CLOSE
Original image

Fuzzy Math: How Do “Dog Years” Work?

Original image

My next-door neighbors have a little terrier named Melvin (not pictured). My old neighbor had a very big Bernese mountain dog (also not pictured). I didn’t know its name, and usually just referred to it as The Big Dog or The Beast. Ten Melvins, soaking wet and carrying a few dollars in change in their mouths, would probably weigh about the same as The Big Dog. The Big Dog could probably eat all ten of those Melvins, and the change, and still be hungry.

In other words, no two dog breeds are created equal, even if all dogs go to heaven. They come in different shapes and sizes. They reach maturity at different ages and time takes its toll on their bodies differently. On average, smaller dogs like Melvin have longer lifespans (14-16 years) than big ones (12-13 years), which have longer lifespans than certain “giant breeds” like the Bernese (7-10 years).

Age is an important piece of social information and can tell you a number of things about a person. Since dogs are social creatures and are part of many of our social circles, it’s nice to have that information about them, too. With the way different breeds mature and age at different rates, though, things can get confusing. A five-year-old terrier isn’t at the same point in its life as a five-year-old Great Dane. In fact, the two dogs are pretty much at opposite ends of their lifespans.

To work around this snag, people have long followed the rule that “dog year” is equal to seven human years and multiplying a dog’s age by seven gives you its age in the context of the human lifespan. The x7 trick is easy enough to do, but it’s no more helpful than just giving the dog’s age in dog years.

A five-year-old terrier and a five-year-old Great Dane are not only unlike each other in age, neither is similar to a 35-year-old human.

The dog year to human year conversion is especially inaccurate with very young dogs. A dog that’s one year old would be seven years old in human years. Most dog breeds are sexually mature and fully capable of reproducing when they’re one year old, while most seven-year-old humans are not. One just wants a puppy, but the other can make puppies.

Crafting a simple, proportional relationship between Rover’s age and yours might seem convenient, but it’s not doing anyone good. While no one formula for dog-to-human age conversion is scientifically agreed on, we can at least say that there are some better alternatives to multiplying by seven.

New Math

The folks at The Dog Guide suggest that when we think about “dog years,” we have to consider the breed and calculate accordingly. Across the board, they say, you can consider the first year of a dog’s life as equivalent to 15 or so human years. By that time, dogs and humans are approaching their adult size and have reached sexual maturity. On their 2nd birthday, you should add about 3-8 more years to your dogs “human age,” depending on size, and value each dog year as being worth 4-5 human years from that point on.

Stanley Coren, psychologist and author of How Dogs Think, The Pawprints of History and other dog books, uses a similar system. The way he sees it, one-year-old dogs and two-year-old dogs are like 16-year-old people and 24-year-old people, respectively, regardless of breed. For the next three years, each birthday tacks on five human years, and from age five and beyond, everything depends heavily on the dog’s size. Coren suggests adding four years of human life to the age of small dogs after age 5, and six years for large breeds.

When you’re crunching these numbers for your own dog, you should also keep in mind individual characteristics like weight, diet, exercise and veterinary care. If you have a terrier that weighs the same as a Bernese mountain dog, it’s a safe bet that the little porker’s lifespan is going to be decreased. If you keep your dog healthy, lean and on a quality diet, though, then they’ll skew a little younger in human years when the conversion system provides a little wiggle room.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Animals
Audible Launches 'Audible for Dogs' to Help Pet Parents Calm Their Stressed Canines
Original image
iStock

In addition to a mutual love of hamburgers and lazy sunny afternoons in the backyard, dog owners can now share their affinity for audiobooks with their furry friends. As Fast Company reports, Audible has launched Audible for Dogs, a new service designed to keep canines relaxed while their owners are away from home.

Some people play music for lonely dogs, but according to an Audible press release, a 2015 academic study revealed that audiobooks worked better than tunes to calm stressed-out pets. To investigate the phenomenon further, Audible teamed up with Cesar Millan, the dog behaviorist who’s better known as the "Dog Whisperer." Their own research—which they conducted with 100 dogs, in partnership with Millan’s Dog Psychology Center in Santa Clarita, California—found that 76 percent of participating dog owners noticed that audiobooks helped their pets chill out.

Dog owners can play Cesar Millan’s new Guide to Audiobooks for Dogs—which is both written and narrated by Millan—for initiation purposes, along with a curated rotating selection of dog-focused audiobook titles including Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood, performed by Trevor Noah; Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, performed by Rosamund Pike; and W. Bruce Cameron’s A Dog’s Purpose, performed by William Dufris. Each title features a special video introduction by Millan, in which he explains why the book is suited for doggy ears. (Pro tip: According to Audible’s research, dogs prefer narrators of the same gender as their primary owners, and books played at normal volume on an in-home listening device.)

Don’t have an Audible subscription, but want to see if your dog succumbs to the purportedly calming magic of audiobooks? New listeners can listen to one free Audible for Dogs selection with a 30-day membership trial.

[h/t Fast Company]

Original image
iStock
arrow
Animals
All That Meat in Pet Food Has a Big Environmental Impact
Original image
iStock

There’s no doubt that our furry friends are good for us. Studies have shown that living with a dog or cat can reduce stress, boost our immune systems, and increase our overall happiness. But what’s good for humans is not always good for the planet. A study published in the journal PLOS One finds that meat consumption by pet dogs and cats creates 64 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Meat production requires more energy and resources than plant-based foods. It also produces more waste.

Gregory Okin of UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability is a geographer by trade. He studies the way weather events and climate patterns can affect ecosystems, and vice versa. One day he found himself puzzling over the ecological ramifications of the current craze for backyard chickens.

"I was thinking about how cool it is that chickens are vegetarian and make protein for us to eat, whereas many other pets eat a lot of protein from meat," he said in a study. "And that got me thinking—how much meat do our pets eat?"

Okin started by considering the number of dogs and cats in the country—approximately 163 million. He then analyzed the amount of meat in the most popular pet food brands, and compared this to the amount of meat American humans consume each year.

The results suggest that our pets represent a huge portion of the meat we produce, eat, and excrete every year. Okin’s calculations show that American dogs and cats consume 19 percent as many calories as the country’s 321 million humans—an intake comparable to the population of France.

But pound for pound, pet food also contains more meat than human food. When Okin adjusted for this fact, he found that dogs and cats gobble up 25 percent of our annual meat-based calorie intake. That results in the production of 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year—about the same output as 13.6 million humans driving their cars for a year.

If our dogs and cats constituted their own country, they'd rank fifth in global meat consumption, behind only Russia, Brazil, China, and the United States.

"I'm not a vegetarian, but eating meat does come at a cost," Okin said in a statement. "Those of us in favor of eating or serving meat need to be able to have an informed conversation about our choices, and that includes the choices we make for our pets."

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios