Best diet for cats?

[minka]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

You asked if a "specific product" is better than "a type of product". And yes, in man terms, that's asking if a Ford Mustang is better than a boat for transportation, for which the rational answer is of course "it depends". Its a question that can't be answered with yes or no. Even given the poor phrasing, I explained to you why I would still feed a particular commercial wet food (By Nature) over the raw diet you suggested and why. If that isn't going above and beyond to accommodate you, I don't know what is!

By your logic, the comparison in man terms would be: What's better, a Mustang or a van?

And that would fit exactly with what I'm asking which is "What's better for a cat, Nature's Variety raw or wet/dry food?"

Once again your answer from before is not valid because more than half of it applies to YOU and not a cat's best interest. The cat doesn't care which is easier for you, the cat doesn't care which costs less. Which has better benefits for the cats heatlth overall? Preserved meat that has been sitting in a can/bag for months, or frozen raw meat?

 

[minka]

LDG - I could be wrong here, but I think the thought that raw is better than cooked is only One of the reasons that people feed raw. It also has to do with wanting complete control over the diet, wanting to rid of preservatives and other yucky ingredients, wanting a fruit and veggie free diet, etc.

I think your thoughts are great however. Could it be that a diet of squirrels, birds and mice is truly the best one? Who knows. Maybe there will be a name for it one day and raw-feeders and them will fight over what's best too.

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by Minka

LDG - I could be wrong here, but I think the thought that raw is better than cooked is only One of the reasons that people feed raw. It also has to do with wanting complete control over the diet, wanting to rid of preservatives and other yucky ingredients, wanting a fruit and veggie free diet, etc.

Ok.

Makes sense. Of course, it still doesn't really answer the question - and I don't know that there is one - of whether the "raw" component has anything to do with the benefits people feeding the diet see, or whether it's the lack of other ingredients (e.g. the control over the diet).

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

Ok.

Makes sense. Of course, it still doesn't really answer the question - and I don't know that there is one - of whether the "raw" component has anything to do with the benefits people feeding the diet see, or whether it's the lack of other ingredients (e.g. the control over the diet).

I'm composing a response to you now, Laurie. Your post was an outstandingly logical and well-written query, and I want to give it my best thoughts in return.

AC

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

...
Very few of these are actually species-appropriate, meaning they are not what cats would hunt and eat in the wild (other than rabbit) - for the most part.
...

I think I see another word-association issue. "Species-appropriate" when used in a raw-feeding context means 'foods appropriate to the species being fed'. So, raw, meat-based meals are more "species-appropriate" to a cat's obligatorily carnivorous nature than are grain-based meals. Or, grain-based meals are more "species-appropriate" to an herbivorous horse than are meat-based meals.

Feeding a cat only those animals she would be able to catch on her own, like birds, mice, and rats, however, would be both species-appropriate and "species-specific"; as you would only be feeding certain species of animals to the cat.

Which brings us to the next discussion point: should we be feeding our cats things like beef and venison when they could never catch a cow or a deer naturally?

Based on all that I know, the answer should be absolutely. First, little cats and big cats are close enough that what one eats is fine for consideration on the other's menu. In fact, domestic cats are close enough to breed with Asian Leopard Cats, jungle cats, Servals, and several other wild cats, and from a dietary physiological perspective, all the cats can be considered identical. They all need to eat prey animals, and the specific type of prey animal is not important. Little cats catch mice, birds, etc., because those animals are within their grasp, while bigger cats aim for larger prey. While a cougar might very well pounce on a mouse, it's going to need a lot more to allay it's hunger, so it hunts larger prey. And a cat, of any size, transported to another geographical area with a different array of prey animals will not search for the animals to which she's accustomed to eating, but will simply hunt the animals present.

From my current understanding, that's pretty much true of all obligate carnivores. Snakes, birds of prey, sharks, etc. - they catch whatever they can, without regard to the animal under the fur / fins / or feathers.

And think about it from an entirely different angle: If it were only about the type of animals fed to the cat, then raw-fed cats would have just as high a percentage of IBD, urinary tract issues and kidney failure, diabetes, etc. as commercially-fed cats. And yet - from what we can tell - they don't.

Yes, the evidence is darn near purely anecdotal. But it's awfully overwhelming. Even the IBD forum, IBDKitties.net/AboutRaw, states that a raw diet is best. Multiple veterinarians have remarked upon the universal improvement in both specific diseases as well as overall health in cats transitioned to raw. (By the way, that quote about the decline in the general health of cats over the last 70 years isn't mine but was from a veterinarian.)

And I believe whole-heartedly that nothing would make the pet food industry happier than pointing a smoking gun on raw food. Not only can't they, but they're jumping on the wagon themselves. (Which, actually, is nothing but a good thing for cats.)

To be continued...

AC

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

...

Is the issue cooking? Or additives? Or sources of protein?

....

As I mention above, it's a pretty tough sell to think it's the protein sources. As long as it's an animal (insect, lizard, etc.), it's good for the cat. (Naturally, that doesn't apply to poisonous animals. I'm willing to bet you would know that without specification, but it bears clarification for others.

)

As for cooking and/or additives, I believe it's both. Taurine is far from the only nutrient destroyed in the cooking process, and with the temperatures and processing methods used to manufacture pet food, it's not inconceivable to think that, from a nutrient perspective, the "food" is pretty much dead by the time they're done processing it. That makes the supplemental mix the only thing the cats can draw on and there's just no way that synthetic mix can possibly come anywhere close to the nutrient profile of the food in it's natural state. Or, in it's much-closer-to-natural-state as found on grocery store shelves.

I don't know how we could talk about additives without learning a lot more about them than what I currently know. But, as you said earlier, the less the additives, the healthier the food, whether we're talking our food, or the cat's food (and keeping in mind that cats, as strict carnivores, have a much more specialized digestive system than ours).

I don't claim that raw is a cure-all. If a cat is genetically predisposed towards a particular disease, she may get it no matter what she's fed. And we know that genetics plays a part in a cat's health (each successive generation of Pottenger's cooked-food cats had more issues earlier in life, and by the third generation they all either died as kittens or became sterile before they reached adulthood).

Environment, too, can trump a change in diet, as can any damage left-over from the previous diet (IBDKitties.net has three cats that had set-backs while on a raw diet) and all kinds of toxins can be tracked in on our shoes.

It's all a risk, but from everything I've seen and learned, a properly-balanced raw diet provides cats the highest nutrient profile in the most easily digested form, and carries with it the greatest chance of a long-lived and thriving cat.

I hope that at least some of my rambling made sense!

AC

 

[auntie crazy]

I know it's just more anecdotal data points, but it all adds up; here's a quote from a Dr. Hofve on raw diets (Homemade vs. Commercial Food for Cats (and Dogs!)):

The weight of practical experience by owners, breeders, and the holistic veterinary community, is on the side of natural diets. Very few problems have arisen; compared to the legion of allergies, skin disease, dental disease, obesity, bladder infections, diabetes, and other health problems encountered by animals on commercial diets.
...
The most impressive evidence for homemade diets is the testimony of dozens of pet guardians, breeders, and veterinarians. Not only have I personally seen the improved health and well-being of pets on good homemade diets, but I have received dozens of first-hand reports from pet guardians citing increased health and vitality, as well as rapid disappearance of medical problems, from itchy ears to seizures.

If you're interested, she also talks about Salmonella and other perceived raw feeding risks in "The “Dangers†of a Raw Diet". In that article, she mentions, "According to experts, Salmonella exposure does not pose any real threat to healthy animals. In fact, itâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s estimated that more than 35% of normal healthy dogs and 18% of healthy cats (most of which eat commercial pet food) are already asymptomatic carriers." which I thought was a rather unexpected statistic (the 18%).

AC

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by LDG

Ok.

Makes sense. Of course, it still doesn't really answer the question - and I don't know that there is one - of whether the "raw" component has anything to do with the benefits people feeding the diet see, or whether it's the lack of other ingredients (e.g. the control over the diet).

I think that is an excellent point. As I stated in an earlier post I've been wondering if the benefits might be primarily from raw just being so much fresher. That is not so heavily processed. Also as I said earlier there is much anecdotal evidence that results very similar to those seen with raw feeding have been reported after switching to a cooked homemade diet.

Arguably benefits are seen in feeding a raw diet. It would be nice if we knew for sure why that is. Without controlled, long term (expensive) studies, all we can do is speculate. But we love to speculate!

 

[ldg]

First of all, thank you for your considered replies.

I'm not operating at peak today, but here's the next line of thinking in response.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

I think I see another word-association issue. "Species-appropriate" when used in a raw-feeding context means 'foods appropriate to the species being fed'.

But I'm not limiting myself to the boxes of "raw" or "not raw" in working through this. I'm trying not to have any "dots" or preconceived notions here, so am not following the line of questioning in relation to a faw-feeding context.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

So, raw, meat-based meals are more "species-appropriate" to a cat's obligatorily carnivorous nature than are grain-based meals.

I'm not taking it as a given that the "raw" is necessary. But yes, meat vs. grains, definitely appropriate for carnivore. No debate there.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Feeding a cat only those animals she would be able to catch on her own, like birds, mice, and rats, however, would be both species-appropriate and "species-specific"; as you would only be feeding certain species of animals to the cat.

OK. I think semantics are important, so no issues here.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Which brings us to the next discussion point: should we be feeding our cats things like beef and venison when they could never catch a cow or a deer naturally?

Based on all that I know, the answer should be absolutely. First, little cats and big cats are close enough that what one eats is fine for consideration on the other's menu.

I am not inclined to agree with this yet. The genus Panthera is its own offshoot 10.8 million years ago. The domestic cat lineage branched off 6.2 million years ago. I haven't done enough work yet to agree that this makes no difference, and, in fact, am inclined to think it does make a difference.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

In fact, domestic cats are close enough to breed with Asian Leopard Cats, jungle cats, Servals, and several other wild cats,

Is the ability to fertilize related to dietary requirements?

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

..and from a dietary physiological perspective, all the cats can be considered identical. They all need to eat prey animals, and the specific type of prey animal is not important.

Why? I'm not being contentious. Perhaps this is my lack of education of genetics or biology, but to me it's not obvious that the ability to mate means that animals have the same dietary requirements - in terms of what's best.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Little cats catch mice, birds, etc., because those animals are within their grasp, while bigger cats aim for larger prey. While a cougar might very well pounce on a mouse, it's going to need a lot more to allay it's hunger, so it hunts larger prey. And a cat, of any size, transported to another geographical area with a different array of prey animals will not search for the animals to which she's accustomed to eating, but will simply hunt the animals present.

This I know. Cats are incredibly adapatable animals, and their diet around the world is quite varied. First and foremost, they are opportunistic. But one thing is common - small prey. Small prey has less fat as % of body weight.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

And think about it from an entirely different angle: If it were only about the type of animals fed to the cat, then raw-fed cats would have just as high a percentage of IBD, urinary tract issues and kidney failure, diabetes, etc. as commercially-fed cats. And yet - from what we can tell - they don't.

My brain isn't working well, but I think this could be accounted for on the basis of the lack of additives. While some have been raw feeding for a "long time," I think overall there isn't much long term data, even anecdotal. Could be the lack of grains that's of benefit short-and-intermediate term. What is incidence of pancreatitis? Again - I'm not well versed on health vs diet issues.

Yes, the evidence is darn near purely anecdotal. But it's awfully overwhelming. Even the IBD forum, IBDKitties.net/AboutRaw, states that a raw diet is best. Multiple veterinarians have remarked upon the universal improvement in both specific diseases as well as overall health in cats transitioned to raw. (By the way, that quote about the decline in the general health of cats over the last 70 years isn't mine but was from a veterinarian.)

Again, you keep bringing it back to raw, when my line of questioning at this point is the protein source and protein vs. fat content, not raw vs cooked. Clearly, control over diet and lack of additives improves health. No one's demonstrated that it is raw vs. cooked though.

And I'm sorry, I'll have to finish responding later. I'm too distracted. ( Lazlo ).

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

...

And I'm sorry, I'll have to finish responding later. I'm too distracted. ( Lazlo ).

Whenever you're ready, Laurie. Hope all turns out well!

AC

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

First of all, thank you for your considered replies.

I'm not operating at peak today, but here's the next line of thinking in response.

...

I am not inclined to agree with this yet. The genus Panthera is its own offshoot 10.8 million years ago. The domestic cat lineage branched off 6.2 million years ago. I haven't done enough work yet to agree that this makes no difference, and, in fact, am inclined to think it does make a difference.

Is the ability to fertilize related to dietary requirements?

Why? I'm not being contentious. Perhaps this is my lack of education of genetics or biology, but to me it's not obvious that the ability to mate means that animals have the same dietary requirements - in terms of what's best.

