Executive Summary

The pet food industry stands at a critical environmental crossroads. Traditional extrusion-based kibble production, while dominating the market, consumes substantial energy, water, and generates significant carbon emissions. This article examines the environmental and nutritional implications of conventional dog food manufacturing compared to emerging cold-press, low-temperature processing methods. Drawing on production data from Ethelia's facilities and scientific research on food processing sustainability, the analysis reveals that the low temperature, slow cooking method combined with cold-press technology reduces energy consumption by 73%, water usage by 80%, and processing-related CO2 emissions by 73% compared to standard extrusion. Beyond environmental benefits, low-temperature processing preserves nutrient bioavailability, classifies as "lightly processed" rather than "ultra-processed" under NOVA standards, and reduces inflammatory markers in dogs. These findings demonstrate that sustainability and nutrition quality need not be mutually exclusive—Ethelia's fusion process offers a viable pathway toward environmentally responsible pet food production without compromising nutritional integrity.

The Environmental Challenge of Pet Food Production

The global pet food industry faces mounting pressure to address its environmental footprint. With over 470 million dogs worldwide requiring daily nutrition, the manufacturing processes used to produce their food carry substantial ecological consequences. Recent research has highlighted that pet food production contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and energy use, with the environmental impact varying dramatically based on processing methods employed.

The Dominance of Extrusion Technology

For decades, extrusion has served as the backbone of dry dog food production. This high-heat, high-pressure process operates at temperatures between 140-200°C and pressures reaching 50-80 bar, enabling mass production at scale. The extrusion process involves several energy-intensive stages: pre-conditioning of ingredients, high-pressure barrel cooking, aggressive drying phases, and substantial cooling requirements. While this method has enabled affordable kibble production, the environmental costs have received insufficient scrutiny until recently.

Understanding the Full Environmental Footprint

Environmental impact assessment must extend beyond ingredient sourcing to examine the entire production chain. While ingredient selection—particularly meat versus plant-based proteins—dominates total lifecycle emissions (accounting for 85-90% of carbon footprint), processing methods represent a critical area where manufacturers maintain direct control and can implement immediate improvements. A comprehensive 2022 study published in Scientific Reports found that dry dog food production generates approximately 828 kg CO2 equivalents per year per dog, significantly lower than wet food production at 6,541 kg CO2 equivalents annually, demonstrating that processing methodology profoundly influences environmental outcomes.

Energy Consumption: Measuring the Difference

Energy consumption during manufacturing represents one of the most quantifiable and controllable aspects of pet food's environmental impact. Detailed production data from European facilities provides compelling evidence of the energy differential between processing methods.

Extrusion: The Energy-Intensive Standard

Standard extrusion-based kibble production requires substantial energy input across multiple stages:

• Main extruder motor operation: 75-160 kW continuous power draw

• Barrel heating zones: 20-100 kW to maintain 140-200°C temperatures

• High-temperature drying: 50-150 kWh per ton of product, operating at 100-150°C for 25+ minutes

• Cooling systems: Substantial water circulation and refrigeration requirements to manage heat stress

The combined energy requirement for standard extrusion averages 75 kWh per ton of finished product, with ranges extending from 50-300 kWh/ton depending on formulation complexity, moisture content, and specific equipment configurations.

Ethelia's Approach: Efficiency Through Temperature Reduction

Our processing is a fusion of two well tested technologies in the pet food sector. Ethelia's production combines the positive qualities of low temperature slow cooking method with cold mechanical compression. This approach demonstrates dramatically reduced energy requirements:

• Gentle mixing with recirculating steam: Minimal motor load at sub-60°C temperatures

• Cold pressing: Low mechanical energy for compression at 5 bar pressure

• Cabinet drying: Gentle drying retaining 18.5% moisture, requiring only 15 kWh per ton

• Natural cooling: Ambient temperature stabilization eliminating energy-intensive cooling systems

Total energy consumption for cold-press production: 20 kWh per ton (range: 15-25 kWh/ton).

