyway, to be clear, the source commenter claimed it is impossible for a cat to be healthy with a vegan diet. All that's needed to refute that is an example of a healthy cat with a vegan diet. So I found an article discussing how that has been observed. That's it. But many people in this thread are either unwilling to concede this or are creating strawmen.
https://www.aspca.org/news/why-cant-my-cat-be-vegan
Even if there is chance that it is possible it is very much not worth the risk. Malnutrition will only show its teeth long term. You cat will become very unhealthy and get sick. There bodies will break down and the will likely go blind. You shouldn't subject an animal under your care to such a painful life.
Oh fuck. And here I was willing to side with the vegan mods because I assumed people were just shitting on vegans again.
I think it is best to do your own research
can you tell.me if you know more than this guy, and where he is wrong:
Link peer reviewed literature, not youtube media
He talks about many studies. Have a watch. it's hardly radical what he proposes.
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.
Small study.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132
Does this work?
This study was essentially them asking cat owners information, no direct observation. This may be a surprise but people lie, especially when they really want something to work.
No one is going to admit they hurt their cat by pushing a diet they believe is right.
Hey that's a really good point lets see what scientific literature says about that:
4.1. Evidence Considerations-To date, only sixteen studies have looked at actual health-related outcomes in dogs and cats fed vegan diets, as opposed to performing nutrient evaluations of diets. However, the majority of these studies utilized small sample sizes (ranging from 2–34 animals) for the direct investigation of outcomes. Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.
It then goes on to say:
The risk of bias assessment performed on the experimental trials suggests, at best, an unclear risk of bias across the studies. There were some particular aspects of poor performance (or reporting), especially around randomization and blinding. This has been reported previously in animal studies [42], where researchers have probably not taken on board some of these important facets of experimental design and reporting to the extent that human clinical researchers have [43,44]. This remains a major concern impeding reproducibility, and where internal validity of the study is impacted, also leads to wastage of animal and financial resources [42].
Seems like the science backs your claim up partially. I would call it bias instead of lying though.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/
Exactly. it's not perfect. it's a new area of study.
Which is exactly why pet owners shouldn't be fucking with it, maybe down the road but as it stands right now the average pet owner shouldn't be experimenting on their poor kitties.
It's what's happening. people report their findings. the findings seem positive for the moment.
That's the results of these peer reviewed studies.
those are the facts for the moment.
And as I have constantly said, if the cat enjoys the food and it provides all the nutrients, what's the problem?
Yes, the extremely subjective and biased findings look good. Which in science means nothing.
it's a good way to do measure quality of life.. he goes into how they measure it and the limitations in the video.
That's not peer reviewed
yes it is.
Cats cannot synthesize several proteins necessary for their thriving, and we cannot manufacture them affordably or at scale enough to be used as animal feed. Don't bother replying, I blocked you on your other comments, I just want you to know you are wrong and spreading dangerous misinformation
It's actually about essential amino acids. taurine.
Yes I can because I actually read the peer reviewed primary source please see my above comment.
please enlighten me.
That link leads me no where I'm afraid.
The mod then decided that people posting information on why that is a bad idea were antivegan or something. The mod started then removing any information that pointed to cats not being able to be health while on a vegan diet.
Pets eat pre-processed food, and we've had vegetarian protein supplements for a while. How does this work for cats? Idk, ask a vet. But these foods have been around for a while and I'm not hearing about a mass die-off of indoor cats as a result, so I'm willing to give vegan cat owners the benefit of the doubt.
For the record, cats can not be vegan. They can survive on it but they will have shorter more painful lives and they will go blind.
The expected lifespan of feral cats in the wild runs around 2-5 years. House cats routinely live into their teenage years and can hit north of 20. The ideal lifestyle for a cat is indoors, regardless of the precise composition of their diets.
I think the bug take away is to talk to and listen to a expert. Especially don't start making huge changes to your cats diet
Vegan owners get new cats all the time. I don't think it's a question of changing the diet, but starting them on it.
That's a good way to shorten the cats life and make it suffer terribly. Your car will go a while without an oil change but it will eventually quit on you
That’s a good way to shorten the cats life and make it suffer terribly.
You've prevented no evidence to support the claim that protein enrichment in cat food will hurt your cat.
https://www.aspca.org/news/why-cant-my-cat-be-vegan
Also there are people with horror stories as well
https://www.benevo.com/vegan-cat-food-from-benevo/
Benevo Cat foods contain 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.
...
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.
shrug
Looks like they solved this problem 20 years ago.
I wish I would understand why people always have to take everything to the extreme. If you get mad about carnivorous pets not being able to follow your personal diet, you're an extremist asshole who just chose veganism as your religion. You can be vegan without being an extremist asshole, so it must be something else causing this.
making cats vegan
For a second (or maybe longer, until I read the wlhole thing) I thought they wanted to consider eating cats as being vegan.