And thank you for your continued interest!

The reference about inter-species mating was just to help support the idea that big cats and little cats are related enough to have the same dietary requirements, not to imply that there was a direct relationship between the two concepts.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any obligate carnivores that require a species-specific diet. I could certainly be wrong, but I've been reading about wild animals all my life ('though at a MUCH more casual level than lately, to be sure!

); if there is one, I've got to think it's the exception rather than the rule.

Originally Posted by LDG

This I know. Cats are incredibly adapatable animals, and their diet around the world is quite varied. First and foremost, they are opportunistic. But one thing is common - small prey. Small prey has less fat as % of body weight.

Very opportunistic, indeed. I've read that the Jaguar is known to eat over 85 different animals; everything from mice up to cattle and caiman. TheJaguar.org; The Jaguar, Ecology, Diet: "The jaguar is an opportunistic hunter, feeding on the most abundant species in its ecosystem. In some regions of Brazil, jaguars feed mainly on large mammals such as peccaries, capybara, and tapirs. In other regions, the jaguar mainly feeds on reptiles such as turtles and caiman. In areas where the jaguar lives next to ranches, cattle can be a main part of the jaguar's diet."

And there are records on file describing the African black-footed cat, one of the smallest cat species - only 4 lbs! - killing sheep and goats by fastening onto the neck and hanging on until the jugular vein is pierced. (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). This cat, the African black-footed cat, is in our domestic cats' lineage. (Johnson et al. 2006).

About the fat percentages in little prey animals and big prey animals *smile*... I used the Protein / Fat / Ash chart on this page - Nutrient Composition of Whole Vertebrate Prey (excluding fish) - to calculate both the fat percentages of all the animals too big for a domestic kitty to catch and all those small enough for him to catch. The former average is 21.81% fat, while the later is 19.94% fat. At less than 2%, I think that's a statistically insignificant difference.

For these two reasons, I don't think specific protein sources (as long as they are varied) are important.

Do you follow me?

Originally Posted by LDG

My brain isn't working well, but I think this could be accounted for on the basis of the lack of additives. While some have been raw feeding for a "long time," I think overall there isn't much long term data, even anecdotal. Could be the lack of grains that's of benefit short-and-intermediate term. What is incidence of pancreatitis? Again - I'm not well versed on health vs diet issues.

...

I agree with you, Laurie, that the lack of additives in a raw food diet is one of the reasons it's so much healthier than commercial food. I also believe that this food, presented in it's natural state (or very close to it) also has far more nutrients in it than we've yet identified, never mind identified as important to the cat - and, since they haven't been identified, they haven't been added back into commercial products (in fact, it's illegal for a pet food company to do so until it's been approved by some agency or group of agencies).

Take Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), for example. This is a paragraph from "Your Cat's Nutritional Needs: The Basics", written by Kymythy R. Schultze, C.N. and published on Feline-Nutrition.org last year:

"To sum up, LA; AA; DHA (which is mostly found in nature with other useful omega-3s); and to a lesser extent, EPA and GLA, can be considered important fatty acids for good feline health. CLA may become recognized as a bigger player in feline nutrition in the future because it's found in the meat and fat of a cat's natural diet, but it has only recently been "discovered" by nutritional science." (Underlining is mine.)

This nutrient is found naturally in meat, but we've only just begun to realize it's importance to a cat's health and it is not yet an ingredient in commercial cat foods or supplements. Unless someone is feeding their cat raw foods, their little fur-child is deficient in CLA.

You've got to wonder how many more nutrients commercial-fed cats are missing simply because we don't know about them...

- - - - - - - - - -

There are folks who think cooking their cats foods are the right way to go. I think it's crazy (personal opinion) because they're destroying the very things that make raw feeding so darn healthy. After which, they supplement with some variety of ingredients (many plant-based or synthetic) and hope that it's enough to replace what was lost in the cooking. To my mind, that's simply repeating the same mistakes the pet food companies are making, with higher quality initial ingredients and a bit less processing.

Hope you find this interesting! It's been a long time since I've discussed this topic to this level and I don't mind admitting - I've had to review my archives pretty deeply to locate some of the references I used to know right off the top of my head.

Best regards, Laurie! Give Lazlo a hug for me?

AC

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

There are folks who think cooking their cats foods are the right way to go. I think it's crazy (personal opinion) because they're destroying the very things that make raw feeding so darn healthy. After which, they supplement with some variety of ingredients (many plant-based or synthetic) and hope that it's enough to replace what was lost in the cooking. To my mind, that's simply repeating the same mistakes the pet food companies are making, with higher quality initial ingredients and a bit less processing.

I think most people would agree that deriving nutrients from a natural source (food) is better than getting them from some sort of supplement. And cooking certainly destroys *some* nutrients. But cooked food is far from devoid of nutritional value. For some nutrients the amount destroyed may not even matter. There may still be enough left that the benefit of deriving the nutrient from a natural source remains intact. Even if it is necessary to provide some nutrients in a less natural way I would think that amount would be far less than what would be necessary with a processed diet.

Using a cooked recipe might go a long way towards alleviating the "bacteria distress" a lot of people feel with the thought of feeding a homemade diet to their pet. It might also be a safe way for someone to feed a quality homemade diet to an immune compromised animal.

We place a lot of value to anecdotal evidence of the benefits of raw feeding. Given that there is also significant ancedotal evidence of a cooked diet being as beneficial as a raw one I think a cooked diet is worthy of at least some consideration.

I doubt many people would actually be willing to cook for their pets though. Most people think raw is too much trouble. Cooking would add even more to the bother!

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by mschauer

I think most people would agree that deriving nutrients from a natural source (food) is better than getting them from some sort of supplement. And cooking certainly destroys *some* nutrients. But cooked food is far from devoid of nutritional value. For some nutrients the amount destroyed may not even matter. There may still be enough left that the benefit of deriving the nutrient from a natural source remains intact. Even if it is necessary to provide some nutrients in a less natural way I would think that amount would be far less than what would be necessary with a processed diet.

The thing is, nutrients are, by and large, delicate; especially those critically important amino acids. It doesn't take much to degrade many of them; some are even affected by light and air. There's a chart listing just 12 nutrients and their sensitivities on page 12 (as labeled) of this USDA guide, "Handling Frozen/ Thawed Meat and Prey Items Fed to Captive Exotic Animals". Many of these nutrients would be at least degraded by cooking the food.

And how many are out there that we are as yet unaware and therefore, can't supplement back in if cooking does degrade or destroy them?

Cats have a really specialized physiology and need many nutrients provided to them in a specific form, as they can't synthesize their own (like dogs and people); taurine is just one example. Mschauer, I'm not sure how deep into feline nutrition you'd like to get, but just in case you'd be interested, here is an essay written by Debra Zoran and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association titled, "The Carnivore Connection to Nutrition in Cats". It goes into great depth about things like enzymatic pathways and specific amino acids and their functions.

I would agree that providing a well-supplemented home-cooked menu has the potential to be healthier than feeding commercially-processed products, but I don't think it's optimal, and it leaves a lot of room for error.

Originally Posted by mschauer

Using a cooked recipe might go a long way towards alleviating the "bacteria distress" a lot of people feel with the thought of feeding a homemade diet to their pet. It might also be a safe way for someone to feed a quality homemade diet to an immune compromised animal.

To the first part of your comment, I don't believe a person's fears ought to dictate what's fed, especially when it's likely what's fed isn't as complete as they want to believe it is. Just my opinion.

I think I agree with your last sentence. At the very least, the cat will be eating something with a nutrient profile as good or better than commercial foods provide (if the diet is well supplemented) and will certainly be eating it in a more bio-available form. No denying a simple cooking is less damaging than the kind of "melt it down to a slurry" processing the pet food companies indulge in!

I would tend to think that searing the outside of the food would be sufficient, rather than cooking it all the way through... and also perhaps that immune-compromised kitties should be addressed on a case-by-case basis and have their feeding regimen customized for their current level of health.

Originally Posted by mschauer

We place a lot of value to anecdotal evidence of the benefits of raw feeding. Given that there is also significant ancedotal evidence of a cooked diet being as beneficial as a raw one I think a cooked diet is worthy of at least some consideration.

Is there? I didn't know that. If you don't mind, Mschauer, could you point me to your references? Are there sites like CatInfo.org or Feline-Nutrition.org that support cooking? Or IBD- or UTI- support sites that suggest cooking instead of raw?

