Vegans who own carnivores

stillalive88

boomerang wrote: »

There's calling, and then there's "screaming." That's deliberately emotional language, IMO and it's un-necessary. Likewise people saying that animals raised for meat are "tortured."

We're going off topic but I'll allow myself one post of reply on this.

And yes, they scream to the point they lose their voice. No, they are not peacefully quiet and happy they are MAMMALS that just lost their offspring. It's more than necessary to point this out and it's not "vegans being exagerated". Reality is exageratedly sad and cruel, not us, we are not trying to play on your emotions. We are not trying to sell you a product. We are not trying to get you into a cult or take your money in some way, we have no second interest, we are just giving a voice to someone that is exploited and does not have a voice.

http://www.care2.com/causes/dont-worry-those-cows-are-just-crying-over-the-loss-of-their-babies.html
Just quoting from here

"Residents in the area of Sunshine Dairy Farm may notice loud noises coming from the dairy cows at all hours of the day and night. We’ve been informed that the cows are not in distress and that the noises are a normal part of farming practices.

Fisher stated that the separation of mother cows from their calves is a yearly occurrence and is a normal part of dairy farming.

And tell me if a mother would not define having her baby taken away from her on the day of birth, to never see him/her again, while being caged, as torture? I'd say it would at least be mildly displeasing no?

There's even one cow in a sanctuary that got so used to the fact of humans stealing her babies, she ended up hiding her own on birth on the sanctuary as well, as she expected it to be taken away and disappears as all the others before that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDq4F4plSMQ

The way the animals are raised is exactly defineable as torture, even on organic condition. The space is always insufficient, the life is less than ideal and often times there is phisical pain involved in most of their lives, and of course death. I don't want to go into detail cause thinking about it just ruins my day, I prefer to cat upon it and not think back at it all the time or I'd just be consumed.

What I do not understand is why people insist so much on "softening the blows", as in trying to justify it. It's so forced and it's always done in the exact same way, I always hear the same sentences and I always disassemble them one, by one, fact by fact, logic by logic, to the point that now I am pretty tired but I will keep going because I find it important and I keep hoping for change. And i often see it happening. The change, I mean.

The best of farms still take away the freedom of the animal, and the bests of bests of bests represents less than 1% of the market. In a manner of speaking. I don't know the exact number, it varies from market to market but the percentage of farms that actually follow some "better" procedures most of the time is below that 1%.

More crucially, none of the animals make any decision and of course they never decided to be born for the sole purpose of serving you, as human. This is the definition of an enslaved creature. Society today considers it okay to enslave an animal, but in the future the standards might change. We might actually become, as a collective, more empathic towards animals and understand they actually deserve a chance at freedom.

And unfortunately, even IF one farm among hundreds is more humane, they usually send their animals to the same slaughterhouses as everybody else. One cruel slaughterhouse ensures that thousands of animals from "humane" and I'm sure lovely farms still can end in absolute agony and terror.
Cause they all end up in the same centralised place.
I know perfectly well europe doesn't have the same methods as australia or the US, but I also know perfectly well that the methods here are often just as bad, plus you have all those people that just do as they please. Do we have any laws on harming farm animals? Are they enforced?
Plus, we import lots of meat and dairy, so it doesn't matter what methods are used here, not really.

I will reply to the other posts later on, too busy tonight to keep up as you guys have been quite productive recently.
I am surprise we didn't have any other vegan in the conversation at all so far. That is disappointing. I came in with the idea that the topic was about vegans actually considering the option and exchanging information about it but it turned out to be just non-vegans saying how bad it is to do so and how there is no scientific papers.

I'm still amused by how after mentioning a multitude of healthy vegan cats these have so rapidly been transformed in a Single, facebook-virtual cat that does not really exist at all.

I just wish we could admit the difference between

- I don't know enough to certify it, I don't want to risk it
and
- It is impossible

Cause the second one is clearly already proven wrong. So there are concepts that need to be re-evaluated and studied and researched and so forth. We know the money for research is always low and the commercial research at the moment has no reason to exist as the vegan companies are few and all the other companies of course want to prove the opposite. We might have to wait a lot if we don't enquire on this ourselves.

Also can we acknowledge that it has been done a lot with dogs and works like a charm? I have focused on cats because if you can prove THOSE then all the justifications FINALLY crumble down and we can move on.
But i see that without academic sponsorship, even if the concept is real, it is just not accepted as even potentially true. I mean it is not considered in the least by most. I keep disagreeng with that stance. If something works multiple times I will not deny its existance.

muddypaws

stillalive88 wrote: »

Also can we acknowledge that it has been done a lot with dogs and works like a charm? I have focused on cats because if you can prove THOSE then all the justifications FINALLY crumble down and we can move on.
But i see that without academic sponsorship, even if the concept is real, it is just not accepted as even potentially true. I mean it is not considered in the least by most. I keep disagreeng with that stance. If something works multiple times I will not deny its existance.

Very disingenuous, as nobody has said that dogs are obligate carnivores on this thread, in fact, a few posters have said it is possible for dogs to live without meat. However, dogs and cats are different animals.

ganmo

stillalive88 wrote: »

There's even one cow in a sanctuary that got so used to the fact of humans stealing her babies, she ended up hiding her own on birth on the sanctuary as well, as she expected it to be taken away and disappears as all the others before that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDq4F4plSMQ

Cows often hide their calves in fields so there's nothing strange about that.

Imo there is an over personification of farm animals.

stillalive88

ganmo wrote: »

Cows often hide their calves in fields so there's nothing strange about that.

Imo there is an over personification of farm animals.

IMO they are wildly objectified. There's a reason we say "treated like an animal".
By the way the study of animal emotions and psychology was dropped for decades because it was just too hard to study it with the classic scientific method, they couldn't sample it or figure it out. So it just dropped out of our culture completely altogether.

We are completely disconnected from them, as a society, and don't empathise, but birds and mammals clearly display undeniable wide ranges of emotions.

Also, how would a dairy cow learn to do this? She wasn't raised by a mom that hid her in the fields for sure and she never had a chance to hide any other babies before then. She never had any contact with predators whatsoever but you're still trying to deny her that hiding her baby is out of normality? Where does it come from exactly, some kind of DNA memory? A wild guess? Domesticated animals usually don't hide their babies. I'm not sure about abused ones, luckily we aren't as cruels on cats and dogs as to the farm ones, that for an arbitrary reason are treated as profitable units.

Yes dogs weren't really mentioned but the only tiny mentions were still kind of against.

Cherry Blossom

I own a Westie. During rationing in the UK the breed almost died out due to a lack of meat in their diet. They were saved by sending the highest quality dogs to the US and bringing them or their progeny back when rationing was over. If they are not healthy enough to breed then they are not healthy full stop. This on it's own is enough reason to never, ever consider feeding my dogs anything other than a high quality meat based diet.

ganmo

Yes instinct is in the driver. They hide the calf to protect it from predators and so that the calf will have shelter from the elements.

Ave Sodalis

stillalive88 wrote:

By the way the study of animal emotions and psychology was dropped for decades because it was just too hard to study it with the classic scientific method, they couldn't sample it or figure it out. So it just dropped out of our culture completely altogether.

There is continous study going on into animal emotion...

muddypaws

stillalive88 wrote: »

We are completely disconnected from them, as a society, and don't empathise, but birds and mammals clearly display undeniable wide ranges of emotions.


Yes dogs weren't really mentioned but the only tiny mentions were still kind of against.

You are seriously trying to make that point in a forum about animals and pets, have you read any of the threads in this forum apart from this one?

Can you please quote the 'tiny mentions that were still kind of against'.

stillalive88

stillalive88 wrote: »

I am surprise we didn't have any other vegan in the conversation at all so far. That is disappointing. I came in with the idea that the topic was about vegans actually considering the option and exchanging information about it but it turned out to be just non-vegans saying how bad it is to do so and how there is no scientific papers.

I'm still amused by how after mentioning a multitude of healthy vegan cats these have so rapidly been transformed in a Single, facebook-virtual cat that does not really exist at all.

I just wish we could admit the difference between

- I don't know enough to certify it, I don't want to risk it
and
- It is impossible

I'm not a great fan of dairy products because I don't like the taste and most of my pay packet goes on running the rescue so the after beer burger has fast become a thing of the past. Given the fact that I actually haven't eaten any animal products in eight months some people would say that I'm vegan, but personally I would not call myself vegan as I will most likely eat meat again some time in the future, but I am an animal lover and always will be.

My wife however is a vegan for nearly twenty years and active in animal rescue for about the same and has read each of your posts and helped frame the replies to your questions to me as she is the one with the veterinary knowledge.

My wife will not feed our cats a vegtable only/vegan diet because there is no scientific research to say it is safe. indeed the available research shows the potential for pain and at worse fatalaties due to urinary tract infections and blockages, both she and I belive its would be inhumane for us to experiment on our cats in this way.

You may feel that it is not inhumane to do so and you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm sorry to say that in mine your ignorining and incorrectly quoting posts by other members who provided information that either dissagree or refutes your stance.

stillalive88

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I own a Westie. During rationing in the UK the breed almost died out due to a lack of meat in their diet. They were saved by sending the highest quality dogs to the US and bringing them or their progeny back when rationing was over. If they are not healthy enough to breed then they are not healthy full stop. This on it's own is enough reason to never, ever consider feeding my dogs anything other than a high quality meat based diet.

Yes, our knowledge of nutrition is exactly the same that we had in world war II. They surely had vegepet back then and knowledge of the vegan diet. Btw the term vegan was actually coined in 1944.

Yes @Muddy, I would definetely say there is some serious disconnection in people that cuddles some animals and accepts the constant slaughter of others. That's why they say "make the connection", farm animals are arbitrarily considered bricks while the most traditional pets are untouchable and capable of emotions, intelligent, have a soul, etc. We already know by now that pigs can be more intelligent than dogs in lots of things and if given the chance, chicken are amazing in their own merit, and cows possess aspects most people wouldn't expect from them. Of course the mental sanity of most of this animals kinda goes away when they are caged for all their life, but whenever you give them a chance, you can clearly see they have way more than one would expect them to have, considering how they are treated.

We think it's obvious that if we treat them like that, there must be a reason. We can't all be bad people after all, no?

The truth is that we just decided, at one point in history, that "this is for my company" and "this is for food", and so it stayed for centuries. Now someone is rocking the boat. Maybe none of them are for anything else than living their own life.

Cherry Blossom

They had grain, potatoes, vegetables. I'd nearly guarantee any homemade potato and veg concoction they were fed was more nutritious than that garbage corn based cat food.

Capercaillie

stillalive88 wrote: »

We're going off topic but I'll allow myself one post of reply on this.

And yes, they scream to the point they lose their voice. No, they are not peacefully quiet and happy they are MAMMALS that just lost their offspring. It's more than necessary to point this out and it's not "vegans being exagerated". Reality is exageratedly sad and cruel, not us, we are not trying to play on your emotions. We are not trying to sell you a product. We are not trying to get you into a cult or take your money in some way, we have no second interest, we are just giving a voice to someone that is exploited and does not have a voice.

http://www.care2.com/causes/dont-worry-those-cows-are-just-crying-over-the-loss-of-their-babies.html
Just quoting from here



And tell me if a mother would not define having her baby taken away from her on the day of birth, to never see him/her again, while being caged, as torture? I'd say it would at least be mildly displeasing no?

There's even one cow in a sanctuary that got so used to the fact of humans stealing her babies, she ended up hiding her own on birth on the sanctuary as well, as she expected it to be taken away and disappears as all the others before that one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDq4F4plSMQ

The way the animals are raised is exactly defineable as torture, even on organic condition. The space is always insufficient, the life is less than ideal and often times there is phisical pain involved in most of their lives, and of course death. I don't want to go into detail cause thinking about it just ruins my day, I prefer to cat upon it and not think back at it all the time or I'd just be consumed.

What I do not understand is why people insist so much on "softening the blows", as in trying to justify it. It's so forced and it's always done in the exact same way, I always hear the same sentences and I always disassemble them one, by one, fact by fact, logic by logic, to the point that now I am pretty tired but I will keep going because I find it important and I keep hoping for change. And i often see it happening. The change, I mean.

The best of farms still take away the freedom of the animal, and the bests of bests of bests represents less than 1% of the market. In a manner of speaking. I don't know the exact number, it varies from market to market but the percentage of farms that actually follow some "better" procedures most of the time is below that 1%.

More crucially, none of the animals make any decision and of course they never decided to be born for the sole purpose of serving you, as human. This is the definition of an enslaved creature. Society today considers it okay to enslave an animal, but in the future the standards might change. We might actually become, as a collective, more empathic towards animals and understand they actually deserve a chance at freedom.

And unfortunately, even IF one farm among hundreds is more humane, they usually send their animals to the same slaughterhouses as everybody else. One cruel slaughterhouse ensures that thousands of animals from "humane" and I'm sure lovely farms still can end in absolute agony and terror.
Cause they all end up in the same centralised place.
I know perfectly well europe doesn't have the same methods as australia or the US, but I also know perfectly well that the methods here are often just as bad, plus you have all those people that just do as they please. Do we have any laws on harming farm animals? Are they enforced?
Plus, we import lots of meat and dairy, so it doesn't matter what methods are used here, not really.

I will reply to the other posts later on, too busy tonight to keep up as you guys have been quite productive recently.
I am surprise we didn't have any other vegan in the conversation at all so far. That is disappointing. I came in with the idea that the topic was about vegans actually considering the option and exchanging information about it but it turned out to be just non-vegans saying how bad it is to do so and how there is no scientific papers.

I'm still amused by how after mentioning a multitude of healthy vegan cats these have so rapidly been transformed in a Single, facebook-virtual cat that does not really exist at all.

I just wish we could admit the difference between

- I don't know enough to certify it, I don't want to risk it
and
- It is impossible

Cause the second one is clearly already proven wrong. So there are concepts that need to be re-evaluated and studied and researched and so forth. We know the money for research is always low and the commercial research at the moment has no reason to exist as the vegan companies are few and all the other companies of course want to prove the opposite. We might have to wait a lot if we don't enquire on this ourselves.

Also can we acknowledge that it has been done a lot with dogs and works like a charm? I have focused on cats because if you can prove THOSE then all the justifications FINALLY crumble down and we can move on.
But i see that without academic sponsorship, even if the concept is real, it is just not accepted as even potentially true. I mean it is not considered in the least by most. I keep disagreeng with that stance. If something works multiple times I will not deny its existance.

Dogs are omnivores like people, cats are obligate carnivores. Possible to feed a vegan diet ( not recommended) to dogs. Dangerous to feed a cat a vegan diet.

muddypaws

stillalive88 wrote: »

Yes, our knowledge of nutrition is exactly the same that we had in world war II. They surely had vegepet back then and knowledge of the vegan diet. Btw the term vegan was actually coined in 1944.

Yes @Muddy, I would definetely say there is some serious disconnection in people that cuddles some animals and accepts the constant slaughter of others. That's why they say "make the connection", farm animals are arbitrarily considered bricks while the most traditional pets are untouchable and capable of emotions, intelligent, have a soul, etc. We already know by now that pigs can be more intelligent than dogs in lots of things and if given the chance, chicken are amazing in their own merit, and cows possess aspects most people wouldn't expect from them. Of course the mental sanity of most of this animals kinda goes away when they are caged for all their life, but whenever you give them a chance, you can clearly see they have way more than one would expect them to have, considering how they are treated.

We think it's obvious that if we treat them like that, there must be a reason. We can't all be bad people after all, no?

The truth is that we just decided, at one point in history, that "this is for my company" and "this is for food", and so it stayed for centuries. Now someone is rocking the boat. Maybe none of them are for anything else than living their own life.

You would probably get a lot more respect in this forum if you stopped preaching at people as if none of us on here have any knowledge or experience. And you are doing exactly what another poster pointed out earlier on, you are not answering the questions that you are being asked. I replied to your comment that we don't empathise with animals, yet instead of accepting that you are wrong, and the majority of posters in this forum do empathise, you have gone off on yet another tangent.

And what on earth is this "we" business?

loveisdivine

loveisdivine wrote: »

I probably fall into the second stereotype you described. I'm happy to promote veganism in the same way meat consumption is constantly pushed in our faces through advertisement.

I believe meat is murder, for humans. My cat isn't human. I feed her a very high quality organic wet meat food with no animal by products or meat derivatives. However, sometimes I wonder how fair it is that so many other animals should die, just so my cat can live. Statistically if I were simply trying to reduce suffering, I would choose the lives of the many other animals over the life of my 1 cat, but that's obviously not something I would be able to do! I guess I do sometimes feel guilty for it but what can I do, I'm not gonna give her up.

To be honest, I'd like to be able to feed her wild caught meat of the kind she would naturally eat. I don;t enjoy supporting an industry I loathe, but I'm not currently aware of any other ways to obtain meat that is safe for consumption and nutritionally complete without buying a commercial food.

Just to add, I know you said you're not anti-vegan but your post is full of accusatory comments about what vegans are like.

A friend of ours who runs a rescue in Mayo told us today that she buys her meat directly from a local abattoir. The meat she buys has fallen onto the floor and aparently because of this cannot be used even for pet food in Ireland and has to be binned so she gets it cheap. Given the money being saved she can afford to take more dogs in from the local pound.

Personally I reckon most meat that would fall on the floor would be popped straight back on the production line in most places, but maybe where she is they are sticklers for the rules.

I understand this might not be an option for everyone for a number of reasons, but it maybe of use to some.

ClubDead

Bit late to the discussion but......

Vegan here, I've a dog and I feed her meat. I believe that we are omnivores, just like dogs and cats, however we can choose what we put in our bodies and I choose to be vegan. As intelligent as I know my girl is I know she's not capable of higher reason or understand the consequences of eating meat. I also don't believe anyone should be forced to be vegan against there will. Finally, given the choice of meat or F&V I know she would choose meat.

So, that is the reason I feed my dog meat, I may not like if but when I took a pet into my home it was under the condition that I give her the best life possible. That includes keeping her warm, safe, happy and feeding her in a way that is suited to her biologically.

muddypaws

DubInMeath wrote: »

A friend of ours who runs a rescue in Mayo told us today that she buys her meat directly from a local abattoir. The meat she buys has fallen onto the floor and aparently because of this cannot be used even for pet food in Ireland and has to be binned so she gets it cheap. Given the money being saved she can afford to take more dogs in from the local pound.

Personally I reckon most meat that would fall on the floor would be popped straight back on the production line in most places, but maybe where she is they are sticklers for the rules.

I understand this might not be an option for everyone for a number of reasons, but it maybe of use to some.

My vet does a day at a 'factory' in Mayo each week, so if its the same place, yes, I imagine she wouldn't let them get away with anything

muddypaws

muddypaws wrote: »

My vet does a day at a 'factory' in Mayo each week, so if its the same place, yes, I imagine she wouldn't let them get away with anything

Might well be as not sure how many there are and our friend is right on the border with Roscommon, so local can be either :-)
We're researching it here in terms of which are closest, have they been fined for anything etc, to see if it would be an option as it would seriously reduce our feeding bill.

Gael23

Just noticing Zooplus hav a section for vegetarians
Dog food. I think it's wrong but others seem to differ.

stillalive88

Sorry guys I've been quite busy so I lost the conversation.
Still, small update.

https://www.good.is/features/vegan-cats

“I felt really uncomfortable giving Sammy animal-based cat food because we have this clear double standard in our society,” Benson tells me. She says that while “there are certain animals that we consider part of our moral circle, like cats and dogs,” there are others, like pigs and chickens, that we unjustly give no such consideration.