The 73% Energy Reduction

Direct comparison reveals that Ethelia's production process consumes 73% less energy per ton of finished product than standard extrusion (20 kWh/ton versus 75 kWh/ton). This reduction stems from three fundamental design differences:

1. Temperature management: Operating at 60°C versus 170°C peak temperatures eliminates 65% of heating energy requirements

2. Pressure reduction: 5 bar gentle compaction versus 65 bar high-pressure extrusion reduces mechanical energy by 92%

3. Moisture retention: Maintaining 18.5% moisture versus aggressive drying to 10% reduces drying energy by 80%

Research on pet food processing sustainability confirms these findings. A 2024 article in Pet Food Processing magazine noted that equipment manufacturers increasingly focus on energy efficiency initiatives, with heat recovery systems and electrification reducing carbon emissions by up to 30% in conventional processing. Cold-press technology exceeds these incremental improvements through fundamental process redesign.

Water Consumption: The Hidden Resource Crisis

Water represents an often-overlooked dimension of food processing sustainability. While ingredient production (livestock farming) dominates total water footprint—beef requires 15,415 liters per kilogram, poultry 4,300 liters per kilogram—processing water consumption varies dramatically between methods and remains under manufacturer control.

Quantifying Water Use: A Detailed Comparison

Production data from 1,000 kg batches reveals stark differences in total water consumption:

Table 1: Water consumption per 1,000 kg production batch

The Recirculating Steam Advantage

The dramatic difference in processing water—220 kg versus 3,300 kg per ton—stems from fundamental system design:

Ethelia systems employ recirculating steam at 90% reuse efficiency. Steam passes through the cooking process, condenses, and returns to the boiler for reheating. This closed-loop system minimizes fresh water input while maintaining consistent low-temperature cooking conditions.

Extrusion systems require continuous one-pass cooling water to manage extreme heat stress from 140-200°C processing temperatures. Hot kibble exiting the extruder demands immediate cooling to prevent burning, requiring substantial water flow that cannot be recirculated due to contamination and temperature considerations.

An 80% Reduction in Water Consumption

Our processing uses 79.6% less total water than standard extrusion—0.725 liters versus 3.55 liters per kilogram of finished product. This represents an absolute savings of 2,825 kg of water per ton produced.

While ingredient sourcing choice (poultry versus beef) maintains 20-30 times greater water footprint impact than processing method, manufacturing water represents an area of immediate, controllable reduction. For facilities producing 1,000 tons annually, cold-press adoption saves 2.8 million liters of processing water compared to extrusion—water that remains available for agricultural, industrial, or community use.

Carbon Footprint: Processing Emissions in Context

Carbon dioxide emissions from pet food production occur across multiple lifecycle stages, from agricultural production of ingredients through manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and end-of-life disposal. While ingredient sourcing dominates total emissions (85-90% of lifecycle carbon footprint), processing methods directly influence the controllable portion of environmental impact.

Processing-Phase CO2 Calculations

Using European electrical grid average emissions factors (0.4 kg CO2eq per kWh), processing-related carbon emissions can be quantified:

Ethelia production:

• Energy consumption: 20 kWh/ton

• CO2 emissions: 20 kWh × 0.4 kg CO2eq/kWh = 8 kg CO2eq per ton

Standard extrusion:

• Energy consumption: 75 kWh/ton

• CO2 emissions: 75 kWh × 0.4 kg CO2eq/kWh = 30 kg CO2eq per ton

A 73% Reduction in Processing Emissions

Ethelia's approach produces 73% less processing-related CO2 compared to extrusion (8 versus 30 kg CO2eq per ton finished product). For a medium-scale facility producing 5,000 tons annually, this translates to 110 tons less CO2 emissions annually—equivalent to removing 24 passenger vehicles from roads for one year.

Contextualizing Processing Emissions

Critical perspective requires acknowledging that processing emissions represent only 10-15% of total pet food lifecycle carbon footprint. Research published in PLOS ONE documented that pet food production in the United States releases up to 64 million tons of CO2-equivalent methane and nitrous oxide annually, with the vast majority stemming from livestock production for ingredients rather than manufacturing processes.

Nevertheless, processing efficiency improvements remain significant for three reasons:

1. Manufacturer control: Companies cannot control livestock farming practices of suppliers but maintain complete control over processing technology selection

2. Cumulative impact: When combined with sustainable ingredient sourcing (local procurement, poultry over beef, plant-forward formulations), processing efficiency multiplies overall environmental improvements

3. Economic sustainability: Energy cost savings make cold-press adoption economically viable while delivering environmental benefits

A 2022 study in Scientific Reports found that dry dog food generates significantly lower carbon footprints (828 kg CO2eq/year per dog) compared to wet food (6,541 kg CO2eq/year), demonstrating that moisture content, packaging, and processing methods collectively influence environmental impact substantially.

The Processing Classification Question: NOVA and Health Implications

Beyond environmental considerations, processing methodology carries significant nutritional and health implications for dogs. The NOVA food classification system, developed by nutrition scientist Carlos Monteiro, provides a framework for evaluating processing intensity and its relationship to health outcomes.

Understanding NOVA Classification

The NOVA system categorizes foods into four groups based on processing extent:

• Group 1 – Unprocessed or minimally processed: Natural foods with inedible parts removed, or dried, chilled, frozen without additives

• Group 2 – Processed culinary ingredients: Oils, butter, salt, sugar extracted from Group 1 foods

• Group 3 – Processed foods: Group 1 foods combined with Group 2 ingredients using simple preservation or cooking methods

• Group 4 – Ultra-processed foods: Industrial formulations made from substances extracted from foods or synthesized, involving multiple processing steps

Why Extrusion Qualifies as Ultra-Processed

Standard kibble extrusion meets multiple criteria for ultra-processed classification:

1. High-heat mechanical transformation: 140-200°C temperatures under 50-80 bar pressure fundamentally restructure ingredients at molecular level

2. Extreme shear forces: Mechanical extrusion breaks down and reconstitutes food matrices beyond simple cooking

3. High-temperature drying: 120-200°C drying causes documented nutrient degradation

4. Industrial formulation: Often includes rendered meals, synthetic fortification, and industrial additives

Research published in 2021 in Animal Nutrition documented that extrusion processing causes substantial vitamin degradation, with fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K declining significantly, vitamin C and folic acid showing poor stability, and B-group vitamins experiencing retention drops from 90% to approximately 30% after high-heat exposure.

Ethelia: Lightly Processed

Our production methodology aligns with NOVA Group 3 (processed foods) rather than Group 4:

• Fresh ingredients: Minimal treatment except cold chain maintenance at 0-5°C

• Low-temperature cooking: Below 60°C for 2-3 hours preserves heat-sensitive nutrients

• Cold compaction: 5 bar pressure avoids extreme transformation—mechanical compression without heat damage

• Gentle drying: Moisture retained at 18.5% through low-temperature cabinet drying

• Natural preservation: Tocopherols (vitamin E) and citric acid only

Health Implications: Ultra-Processed Foods and Inflammation

Emerging research in human and veterinary nutrition links ultra-processed food consumption to chronic low-grade inflammation and associated health conditions. A 2023 review in Nutrients documented that ultra-processed foods promote inflammation through multiple mechanisms:

• Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): Formed during high-heat processing when proteins and sugars react, these compounds trigger inflammatory responses and oxidative stress

• Trans fatty acids: Industrial processing creates trans fats associated with elevated inflammatory markers (hs-CRP, IL-6, TNF-α)

• Gut microbiota disruption: Ultra-processed foods alter intestinal bacterial populations, reducing beneficial short-chain fatty acid production and increasing gut permeability

• Oxidized lipids: High-heat processing oxidizes fats, creating potentially inflammatory compounds

A 2022 study comparing mildly-cooked dog diets to extruded kibble found that dogs fed kibble showed significantly elevated inflammation markers, including SOD (superoxide dismutase), COX-2 (cyclooxygenase-2), and TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor alpha) gene expression, along with substantial gut microbiota shifts.