Interesting. I don't believe cooking provides - given what we know, is even CAPABLE of providing - as healthy a nutrient profile as raw feeding, but I don't mind studying the evidence that supports it.

Originally Posted by mschauer

I doubt many people would actually be willing to cook for their pets though. Most people think raw is too much trouble. Cooking would add even more to the bother!

Totally and completely 100% agree!

AC

 

[mschauer]

The thing is, nutrients are, by and large, delicate; ... Many of these nutrients would be at least degraded by cooking the food.

I acknowledged that.

And how many are out there that we are as yet unaware and therefore, can't supplement back in if cooking does degrade or destroy them?

If you accept that there might be nutrients we dont know about in whole prey (a cats presumed "natural diet") that might be destroyed in cooking then you also have to accept that those unknown nutrients might be missing from the raw diet as fed by most raw feeders since they don't feed whole prey, just select pieces. The "unknown" nutients may exist in high concentrations in the bits raw feeders almost never feed, brains, thymus, pancreas, etc.

Cats have a really specialized physiology and need many nutrients provided to them in a specific form, as they can't synthesize their own (like dogs and people); taurine is just one example. Mschauer, I'm not sure how deep into feline nutrition you'd like to get, but just in case you'd be interested, here is an essay written by Debra Zoran and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association titled, "The Carnivore Connection to Nutrition in Cats". It goes into great depth about things like enzymatic pathways and specific amino acids and their functions.

I doubt you can come up with a raw feeding reference I haven't already read. The one you cite above I first read years ago. But I think I might read such things with a bit more of a critical eye than you do.

I would agree that providing a well-supplemented home-cooked menu has the potential to be healthier than feeding commercially-processed products, but I don't think it's optimal,

I wasn't suggesting it was "optimal". I was suggesting it as a viable alternative for people who can't accept the safety of raw.

and it leaves a lot of room for error.

Arguably, so does raw feeding the way most raw feeders do it.

We place a lot of value to anecdotal evidence of the benefits of raw feeding. Given that there is also significant ancedotal evidence of a cooked diet being as beneficial as a raw one I think a cooked diet is worthy of at least some consideration.

Is there? I didn't know that. If you don't mind, Mschauer, could you point me to your references?

Here is a quote from Dr. Jean Hofve, DVM from a link you yourself reference often:

http://www.littlebigcat.com/nutritio...cats-and-dogs/

"Meat may be fed cooked or raw. Meat amounts are given in raw weight. (While many holistic veterinarians recommend feeding raw meat, there are potential risks to your companion animalâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s health from bacterially contaminated meat. "

Here is a book endorsing cooked diets with success stories sprinkled throughout. It also contains an endorsment by Dr. Richard Pitcairn (one of the raw feeding gurus):

The Whole Pet Diet Andi Brown

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by mschauer

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

...
Is there? I didn't know that. If you don't mind, Mschauer, could you point me to your references? Are there sites like CatInfo.org or Feline-Nutrition.org that support cooking? Or IBD- or UTI- support sites that suggest cooking instead of raw?
...
AC

....
Here is a quote from Dr. Jean Hofve, DVM from a link you yourself reference often:

http://www.littlebigcat.com/nutritio...cats-and-dogs/

"Meat may be fed cooked or raw. Meat amounts are given in raw weight. (While many holistic veterinarians recommend feeding raw meat, there are potential risks to your companion animalâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s health from bacterially contaminated meat. "

Here is a book endorsing cooked diets with success stories sprinkled throughout. It also contains an endorsment by Dr. Richard Pitcairn (one of the raw feeding gurus):

The Whole Pet Diet Andi Brown

Thank you for responding.

AC

 

[ldg]

OK, I've been doing a LOT of research.

Getting back to some of the points, I have found some interesting information.

First, to the idea that our domestic cat has adpated to eating our (cooked) scraps...

Originally Posted by mschauer

Well, I don't think we can say with any certainty how much if any access cats had to cooked food thousands of years ago. I know that throughout much of human history only the privileged few didn't live their entire lives on the verge of starvation. Seems to me people living like that might make darn sure that they ate anything they cooked and *might* give the animals any "yucky" parts, uncooked, that they didn't consider eatable. Or maybe not. My point is can we really say for sure that we know how much if any cooked food cats have had access to so long ago? Seems to me it is pointless to even speculate about it. We just can't know.

