This analysis quantifies environmental impacts of various dog foods, showing plant-based diets significantly reduce emissions and land use.
Introduction Pet food production contributes substantially to global environmental pressures, driven largely by animal-derived ingredients. The current study quantified the environmental impacts of 31 commercially available dry dog foods purchased in the United Kingdom, categorised as plant-based, poultry-based, red meat-based (beef and lamb) and veterinary renal diets. Methods Environmental metrics including land use (m 2 /1000 kcal), greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO₂eq/1000 kcal), acidifying emissions (g SO₂eq/1000 kcal), eutrophying emissions (g PO₄ 3− eq/1000 kcal), and freshwater withdrawal (L/1000 kcal) were estimated using life cycle assessment datasets and adjusted for ingredient composition, energy density and differences in moisture content. Results Plant-based diets had the lowest impact across all measures of environmental impact. Poultry-based and veterinary diets were intermediate, while beef- and lamb-based foods had substantially higher impact compared to all other foods. For example, per 1,000 kcal dry food, beef-based diets required an estimated 102.15 m 2 land to produce (vs. 2.73 m 2 for plant-based) and emitted an estimated 31.47 kg CO₂eq (vs. 2.82 kg for plant-based). Beef-based foods generated 7.1-fold higher acidifying emissions and 16.4 fold higher eutrophying emissions, compared to plant-based foods. Conclusion Production of animal-based pet foods has significantly greater environmental impact, when compared to production of plant-based pet foods. Higher inclusion of plant-based ingredients in pet feed provides a major opportunity for pet food companies to mitigate the environmental footprint of companion animal food.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brociek et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: