The correlation between dog ownership and meat consumption in Bulgaria.

Most of the time people would generally link meat consumption and production as a global issue due to the animal cruelty behind it. However, its ethical scandal is not the only issue faced, meat consumption and production greatly harm the environment. The following case study analyzing the carbon footprint of dietary patterns in Canada depicts the great extent to which meat consumption affects the environment. The activities associated with agriculture, ranging from farming to domestic chores like food preparation and storage, were examined in this study. The highest carbon footprints, with measurements of \(3160 \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{CO}_{2} \mathrm{eq}\) and \(2282 \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{CO}_{2} \mathrm{eq}\), were found in diets containing beef and omnivorous diets devoid of pork. Conversely, diets that allowed for other meats such as poultry but not beef had a carbon footprint that was \(60\%\) lower than the previous diet that allowed for no pork. Moreover, the lowest carbon footprints were found in vegetarian and vegan diets, with measurements of \(55 \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{CO}_{2} \mathrm{eq}\) and 1015 kg CO2 eq. Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that meat and dairy products have the greatest environmental impact. Hence, by releasing all this carbon into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect's natural magnitude is increasing and, thus, raising global temperatures.

While Bulgaria is considered a small country, its meat consumption is not directly proportional. According to a report regarding Bulgaria's annual livestock and products published by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, in 2020 there was an \(11\%\) increase in the cattle inventory along with a \(25\%\) rise in the number of farms. A notable shift from trends was seen in the growth of farms particularly those with one to two dairy cows, which surged by \(32\%\). These smaller farms primarily focus on dairy production. Their growth can be attributed to factors such as the pandemic and a preference among some city dwellers to retreat to areas during these times. Additionally, there was an uptick in demand for milk and dairy products from these smaller farms. On the other hand, beef cattle numbers also rose by \(20\%\) making up \(38\%\) of the cattle population compared to \(34\%\), in the previous year 2019. Therefore, while the number of cattle inventory increases, so do the \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) emissions, hence contributing to global climate change.

I hypothesize that dog owners would consume less meat than individuals who do not possess a dog. This hypothesis derives from a study conducted by the National Institution of Health where results depicted how dog owners walk more frequently in the outdoors and engage in more physical activity, compared to non-dog owners. Therefore, regular exposure to nature results in a more environmentally conscious behavior. Hence, I believe dog owners are most likely to be aware of the negative environmental impacts meat consumption may have which would potentially decrease their meat consumption. Additionally, another factor supporting this hypothesis would be owing to a greater sense of compassion for animals. Due to the strong bond with their dogs, dog owners may grow to have a stronger sense of compassion towards animals, which includes those raised for meat consumption. Hence, this sense of empathy may cause them to reevaluate their dietary decisions and settle on less meat or plant-based substitutes.

• Google Forms
• Google Sheets
• Microsoft Excel
• Social Media

In order to collect my data I will be using a survey. It is an easy and efficient method of gathering information from any group of people which can be used for any problem or area of research, such as examining the correlation between dog ownership and meat consumption in Bulgaria. Furthermore, I will be employing convenience sampling as I will be sending the survey to different groups of people surrounding me from the same demographic through the utilization of social media. Additionally, in order to reach the maximum of my targeted audience, the survey will also be available in Bulgarian.

Although there are not many, ethical considerations are vital in such investigations in order to respect the participants' confidentiality. In the survey description, it is mentioned that all data derived from this survey is anonymous and will be used in my internal assessment in order to examine the relationship between dog ownership and meat consumption. Hence, it was previously known to the participants while filling out the survey what its implications were. Additionally, no one is being forced against their will to answer the survey. Thus, all participants are aware of the situation and agree to the terms with their own freedom of choice.

The first question was posed to make sure every survey respondent was from the same sampling pool. Luckily, my sampling method was evidently successful as all of my participants are Bulgarian citizens as depicted in Figure 2. Hence, the analysis of this subject will be more accurate and effective as it is focused on the same demographic of people.

