Hacker News Reader

I am a veterinarian with an interest in nutrition. While it is true that the vast majority of the brands are virtual brands who have another manufacturer making their food, it is not true for the three brands you have mentioned whose owners sell most of the food sold. Purina (Nestle), Iams (Mars) and Royal Canin (Mars) manufacture their own food, as does Hill's (Colgate-Palmolive) and Pedigree (Mars). Mars, Nestle and Colgate-Palmolive represent over 80% of the market share in pet food. [1]

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/Euromonitor/state-of-the-pet-care-...

One roster:

http://aplusflintriverranch.com/define-menufoods-petfoodreca...

Ok, I was unaware of these SKUs. I will have to ask if they learned their lesson.

> We agonize over which brand is healthier for our cats and dogs, but it's all an illusion.

The fact that one factory makes the food doesn't mean brands are illusion. One factory can make different kinds of food. True, machines and employees are the same, but that does not mean food content is the same - in fact, different companies may very well order very different mixes to be packed on the same equipment.

In fact, the same factory produced Chevrolet Prizm and Toyota Tacoma - but they are hardly the same car.

Out curiosity, is (relatively) unprocessed meat for pets available in supermarkets in north america?

In Australia you can buy packets of kangaroo meat for consumption by pets as kangaroos are essentially pests in many areas. This results in a large supply of meat that has limited commercial value so most supermarkets will stock frozen packets of what is (I believe) 100% kangaroo mince for people to feed to their pets.

Curious if there is an equivalent option elsewhere.

This is the most unique and fun thing Ive seen shared on HN in a while! It makes a ton of sense. I can speak for all of North America, but nothing like that is available in Ontario (the most populous province in Canada). We have dry food and canned meat for dogs and cats, and a new thing showing up in grocery stores in Canada, and walmarts in the US are refrigerated, 'fresh' meat pellets. They are expensive, and spoil quicker than my cat can eat it. I would jump at the chance to have 100% pure shredded meat for my pets. I bet there are lots of happy dogs and cats in AU that dont even know how good they have it :)

>> The majority of US and Canadian pet food is made at one factory

This is true if you're talking about wet pet food - there are other makers of wet pet food and dry pet food (which is over half the market) is made by other companies. Mars/Nestle (the same people who make candy...)

> We agonize over which brand is healthier for our cats and dogs, but it's all an illusion.

Does manufacturing the product at the same location imply that the content is the same?

the majority of pet food is meat not fit for human consumption. [1]

if you aren't feeding your pet meat that you eat, it's living on extreme crap.

[1]: http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-industry-exposed/unfi...

People like fancy food. That doesn't make non-fancy food extreme crap.

"not fit for human consumption" is not a synonym for "unfancy". It describes the processes involved to arrive at the final food. Filet mignon can be unfit for human consumption, while pigs' feet can be processed correctly and be fit for consumption.

Check this out: http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/

Animals that are sick or unhealthy are separated from the herd and slaughtered independently, then sold for pet food and livestock feed. This was partly what fostered the mad cow issue.

There is higher risk for illness with non-human grade food. If you don't want higher risk for your pet than child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

> if you care about your pet like you do your child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. To most older people, the idea of caring as much for your pet as you would for a child seems viscerally wrong. They even economize on pet healthcare. but... among those younger than me, your view, as far as I can tell, seems to be the norm. The very idea that you might be unwilling to go bankrupt paying for medical care for your pets seems abhorrent.

Great point, I have definitely noticed this in my own family. The elders are not only against "wasting" money above the minimum required for sustenance, but they get openly and visibly angry about it when someone else does. For some reason, this particular issue crosses over from "well I wouldn't do it, but to each his own", to seeing it as a fundamentally immoral act. It surprised me in the beginning.

Personally I can't understand the logic. Who cares what species something is, it's just a question of level of consciousness. A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. Why have no concern for such a consciousness, whether it's an animal, android, human, or whatever.

>A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child.

So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. There is still something else that motivates meat eating people to care more for their pets.

> So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians.

The quality of life of farm animals should also be respected. If they live their lives in suffering, that shouldn't be taken lightly.

At the same time all animals will die at some point, with or without human intervention. If that death happens at a slightly different time for the reality of the way nature works, that's not inconsistent.

Keep in mind that wild animals don't generally die of old age gracefully on a golf course. More often than not they're ripped apart by some other animal, or starve to death from injury, or are consumed by disease, etc. Death by human hands is probably one of the less cruel fates.

A free-range animal on a cruelty-free farm (if that really exists), with the benefits of human medicine, and a precisely implemented death, is probably one of the happier existences an animal can have.

>that's not inconsistent

Only if you put down any pet immediately when it becomes sick with something non trivial (what we do with farm animals). However, that's not the case when people spend thousands on a pet to keep it alive with complex treatments.

It's pretty clear that the mental abilities or atributes of the animal is not the primary differentiation between 'something like family' and 'something like food.' The differentiation is in the emotional attachment a person has to other animals that belong to the same class as the animal in question.

I mean, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how most people see the matter.

To provide the devil's advocate position, why does mere ownership suddenly imply a much higher duty of care? It would be morally abhorrent if we started euthanizing millions of toddlers who we couldn't find homes for yet we're fine doing the same to pets. What, morally, should be the difference between "pets we can find a home for" and "pets we can't find a home for"?

I think most people would be more repulsed if a child's own parents mis-treated them, rather than if an orphanage did. The whole scale is just shifted up for humans. Bias towards "ownership" still exists.

> This is... an interesting generational thing, I think.

Totally. Not too long ago, pets, and livestock, would be fed table scraps and glad of it.

Like we've been taught - actually shamed - into using soap, deodorant and sundry other 'essentials' to the soap manufacturers well-being, so with pet care.

Curious about what else they'll come up with next to mop up wealth and productivity. It's bound to be amusing.

Are we talking human grade table scraps? :)

Are dogs able to safely digest some foods that humans aren't? I mean, does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children?

> does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children

The most common dangers are onions (or things cooked in onions) and chocolate. They contain chemicals that are toxic to dogs and should always be avoided.

Similarly, many humans are allergic to many foods, and not every human can eat all "human-grade" food.

"human-grade" is only a measure of risk of unexpected contents (disease) in the food - not a recommendation that all humans should always eat it.

I was going to say. A number of friends have had their dog chow down on a rotten deer corpse to no ill effect.

My dog will eat other animal feces. His standards for "food" are pretty low.

Lulz

Apparently this trait evolved as a way to keep the nest clean and safe during nursing of pups.

No one is talking about standards. I'm talking about food that might make your dog sick or malnourished.

But to each his own.