“Morally speaking,” she asks, “how could I justify other animals being harmed just because I have an animal I have a special fondness for? But he was my family now, I had a responsibility towards him, and at first [I thought] meat was what he needed, so I felt obligated to give him that.”

I couldn’t stop thinking about Benson’s point, which she made repeatedly throughout our interview, that our double standard for farm animals and pets makes no sense. Whether you eat meat or not, it can be head-splitting to sort out the tangled weirdness of our societal attitudes toward animals—how does one parse the subtle ethical negotiations that allow us to simultaneously keep pets, consume flesh, and build industry and culture around other living things?

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah, I grew up around cows, as did a lot of Irish people :P They acted pretty much like dogs with me, and love to be rubbed. Actually have lovely personalities. Don't get me started on pigs, smart yokes. Hard to not see them like a personality after a while, but took a good 10 years to stop eating them, thinking about it.

kathleen37

stillalive88 wrote: »

Sorry guys I've been quite busy so I lost the conversation.
Still, small update.

https://www.good.is/features/vegan-cats

What was the update?

I think the moral issue is risking the health of an animal because it makes you (generic) feel better.

Those of us that don't eat meat, don't have have any double standards about farm animals and pets.

If you have a pet cat, do you expect your cat to never hunt and feed itself when it has the chance? That's never going to happen as it's not possible to infer what you class as moral onto any animal.

As far as I can see there is absolutely no definite/undeniable proof that there is no risk a vegan diet will have no adverse impact on a cats health.

Until there is, I will continue to feed our cats meat and continue to not eat it myself.

Peace.

stillalive88

stillalive88 wrote: »

Sorry guys I've been quite busy so I lost the conversation.
Still, small update.

Sorry in my opinion this isn't really an update, and the quoted link actually shows that most responsible owners avoid this diet and it is not condoned by vets in any way.

Can I ask if you could post your answers to the following questions that were already asked

1. Apart from such links and Facebook have you actually talked to your vet about this diet and what was their advice. If they agreed can you please post their practice name do other vegans here in Ireland can call and discuss this with them.*

2. Given that most of the very little research into this diet shows that it is not safe for a cat and will cause pain and at worse death to the cat, do you feel it is ethical for cat owners to experiment on their cats with this diet.

* I believe from one of your earlier posts that in your current living situation you cannot home cats or foster indoor only kittens, please correct me I'm wrong on this, however most Irish vets will gladly advise on general diet questions over the phone.

kylith

IMO if you need to feed an animal, or a human, synthetic vitamins and minerals because their diet is deficient in them then that diet is not suitable and should not be used.

Tar.Aldarion

kylith wrote: »

IMO if you need to feed an animal, or a human, synthetic vitamins and minerals because their diet is deficient in them then that diet is not suitable and should not be used.

The majority of humans over 50 have to have synthetic B12 as they can not absorb enough from any food, hell even meat has it added now. That appeal to nature makes no sense, we are better than that.

kylith

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The majority of humans over 50 have to have synthetic B12 as they can not absorb enough from any food, hell even meat has it added now. That appeal to nature makes no sense, we are better than that.

It's hardly the same thing, and it's not what I said in the first place. Having to have supplements because you have lost the ability to absorb the nutrients from your food is not the same as having to have supplements because the nutrients are not in your food in the first place. One is an unfortunate biological condition, the other is the product of ideologies which are not compatible with your biology in the first place.

Tar.Aldarion

kylith wrote: »

It's hardly the same thing, and it's not what I said in the first place. Having to have supplements because you have lost the ability to absorb the nutrients from your food is not the same as having to have supplements because the nutrients are not in your food in the first place. One is an unfortunate biological condition, the other is the product of ideologies which are not compatible with your biology in the first place.

What you said in the first place is a logical fallacy
It has no meaning. There is no reason behind it. The mal-absorption is a process of evolution, not a condition. It is just one of many ways to point out the problems with thinking like that.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

IMO if you need to feed an animal, or a human, synthetic vitamins and minerals because their diet is deficient in them then that diet is not suitable and should not be used.

