An interesting development tonight!!

[ldg]

...But people misunderstand and think that's all they get is the cooked meat... Not so.  That is why I am having trouble understanding why everyone is griping about them not having enough nutrients.  My nutrition professor told me today "another way to go is maybe giving them each 1/2 a calcium tablet a day?  But, other than that, it is more than fine and good."

I think perhaps the nutrition professor doesn't understand the calcium supplement also has phosphorus?

I don't think it's the calcium that people are talking about (mostly). It's that the calcium supplement you use has phosphorus, and the meat has phosphorus, so the calcium/phosphorus ratios are wacky. If you were using a calcium supplement without phosphorus I think they wouldn't have an issue with it. Or that's my understanding. Ask your professor what his thoughts are on phosphorus/calcium ratios. . .I'm curious.

Exactly. The Ca ratio (and the amount of at least taurine in the diet, because cooking degrades the taurine).

... If 1/2 of the diet is complete and balanced and the other 1/2 is not then the total diet more than likely is not complete and balanced.

I'm back to the Pet Tabs to try to understand your reasoning for giving this instead of a calcium-only supplement. Here are my thoughts: Pet Tabs are not just calcium--it has phosphorus in it too, so it is balanced unto itself (cahos ratio of approx 1.2:1)--whereas the chicken meat is not. The Pet Tabs are meant to be fed as a total supplement since it has phosphorus also, and other vitamins (if I remember correctly). What you might consider is getting a calcium only supplement. I do see where you're coming from, but you are going to end up with an excess of phosphorus in their diet by using the Pet Tabs. A half a calcium tablet a day would be fine, as your professor said, with my caveat--as long as it doesn't have phosphorus in it too, like Pet Tabs has. (Maybe have him look at the ingredients in Pet Tabs?)

That summarizes it. The Pet Tabs may address the amount of calcium, but not the Ca ratio. Using a plain calcium supplement would at least address the Ca ratio. :nod:

P3, this is an analysis of your cooked chicken breast with Pet Tab food:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByPP2-Qsfkh4N1RfdnlIWlBRMDA

...That still leaves deficiencies in the following nutrients: calcium, zinc, iron, copper, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, thiamin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid , folic acid, vitamin b12. 

For 50% of the diet.

The calcium ratio below the minimum 1:1 is what LDG and others have been trying to warn you about. The other deficiencies should be of concern also.

Because of the phosphorus in the calcium supplement, the analysis of the 50% of the meat-portion of the diet indicates a Ca ratio of 0.6:1 (for those not familiar with the guidelines, the AAFCO reference range is 1.1:1 to 5.1:1, though most people making homemade try to target between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1).

Again, for those not familiar with the issue, this summarizes it quite succinctly: http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=1+1400&aid=651

Feeding adequate calcium without the correct amount of phosphorous can prevent adequate uptake and utilization of the calcium, thus the calciumhosphorous ratio is very important.

To understand the role of the Ca ratio better, this study of kittens in Iran, fed a primarily meat-based diet, is instructive. http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/115920080606.pdf

The real problem with a calcium deficiency (or when the Ca ratio is off) is that it doesn't show up in blood work, because the body (in humans and animals) robs bones for the needed calcium.