The following question was used to assess the respondent's dog ownership status; "Are you a dog owner". As depicted in Figure 3, \(50\%\) of the participants are dog owners while \(50\%\) do not have any dogs. For each question, I analyzed the results comprising both perspectives, dog owners and non-dog owners, which I subsequently input into the Microsoft Excel platform to create the bar charts.

Starting off with the first question depicting a contrast between the two subjects, it has been utilized to gather data about the participants' meat consumption (Figure 4). The correlation between meat consumption can not be defined only by looking at this chart as they mainly have similar diet routines. Although \(50\%\) of the respondents who eat meat every day are dog owners, a slight increase of \(5\%\) can be seen in the consumption of 3-4 times weekly. Which subsequently falls back to only \(25\%\) of correspondents enjoying meat solely one to two times weekly. However, dog owners become the leading rank comprising \(68\%\) of the "I do not consume any meat" responses. Hence, this table is too imprecise to show yet any proof of correlation.

The responses to the question in Figure 5 start to show a significant correlation between the two statuses. An increase of \(10\%\) can be noticed for each question. Starting off with a low amount of \(45\%\) of dog owners consume meat while having no issues. Furthermore, \(55\%\) of the answers depict dog owners trying to limit their meat due to ethical or environmental reasons while \(45\%\) of the non-dog owner participants consider ethical or environmental reasons. Lastly, \(65\%\) of the dog-owning participants are seen to not be consuming any meat. Due to the results, it is understood that participants who own dogs and consume meat care to limit their consumption rate based on environmental and ethical reasons are wider than the non-dog participants.

The findings in Figure 6 for this significant question explain the engagement of the participant with the vegetarian advocations. The results revealed a notable difference in participation rates between the two groups, with \(45\%\) of dog owners participating in the survey compared to only \(25\%\) of non-dog owners. This contrast suggests that dog owners may be more receptive or interested in discussions surrounding meat consumption and vegetarianism compared to their counterparts without pets. The findings highlight the potential influence of pet ownership on individuals' dietary choices and their awareness of animal welfare issues, indicating a potential avenue for targeted advocacy efforts within this demographic.

An unusual correlation can be found in Figure 7 as dog owners are less aware than non-dog owners. While \(85\%\) of the non-dog owner participants are aware of the environmental impacts caused by meat consumption, only \(70\%\) of the dog owners are conscious. The findings highlight the awareness of non-dog owners on meat depletion while the consumption rate is higher as explained in Figure 7. Therefore, the results indicate that dog owners may be controlling their meat consumption due to emotional factors. The influence of pet ownership on the consciousness of environmental problems is not as relevant as the influence on dietary choices. As stated in my hypothesis, dog owners' meat consumption is due to a sense of compassion towards their pets.

The findings found in Figure 8 support my hypothesis of the previous results. As shown in Figure 8, the majority of people who have altered their diet due to animal well-being are dog owners. It appears that dog owners are more likely to adjust their diets out of concern for animal well-being compared to non-dog owners. While most participants have not considered changing their diets, it's noteworthy that non-dog owners are in the majority. Additionally, a small percentage of respondents, representing a fraction of those who changed their diets, cited environmental concerns as a factor in their dietary changes. This analysis highlights the complexity of the relationship between pet ownership, ethical considerations, and environmental concerns in shaping individuals' dietary choices.

It is seen in Figure 9 that the majority of the non-dog owners chose the option of having no opinion. However, there is still a mere percentage present of non-dog owners in the "disagree" and "agree" columns. This could be the result of individuals who previously owned a dog, but not anymore. Furthermore, the current dog owners are observed to have a consistent distribution. From this result, even though not many observations can be made, the strongest comment that can be made is that a few participants who are currently non-dog owners used to be dog owners.

Figure 10 further highlights the previous findings by proving that the majority of the participants who consider environmental impacts are non-dog owners. This finding suggests that while non-dog owners are slightly more inclined to acknowledge the environmental implications of meat consumption, the difference in opinions is minimal. Overall, the survey indicates a general awareness among participants regarding the adverse effects of high meat consumption on the environment, highlighting a growing awareness of environmental issues within the sample pool.