Wet Pet Food (400g steel can)
Food & BeverageCarbon Cost Index Score
Per kg
Methodology v1.0 · Last reviewed 2026-04-08
Scope Breakdown
| Scope | kgCO₂e | % of Total | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 | 0.02 | 5% | |
| Scope 2 | 0.06 | 15% | |
| Scope 3 | 0.32 | 80% | |
| Total | 0.4 | 100% |
Emission Hotspots
| Emission Hotspot | Scope | Est. % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| ingredient production (animal protein) | S3 | 70% |
| steel can packaging production (tin plating) | S3 | 15% |
| processing and thermal sterilization | S1/S2 | 8% |
| transportation & distribution | S3 | 5% |
| end-of-life & recycling infrastructure | S3 | 2% |
Manufacturing Geography
- Region
- United States
- Grid Intensity
- 400 gCO2e/kWh (EPA eGRID 2022)
Material Composition Assumptions
A typical 400g steel can of wet pet food contains approximately 270g water content representing 60-75% of total product mass. The meat-based protein component including poultry by-products, meat and bone meal, or beef comprises roughly 80g or 20% of the total weight. Vegetable ingredients such as grains, legumes, and agricultural by-products account for approximately 40g or 10% of the product. The steel packaging including the tinned can body and lid weighs approximately 45g, while trace minerals and vitamins constitute less than 5g of the final product weight.
Manufacturing Geography
Primary manufacturing occurs in the United States where major pet food processing facilities benefit from established supply chains for both animal proteins and steel packaging materials. The US electrical grid operates at an average carbon intensity of 400 gCO2e per kWh according to EPA eGRID data, which directly impacts the energy-intensive thermal sterilization processes required for canned pet food safety standards. American manufacturing regions concentrate near livestock production areas to minimize transportation costs for fresh meat ingredients while maintaining proximity to steel can suppliers.
Regional Variation
| Manufacturing Region | Grid Intensity | Estimated CCI Score | Adjustment vs Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 400 gCO2e/kWh | 50 | Baseline |
| European Union | 250 gCO2e/kWh | 45 | -10% |
| China | 550 gCO2e/kWh | 58 | +16% |
| Brazil | 320 gCO2e/kWh | 47 | -6% |
| Australia | 480 gCO2e/kWh | 54 | +8% |
Provenance Override Guidance
-
Submit detailed ingredient sourcing documentation including livestock production system type, feed conversion ratios, and transportation distances from farms to processing facilities.
-
Provide steel packaging specifications with recycled content percentages, tin plating thickness measurements, and supplier-specific manufacturing energy consumption data.
-
Document thermal processing parameters including sterilization temperatures, processing duration, and facility-specific energy consumption per unit produced.
-
Supply transportation manifests showing distribution distances, vehicle fuel efficiency ratings, and cold chain energy requirements for product delivery.
-
Present end-of-life recycling rates specific to your distribution region with municipal waste processing capabilities and steel recovery percentages.
Methodology Notes
- The CCI score represents cradle-to-gate emissions including ingredient production, packaging manufacturing, processing, and distribution but excludes consumer use phase and final disposal
- Scope 3 emissions dominate the profile due to upstream animal agriculture impacts and steel production processes occurring in supplier facilities
- Functional unit basis uses single 400g can as typical consumer purchase unit rather than nutritional equivalency measures
- Methodology excludes pet digestion and waste emissions which occur during the use phase of the product lifecycle
- Data gaps exist for small-scale regional manufacturers and specialty organic ingredient supply chains which may show different emission profiles
Related Concepts
Sources
- Okin & Crowther 2017 Journal of Cleaner Production — Quantified pet food industry environmental impacts including carbon emissions from animal protein production.
- Harvey et al. 2024 Scientific Reports — Demonstrated that wet pet food generates six to eight times higher emissions than dry kibble products.
- FEDIAF 2018 Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules — Established methodology for calculating lifecycle emissions of pet food products across Europe.
- Alexander et al. 2020 Global Food Security — Analyzed regional variations in pet food carbon footprints based on manufacturing locations and grid intensity.
- Buffa 2024 ScienceDirect — Compared packaging impacts between steel cans and flexible pouches for wet pet food products.