Most vegetarians/vegans don't need supliments if their diet is varied enough, but that's because humans are omnivores. Cats on the the other hand as already pointed out are complete carnivores, so its a completely different arguement.
A vegan diet according to the research available will cause urinary tract obstructions in cats which apart from severe pain can be fatal regardless of supplements, something which will not happen to a normal human.

kylith

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What you said in the first place is a logical fallacy
It has no meaning. There is no reason behind it. The mal-absorption is a process of evolution, not a condition. It is just one of many ways to point out the problems with thinking like that.

"An appeal to nature... the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good"

I don't believe that supplements are bad because they are synthetic or 'unnatural'. If one needs to take a supplement for health reasons then that is necessary and obviously not bad.

My point is that knowingly feeding an animal a diet which is deficient in what they need to be healthy and then topping it up with supplements means that that diet is wrong for the animal. If it's a case of the animal being unable to eat its usual diet, like those dogs that can't process meat, then fine, feed it supplements. But if that deficient diet is a product of a human imposing an unnatural diet on an animal that can neither understand nor give consent then the human needs to seriously consider if that is an ethical and correct thing to do.

This is not a case of malabsorbsion, this is a case of cats being knowingly fed a diet which does not contain what they need to live and then being given supplements because the owner acknowledges that the diet is deficient.

Ave Sodalis

kylith wrote:

My point is that knowingly feeding an animal a diet which is deficient in what they need to be healthy and then topping it up with supplements means that that diet is wrong for the animal. If it's a case of the animal being unable to eat its usual diet, like those dogs that can't process meat, then fine, feed it supplements. But if that deficient diet is a product of a human imposing an unnatural diet on an animal that can neither understand nor give consent then the human needs to seriously consider if that is an ethical and correct thing to do.

I don't think that's strictly true for all animals. The likes of horses often need supplements such as copper which the soil is lacking in. There's also supplements like Biotin for poor hooves.
I do agree that if the human controlled diet is causing problems, then it needs to be seriously thought about.

Cherry Blossom

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't think that's strictly true for all animals. The likes of horses often need supplements such as copper which the soil is lacking in. There's also supplements like Biotin for poor hooves.
I do agree that if the human controlled diet is causing problems, then it needs to be seriously thought about.

Yes but again that's a man-made situation. If horses were free to roam where they wanted the nutrients in the grass they were eating would likely balance out over time. They are contained in fenced fields so they can't do this. They have no choice but to eat the grass that is available to them.

Ave Sodalis

adrenalinjunkie wrote:

Yes but again that's a man-made situation. If horses were free to roam where they wanted the nutrients in the grass they were eating would likely balance out over time. They are contained in fenced fields so they can't do this. They have no choice but to eat the grass that is available to them.

I would disagree with this too. The soil problems tend to cover a considerable area, as opposed to a field by field basis. For example, most of south Donegal has a copper problem.

Kovu

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't think that's strictly true for all animals. The likes of horses often need supplements such as copper which the soil is lacking in. There's also supplements like Biotin for poor hooves.
I do agree that if the human controlled diet is causing problems, then it needs to be seriously thought about.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Yes but again that's a man-made situation. If horses were free to roam where they wanted the nutrients in the grass they were eating would likely balance out over time. They are contained in fenced fields so they can't do this. They have no choice but to eat the grass that is available to them.

I think you're both correct in different ways. The supplements sup_dude is on about will improve an animals life, but without them they will not die. Even in our cattle (high-molybdenum soils) some animals will be affected by low copper and others will be grand. The ill thriving ones will have a dull coat & eye, thinner and will just look off, they won't however, die like a cat with no thiamine.
For a comparison though, you could take tetany. Cows eat grass, right? That should be fine for cows and calves to eat during summer. Nice fat cow, feeding away, strong calf drinking from her. BOOM, calcium/magnesium levels drop and you have a matter of hours to get them into her before death occurs. Grass can also be too lush, contains too much potassium and cause a different strain of tetany as the minerals internally go out of whack.
It's monitoring their diet and ad libbing minerals that the animals can reach easily that prevent them dying. Things like that I'd see as necessary to an animals diet.