And you're right, we can't know. The only information I've been able to find is the work of Driscoll et al. 2007, "The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication," Science 317: 519-523. The article is about the genetics of domestic cats. As AC pointed out, there is very little genetic difference between our domestic cats and their ancestor, the African Wildcat. The discussion of the research, as published in National Geographic ( The Evolution of House Cats (PDF) ) makes reference to the physiological differences between domestic cats and their ancestors:

"The wide range of sizes, shapes and temperaments seen in dogs-consider the Chihuahua and Great Dane-is absent in cats. Felines show much less variety because, unlike dogs-which starting in prehistoric times were bred for such tasks as guarding, hunting and herding-wildcats were under no such selective breeding pressure. To enter our homes, they had only to evolve a people-friendly disposition.

"So are today's cats truly domesticated? Well, yes-but perhaps only just. Although they satisfy the criterion of tolerating people, most domestic cats are feral and do not rely on people to feed them or find them mates. And whereas other domesticates, like dogs, look quite distinct from their wild ancestors, the average domestic cat largely retains the wild body plan. It does exhibit a few morphological differences, however - namely, slightly shorter legs, a smaller brain, and, as Charles Darwin noted, a longer intestine, which may have been an adaptation to scavenging kitchen scraps."

So while clearly not definitive, it would seem that our domstic cats have evolved to adapt to a change in diet from the entirely prey-based diet of their forebears.

 

[ldg]

Now, on to other issues.

In researching the the idea that not all proteins are created equal, (e.g. is a diet of beef, venison, chicken, duck, etc. as good for cats vs. what they would naturally hunt, those prey items being lower fat naturally) I did wind up finding some very interesting information on the cooked vs. raw issue (although it wasn't what I was searching for at the time.

).

The bottom line is that there is a LOT more research that needs to be done. (Yeah, that's news LOL!) There is also conflicting information, based on what or how the issue is studied.

The only "definitive" in the cooked vs. raw debate (and not specifically as it relates to cats) is that nutrients/energy in starches and most plant-based proteins are more available if cooked.

And while there does appear to be some question on the work done on the impact of cooking on enzymes, even if we accept that enzymes are destroyed in animal protein when cooked, initial research into "cooked vs raw" in meat indicates that the process of cooking functions as a form of "pre-digesting," increasing the energy available in the protein (meaning the loss of enzymes is not critical to the use of the protein).

Certainly, some amino acids are affected by light, oxidation, and temperature. But this appears to be more the exception than the norm, taurine and B12 being the most sensitive.

For those interested in the topic, the references are:

Easy start at BBC News: Did the discovery of cooking make us human?

The study referenced in the news story:

Boback et. al 2007, "Cooking and grinding reduces the cost of meat digestion," Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2007 Nov; 148(3):651-656. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17827047)

Abstract

The cooking of food is hypothesized to have played a major role in human evolution partly by providing an increase in net energy gain. For meat, cooking compromises the structural integrity of the tissue by gelatinizing the collagen. Hence, cooked meat should take less effort to digest compared to raw meat. Likewise, less energy would be expended digesting ground meat compared to intact meat. We tested these hypotheses by assessing how the cooking and/or grinding of meat influences the energy expended on its digestion, absorption, and assimilation (i.e., specific dynamic action, SDA) using the Burmese python, Python molurus. Pythons were fed one of four experimental diets each weighing 25% of the snake's body mass: intact raw beef, intact cooked beef, ground raw beef, and ground cooked beef. We measured oxygen consumption rates of snakes prior to and up to 14 days following feeding and calculated SDA from the extra oxygen consumed above standard metabolic rate. Postprandial peak in oxygen consumption, the scope of peak rates, and SDA varied significantly among meal treatments. Pythons digesting raw or intact meals exhibited significantly larger postprandial metabolic responses than snakes digesting the cooked ground meals. We found cooking to decrease SDA by 12.7%, grinding to decrease SDA by 12.4%, and the combination of the two (cooking and grinding) to have an additive effect, decreasing SDA by 23.4%. These results support the hypothesis that the consumption of cooked meat provides an energetic benefit over the consumption of raw meat.

Of course, this only addresses the energetic aspects of cooked meat. But it's a start.

For more information and details, there is a study published by several Harvard professors (and available online).

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/Carm...okingHumEv.pdf

Carmody and Wrangham 2009. "The energetic significance of cooking," Jour Human Evol 57: 379-391.

