Quantifying the carbon footprint of canine breed-specific surgical care in a veterinary referral setting

Objective

To develop and apply a calculator to quantify the carbon footprint of breed-specific surgical care in dogs, from hospital admission to discharge, in a veterinary referral setting.

Materials and methods

Breed-specific procedures were defined as surgeries performed uniquely or predominantly in particular breeds due to inherited or conformational pathology, as identified by the relevant clinical services.

All dogs undergoing breed-specific procedures at a UK veterinary referral hospital over an eight-month period were prospectively studied. Data collected included procedure type, diagnostic imaging, anaesthesia, pharmaceuticals, surgical waste, travel distance, and personal protective equipment use. Published carbon conversion factors were applied to calculate the carbon footprint (kg CO₂e) for each component of care and the total per-patient emissions.

Results

Data were collected from 41 patients undergoing breed-specific surgeries. The mean carbon footprint per patient was calculated to be 103 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 47.5, range 33–220 kg CO₂e). Mean carbon footprint per patient for breed-specific procedures was; BOAS 100 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 36.4, range 49–174 kg CO₂e), medial canthoplasty 55 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 20.3, range 33–89 kg CO₂e), screw tail caudectomy 120 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 22.6, range 104–136 kg CO₂e), ‘Y’ fracture 159 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 48.2, range 103–211 kg CO₂e), ‘Y’ fracture and prophylactic humeral transcondylar screw 200 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 28.9, range 180–220 kg CO₂e) and prophylactic unilateral or bilateral humeral transcondylar screw 99 kg CO₂e (standard deviation ± 15.9, range 84–115 kg CO₂e) (Table 2). The largest contributors were pharmaceuticals excluding volatile agents (mean 55 kg CO₂e, 40–67 % of procedure-based emissions), owner travel (mean 19 kg CO₂e, 9–28 % of procedure-based emissions), and volatile agents (14 kg CO₂e, 8–24 % of procedure-based emissions). Diagnostic imaging accounted for 6 kg CO₂e (0–8 % of procedure-based emissions).

Conclusions

Breed-related procedures generate substantial carbon emissions, with pharmaceuticals and owner travel being major contributors. These findings provide a foundation for identifying environmentally impactful practices and support efforts to improve sustainability in referral veterinary care. This study also prompts broader ethical reflection on the environmental cost of inherited breed disorders, offering a new dimension to discussions on animal welfare, responsible breeding, and sustainability in companion animal medicine.