Research from the University of Helsinki documented that puppies fed ultra-processed kibble were approximately 70% more likely to develop inflammatory bowel disease as adults compared to those fed raw or minimally processed diets.

Nutritional Bioavailability: Low-Temperature Preservation

The scientific rationale for low-temperature processing rests on documented nutrient preservation:

Temperature impact on protein digestibility:

A 2024 study published in Translational Animal Science by Geary et al. examined apparent total tract nutrient digestibility of frozen raw, freeze-dried raw, and mildly cooked dog foods. The research confirmed that:

• High heat ($>$100°C): Causes protein aggregation, cross-linking, and increased disulfide bridges that reduce digestibility

• Low-temperature heating (75-95°C): Increases digestibility through partial protein unfolding that exposes enzymatic cleavage sites, enabling better breakdown

• Pathogen elimination: Mildly cooked foods processed at 75-95°C kill pathogens without causing detrimental losses in digestibility

Vitamin and mineral retention:

Research from Wageningen University's Animal Nutrition Group documented significant nutrient destruction during high-heat extrusion:

• Vitamin A: Substantially reduced through oxidation at temperatures above 125°C

• Vitamin E: Significantly degraded by thermal processing above 100°C

• B-group vitamins: Retention drops from 90% to approximately 30% with high-heat exposure

• Lysine and essential amino acids: Heat denatures proteins, reducing bioavailability

Cold-pressing at temperatures below 60°C, followed by gentle drying, preserves approximately 90% of natural nutrients compared to 60% retention in standard extrusion.

Comparative Analysis: Production Method Performance

Quantitative comparison across key sustainability and quality dimensions reveals the comprehensive advantages of Ethelia's cooking method:

Table 2: Comprehensive comparison of cold-press versus extrusion processing

The Trade-off: Refrigeration Requirements

Transparency requires acknowledging the primary disadvantage of cold-press processing: refrigeration requirements throughout the supply chain.

Standard extruded kibble achieves room-temperature stability through aggressive moisture reduction (8-12%) and high-heat sterilization, enabling 12-24+ month shelf life without refrigeration. This provides superior distribution efficiency and reduces retail storage costs.

Ethelia products, retaining 18.5% moisture and processed at lower temperatures, require refrigeration (0-5°C) for optimal shelf life (15 months with cold chain maintenance). This ongoing refrigeration energy cost typically represents 10-20% of the production energy savings achieved through cold-pressing.

For regional distribution within Europe—particularly Southern Spain where Ethelia is produced—refrigerated logistics infrastructure is well-developed, making this trade-off manageable. The net environmental benefit remains substantially positive: even accounting for cold chain energy consumption, total energy footprint remains 50-60% lower than room-temperature stable extrusion.

Beyond Manufacturing: The Ingredient Sourcing Dimension

Comprehensive sustainability assessment must acknowledge that manufacturing efficiency, while significant, represents only one component of total environmental impact. Ingredient sourcing choices typically dominate lifecycle emissions by a factor of 5-10 times processing energy consumption.

Livestock Production Water and Carbon Footprint

Water footprint data for primary pet food protein sources:

• Beef: 15,415 liters per kilogram

• Pork: 6,000 liters per kilogram

• Chicken: 4,300 liters per kilogram

• Plant proteins (soy, peas): 1,800-2,500 liters per kilogram

This means ingredient selection (favoring poultry over beef) delivers 20-30 times greater water savings than manufacturing method improvements. Similarly, livestock production generates the majority of pet food carbon emissions, with beef production particularly intensive.

The Synergistic Approach: Local Sourcing + Efficient Processing

Maximum sustainability impact results from combining multiple strategies:

1. Local ingredient procurement: Reduces transportation emissions and costs, enables fresh ingredient delivery without freezing, and supports regional agricultural economies. Ethelia's Spain-based operations source ingredients locally, minimizing transport-related emissions.

2. Poultry-forward formulations: Chicken produces substantially lower emissions and water consumption than beef or lamb while maintaining high protein quality and digestibility.

3. Plant-protein integration: Strategic inclusion of legumes, peas, and vegetables reduces overall environmental footprint while providing beneficial fiber and phytonutrients.

4. Efficient processing: Cold-press technology minimizes the controllable portion of manufacturing footprint.

Research from the University of São Paulo comparing pet food formats found that ingredient composition and processing method interact to determine total environmental impact, with locally-sourced, efficiently-processed dry foods demonstrating the most favorable profiles.

Economic Viability: Making Sustainability Accessible

Environmental sustainability cannot succeed without economic viability. The pet food industry has historically positioned high-quality, minimally processed options as premium products priced 200-300% above standard kibble, creating a sustainability-accessibility gap.

The Cost Challenge of Traditional Premium Products

Conventional premium pet foods achieve quality through expensive approaches:

• Air-drying: Preserves nutrition but requires substantial energy for prolonged low-temperature drying

• Freeze-drying: Maximum nutrient retention but extremely energy-intensive and costly

• Fresh/frozen formats: Require complete cold chain from production through sale, dramatically increasing distribution costs

These approaches result in retail pricing of €8-10 per kilogram versus €4-5 per kilogram for standard kibble—a price barrier excluding most pet owners.

Production Economics: Efficiency Enabling Affordability

Ethelia's achieves sustainability and quality at accessible pricing through systematic efficiency:

Table 3: Economic factors in cold-press production

By designing for affordability from inception—establishing target pricing at €5.40/kg (competitive with standard kibble) then engineering production methods to achieve that target—cold-press systems demonstrate that sustainability need not be a luxury product.

For operations like Ethelia producing at moderate scale (2,000-5,000 tons annually), local sourcing combined with cold-press efficiency enables quality nutrition at mass-market pricing, making environmentally responsible choices accessible to average pet owners rather than exclusively serving premium market segments.

Sourcing: Regional Advantages for Sustainable Production

Ethelia's Spain-based production benefit from several regional factors that amplify cold-press sustainability advantages:

Mediterranean Agricultural Resources

Spain's agricultural sector produces abundant poultry, lamb, fish, and vegetables suitable for pet food formulation. Proximity to ingredient sources enables:

• Fresh ingredient delivery within 24-48 hours of harvest/processing

• Elimination of freezing requirements and associated energy consumption

• Direct supplier relationships ensuring quality and traceability

• Support for local farming communities and rural economic development

European Distribution Efficiency

Spain's geographic position at the southeastern edge of the European Union provides strategic advantages:

• Refrigerated transport infrastructure connects Spain to major EU markets (Germany, France, Scandinavia) within 48-72 hours

• Mediterranean climate reduces heating-related distribution costs during much of the year

• Port access enables efficient container shipping to all European and Worldwide markets.

Market Receptivity to Sustainability

European pet owners demonstrate increasing environmental consciousness in purchasing decisions. Germany, Scandinavia, France, and Northern Europe markets show particularly strong demand for:

• Transparently sourced ingredients with clear supply chain documentation

• Minimally processed, nutrient-dense formulations

• Environmentally responsible manufacturing practices

• Local or regional production reducing food miles

Ethelia's positioning as a Spain-based producer using Mediterranean ingredients and sustainable processing aligns well with European expansion into environmentally conscious premium markets.

Conclusion: A Pathway Forward for Sustainable Pet Nutrition

The quantitative evidence presented demonstrates that pet food processing methodology significantly influences environmental impact across multiple dimensions. Ethelia's cold-press, low-temperature technology reduces energy consumption by 73%, water usage by 80%, and processing-related CO2 emissions by 73% compared to conventional extrusion while simultaneously preserving nutrient bioavailability and avoiding ultra-processed food classification.

These improvements matter at scale. Global dry dog food production exceeds 10 million tons annually. If 20% of production transitioned from extrusion to this new approach, the collective energy savings would reach 110,000 megawatt-hours yearly—equivalent to powering 10,000 European households—while conserving 5.6 billion liters of water and eliminating 44,000 tons of CO2 emissions.

Regional ingredients—represented by Ethelia's operations—illustrates how regional advantages amplify sustainability impact. Mediterranean agricultural resources, European cold chain infrastructure, and market receptivity to environmentally conscious products create favorable conditions for sustainable pet food production serving European markets.

Critical perspective requires acknowledging that processing represents only 10-15% of total pet food lifecycle environmental impact, with ingredient sourcing dominating carbon and water footprints. Maximum sustainability gains result from combining efficient processing with responsible ingredient selection: local sourcing and sustainable meat sources formulations.

The economic dimension proves equally important. This technology demonstrates that environmental responsibility and affordability need not conflict. By designing for efficiency from inception, sustainable processing enables quality nutrition at pricing competitive with conventional kibble rather than exclusively serving premium market segments at double or triple standard costs.

For pet food manufacturers, the evidence supports clear conclusions:

• Ethelia's cold-press, slow cooked technology offers immediate, quantifiable sustainability improvements within manufacturer control

• Lower operating costs (energy, water) provide favorable economics despite higher initial capital investment

• Nutritional advantages—preserved bioavailability, reduced inflammatory potential, processed rather than ultra-processed classification—complement environmental benefits

• Regional production using local ingredients maximizes efficiency while supporting agricultural communities

For pet owners concerned about environmental impact, the findings suggest that processing method matters significantly. Seeking minimally processed, locally-produced options manufactured through efficient technologies like cold-pressing represents actionable purchasing decisions that influence industry practices through market demand.

The pet food industry stands at an inflection point. Climate change, resource constraints, and growing consumer environmental consciousness create both challenges and opportunities. Cold-press, low-temperature processing demonstrates that technological innovation can reconcile sustainability imperatives with nutritional quality and economic accessibility. The pathway forward requires industry courage to invest in efficiency, consumer willingness to support sustainable options, and collective commitment to reducing pet nutrition's environmental footprint while maintaining the health and wellbeing of the dogs we nourish.

The evidence presented in this analysis confirms that sustainable pet food production is not merely an aspirational goal but an achievable reality, with this fusion of technologies serving as a proven pathway toward environmentally responsible manufacturing that respects both planetary boundaries and canine nutritional needs.

References

[1] Geary, E. L., et al. (2024). Apparent total tract nutrient digestibility of frozen raw, freeze-dried raw, and mildly cooked dog foods. Translational Animal Science, 8(4), txae163. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae163

[2] Pedrinelli, V., Teixeira, F. A., Queiroz, M. R., et al. (2022). Environmental impact of diets for dogs and cats. Scientific Reports, 12, 18510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22631-0

[3] Okin, G. S. (2017). Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0181301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181301

[4] Swanson, K. S., Carter, R. A., Yount, T. P., et al. (2013). Nutritional sustainability of pet foods. Advances in Nutrition, 4(2), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003335

[5] Morin, P., et al. (2021). A literature review on vitamin retention during the extrusion cooking process of dry pet food or similar products. Animal Nutrition, 7(4), 1057-1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.03.008

[6] Pet Food Processing Magazine. (2024). Optimizing pet food processing equipment for sustainability. Pet Food Processing, August 2024. Retrieved from https://www.petfoodprocessing.net/articles/18491-optimizing-pet-food-processing-equipment-for-sustainability

[7] Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. FAO United Nations. Rome.

[8] Nature's Menu UK. (2026). The harmful effects of ultra-processed dog food. Retrieved from https://www.naturesmenu.co.uk/blog-dog-obesity-disease-ultra-processed-dog-food.html

[9] Asensi, M. T., et al. (2023). Low-grade inflammation and ultra-processed foods consumption: A review. Nutrients, 15(6), 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15061546

[10] Schmidt, M., Unterer, S., Suchodolski, J. S., et al. (2018). The fecal microbiome and metabolome differs between dogs fed Bones and Raw Food (BARF) diets and dogs fed commercial diets. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0201279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201279

[11] Hemida, M., Vuori, K. A., Moore, R., et al. (2021). Identification of modifiable pre- and postnatal dietary and environmental exposures associated with owner-reported canine atopic dermatitis in Finland using a web-based questionnaire. PLOS ONE, 16(5), e0225675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225675

[12] Algya, K. M., et al. (2018). Apparent total tract macronutrient digestibility, serum chemistry, urinalysis, and fecal characteristics, metabolites and microbiota of adult dogs fed extruded, mildly cooked, and raw diets. Journal of Animal Science, 96(9), 3670-3683. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky235

[13] Bosch Tiernahrung. (2023). Dry food has the best environmental footprint - CO2 footprint of dogs and cats. Retrieved from https://www.bosch-tiernahrung.de/bosch_de_en/blog/post/co2-footprint-of-dogs-and-cats

[14] Kamonpatana, P., et al. (2025). Innovative non-thermal processing technologies for enhancing safety and quality in pet food production: A comprehensive review. Nutrients, 17(1), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17010142

[15] Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems, 15, 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8

[16] BioCraft Pet Nutrition. (2025). Cell-cultured pet food ingredient emits far less CO₂ than beef byproducts. Retrieved from https://www.biocraftpet.com/post/cell-cultured-pet-food-ingredient-emits-far-less-co-than-beef-byproducts

[17] Enifer. (2025). New carbon footprint study shows that PEKILO®Pet is 7 times more carbon efficient than soy protein concentrate. Retrieved from https://enifer.com/pekilopet-more-carbon-efficient

[18] Vondis. (2025). Extrusion in dog food: Nutritional concerns explained. Retrieved from https://vondis.co.za/extrusion-in-dog-food/

[19] Food Research Lab. (2025). Processing pet food: Thermal impact & nutrition. Retrieved from https://www.foodresearchlab.com/animal-food-product-development/ingredient-and-product-processing-in-pet-food/

[20] Rokey, G. J., et al. (2010). Pet food extrusion processing parameters and their effects on nutrient bioavailability. In Pet Food Technology. American Society of Animal Science.

[21] Oba, P. M., Utterback, P. L., Parsons, C. M., et al. (2019). Chemical composition, true nutrient digestibility, and true metabolizable energy of chicken-based ingredients differing by processing method using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay. Journal of Animal Science, 97(3), 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky477

[22] Kerr, K. R., Vester Boler, B. M., Morris, C. L., et al. (2012). Apparent total tract energy and macronutrient digestibility and fecal fermentative end-product concentrations of domestic cats fed extruded, raw beef-based, and cooked beef-based diets. Journal of Animal Science, 90(2), 515-522. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3266

[23] Contract Manufacture Animal Products. (2023). The benefits of local sourcing for pet food ingredients. Retrieved from https://www.contractmanufactureanimalproducts.com/the-benefits-of-local-sourcing-for-pet-food-ingredients/

[24] Wageningen University Animal Nutrition Group. (2008). Heat-induced nutrient destruction in dry dog food ingredient mixtures. Journal of Animal Nutrition, 45(3), 234-245.

[25] Bhat, Z. F., Morton, J. D., Mason, S. L., et al. (2021). Current and future prospects for the use of pulsed electric field in the meat industry. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 61(13), 2088-2100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1775958