Dry Dog Food (10kg bag)
Food & AgricultureCarbon Cost Index Score
Per kg
Methodology v1.0 · Last reviewed 2026-04-08
Scope Breakdown
| Scope | kgCO₂e | % of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 3.84 | 8% | |
| Scope 2 | 2.88 | 6% | |
| Scope 3 | 41.28 | 86% | |
| Total | 48 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| ingredient production (animal proteins) | S3 | 57% |
| raw material sourcing and processing | S3 | 18% |
| transportation and distribution | S1/S2 | 14% |
| packaging production | S1/S2 | 7% |
| food processing and manufacturing | S1 | 4% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- United States
- Grid Intensity
- 401 kgCO2e/MWh (U.S. EPA 2023)
Material Composition Assumptions
A typical 10kg bag of dry dog food contains approximately 1,020g of poultry meat representing 10.2% of total mass, alongside 2,340g of poultry by-products comprising 23.4% of the formulation. Animal by-products constitute the largest single component at 3,200g or 32% of the bag weight. Plant-based ingredients include 2,050g of maize representing 20.5% of crop content, with soybean meal and corn gluten meal each contributing 610g or 6.1% of the total weight. Fish and fish by-products add 310g representing 3.1% of the formulation, while wheat and rice comprise smaller proportions of the remaining mass.
Manufacturing Geography
Primary manufacturing occurs in the United States where major pet food processing facilities benefit from proximity to agricultural production regions and established supply chains for both animal proteins and grain crops. The U.S. electrical grid operates at an intensity of 401 kgCO2e per MWh, reflecting a mixed energy portfolio of natural gas, renewables, and coal-fired generation. This manufacturing location provides cost advantages through integrated livestock and crop production systems while maintaining regulatory compliance for pet food safety standards.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 401 kgCO2e/MWh | 48.0 | Baseline |
| European Union | 295 kgCO2e/MWh | 44.2 | -7.9% |
| Brazil | 85 kgCO2e/MWh | 41.1 | -14.4% |
| China | 555 kgCO2e/MWh | 52.8 | +10.0% |
| Australia | 634 kgCO2e/MWh | 55.1 | +14.8% |
Provenance Override Guidance
-
Supplier-specific ingredient sourcing documentation detailing the geographic origin and production methods for animal proteins, particularly poultry meal and by-product sources with associated carbon intensity data.
-
Manufacturing facility energy consumption records showing actual electricity usage, fuel consumption for thermal processing, and renewable energy procurement agreements that differ from regional grid averages.
-
Transportation logistics data including shipping distances from ingredient suppliers to manufacturing facilities, distribution center locations, and freight modal splits between truck, rail, and maritime transport.
-
Ingredient composition specifications providing exact percentages of animal versus plant-based proteins, novel protein sources, and alternative ingredients that deviate from industry standard formulations.
-
Packaging material specifications detailing bag composition, recycled content percentages, barrier film types, and end-of-life disposal or recycling pathways for multi-layer packaging systems.
Methodology Notes
-
The CCI score represents cradle-to-gate emissions from ingredient extraction through manufacturing and distribution, excluding end-of-life disposal and pet consumption phases.
-
Scope 3 emissions dominate the footprint due to upstream agricultural production, with animal protein ingredients generating substantially higher impacts than plant-based components.
-
The functional unit covers one complete 10kg bag assuming average daily consumption rates of 177g for medium-sized dogs over the product lifespan.
-
Excluded categories include pet waste management, packaging disposal, veterinary impacts from diet-related health outcomes, and land use change effects from feed crop expansion.
-
Data gaps exist around regional ingredient sourcing patterns, processing energy efficiency variations between manufacturers, and allocation methods for animal by-product environmental burdens.
Related Concepts
Sources
- Pedrinelli et al. 2022 Scientific Reports — Analyzed environmental impacts of pet food production systems and ingredient sourcing across different formulations.
- Alexander et al. 2020 Global Environmental Change — Quantified carbon emissions from global pet food consumption relative to farmed animal production.
- Okin 2017 PLoS ONE — Calculated environmental impacts of domestic dogs and cats in the United States food system.
- Jarosch et al. 2024 Frontiers Sustainable Food Systems — Compared lifecycle emissions between wet and dry pet food formulations across multiple impact categories.
- Su & Martens 2018 Journal of Cleaner Production — Assessed carbon footprints of plant-based versus animal-based pet food ingredients using allocation methods.