Abstract

While cooking has long been argued to improve the diet, the nature of the improvement has not been well defined. As a result, the evolutionary significance of cooking has variously been proposed as being substantial or relatively trivial. In this paper, we evaluate the hypothesis that an important and consistent effect of cooking food is a rise in its net energy value. The pathways by which cooking influences net energy value differ for starch, protein, and lipid, and we therefore consider plant and animal foods separately. Evidence of compromised physiological performance among individuals on raw diets supports the hypothesis that cooked diets tend to provide energy. Mechanisms contributing to energy being gained from cooking include increased digestibility of starch and protein, reduced costs of digestion for cooked versus raw meat, and reduced energetic costs of detoxification and defence against pathogens. If cooking consistently improves the energetic value of foods through such mechanisms, its evolutionary impact depends partly on the relative energetic benefits of non-thermal processing methods used prior to cooking. We suggest that if non-thermal processing methods such as pounding were used by Lower Palaeolithic Homo, they likely provided an important increase in energy gain over unprocessed raw diets. However, cooking has critical effects not easily achievable by non-thermal processing, including the relatively complete gelatinisation of starch, efficient denaturing of proteins, and killing of food borne pathogens. This means that however sophisticated the non-thermal processing methods were, cooking would have conferred incremental energetic benefits. While much remains to be discovered, we conclude that the adoption of cooking would have led to an important rise in energy availability. For this reason, we predict that cooking had substantial evolutionary significance. Italics my emphasis.

The paper is an excellent review piece, with tables that cover the literature on proposed consequences of cooking, calories per gram of dry matter for selected meats (raw and cooked), and comparison tables of the annual energetic cost of foodborne illness from meat given cooking vs. consumption of raw meat (applicable to humans, but with relevence to pets, given the commercial nature of the meat processing industry and the fact that dogs and cats may be more resistant to illness by ingested bacteria and parasites, they certainly can and do get sick from them).

Finally, for those interested in the topic, this is a more thorough discussion of the impact of cooking on numerous vitamins and minerals. It is not a piece published in a scientific peer-review journal, but it is very well researched and referenced:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-2h.shtml

"Does cooking render minerals "inorganic" or less assimilable?"

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, the primary conclusions of relevence to this discussion are:

"Considering trade-offs rather than spurious black-and-white divisions. We see from the many considerations above that there is no clear-cut conclusion that can be stated with confidence about the question of raw vs. cooked foods as a whole. However, if we break the question down into simpler aspects, there are several general observations that can be made. First, the two major overarching considerations are:

Amount of nutrients in a food (the potential "benefit"). First, virtually all foods contain more nutrients in the raw state. On the other hand, the differences are not very great: ranging from approximately 10-25% in the case of most vitamins, while the difference is negligible (almost zero) with respect to minerals.

"Cost" to obtain the nutrients. However, there are also digestibility, antinutrients/toxicity, and bioavailability to take into consideration when assessing how many nutrients can actually be assimiliated from a particular food. Cooking can affect these considerations positively or negatively, depending on the circumstance.

"Net value" of a food depends on assessing the cost/benefit trade-offs. Putting the two above points together means that one must consider the cost/benefit trade-offs--that is, the nutrients present vs. the "cost" to get them--the latter determined by both absorbability and antinutrient concerns."

 

[mschauer]

My added bold:

Originally Posted by LDG

... And whereas other domesticates, like dogs, look quite distinct from their wild ancestors, the average domestic cat largely retains the wild body plan. It does exhibit a few morphological differences, however - namely, slightly shorter legs, a smaller brain, and, as Charles Darwin noted, a longer intestine, which may have been an adaptation to scavenging kitchen scraps."

So while clearly not definitive, it would seem that our domstic cats have evolved to adapt to a change in diet from the entirely prey-based diet of their forebears.

Just because Charles Darwin said a longer intestine *may* have been an adaption to scavening kitchen scraps???

Well, all I can say is that I don't find that a terribly convincing argument.

 

[ldg]

Like I said, not definitive.

Just putting the information out there. Personally, I don't find the fact that their intestines are longer of NO significance.

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by LDG

Like I said, not definitive.

Just putting the information out there. Personally, I don't find the fact that their intestines are longer of NO significance.

Sure, all facts are significant with regards to something.