Best diet for cats?

[ducman69]

How many cats died from the Chinese pet food contamination a few years back mschauer? If you can't produce factual government or industry statistics, which you cannot as they are not kept as pointed out, then clearly you are lying if you say many cats became very ill and were put down because of it. A google search and listening to the stories of pet owners would prove otherwise though, even if exact numbers are not known. At the very least the fact remains of the emergency recall and the dangers expressed by the FDA warning the public, just as they have done in the emergency salmonella recalls. How DO you explain why these recalls exist and why so much food is thrown away when salmonella is found, and why do you think the FDA is lying when they warn of the dangers to people and pets exposed?

I did not mean to insult the sensibilities of passionate raw-food advocates in expressing a balanced viewpoint:

Originally Posted by Ducman69

The American, Canadian, and British Veterinary Association's official position is that the benefits of raw feeding have not been scientifically proven and there is a higher risk of salmonella exposure to humans in preparation and via their stools: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

The US government has stated that a significant portion of poultry is contaminated with salmonella, and while this is destroyed in the process of cooking, cats and dogs are exposed to it when fed raw: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/dining/08well.html

However, the Veterinarian Associations are heavily lobbied by the pet food industry, who sponsors their limited nutritional training. Raw food diets are difficult to commercialize, and so there is concern of bias.

Proponents claim that a raw diet is most closely related to the natural prey diet the cats and dogs evolved to live on, it does not suffer from nutrient loss that is unavoidable in food processing, and that tendons and bones are beneficial for dental health. I have not seen scientific studies to support this, but it is logical, and there have been studies that demonstrate that exclusive commercial wet diets contribute to dental disease. Raw feeding has also gained popularity as the public has lost faith in the safety of commercial processed food, with numerous recalls that have resulted in the deaths of cats and dogs.

There is consensus IMO about the below concerns:
1) Cross contamination: you are handling raw meat on a regular basis, so make a consistent habit of washing hands/utensils/cutting boards appropriately.

2) Complete diet: you are responsible for ensuring that your cat has a balanced diet. this means researching the proper amount of heart/liver/meat (including proper types)/etc to feed to ensure all nutritional needs are met.

3) Proper preparation: grinding the meat and exposing it to the air can destroy the taurine necessary in the cat's diet. Heating the meat is also not an option for the same reason, plus cooked bones are a health hazard since they are more prone to shatter.

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

How many cats died from the Chinese pet food contamination a few years back mschauer? If you can't produce factual government or industry statistics, which you cannot as they are not kept as pointed out, then clearly you are lying if you say many cats became very ill and were put down because of it. A google search and listening to the stories of pet owners would prove otherwise though, even if exact numbers are not known. At the very least the fact remains of the emergency recall and the dangers expressed by the FDA warning the public, just as they have done in the emergency salmonella recalls. How DO you explain why these recalls exist and why so much food is thrown away when salmonella is found, and why do you think the FDA is lying when they warn of the dangers to people and pets exposed?

You know, everybody makes mistakes when they post. They say things they believe to be true sometimes without even realizing that they have no reason to believe it.

The difference with you is that you #1 won't admit when you make a mistake and #2 you habitually ridicule and taunt others when they make a mistake. If it weren't for #2 I'd be willing to overlook #1.

 

[amberthe bobcat]

To answer the original posters question. The best diet for your cat, if you are willing and able to do it, is a whole prey all raw diet. There are many places where you can order whole prey online, if you desire to go this route. You can get rabbit, mice, rats, chics etc. I do not feed a raw diet to my domestics, but they do get it as a treat. My wildcats get nothing but an all raw meat diet. I do at times, give them whole prey and they will even get their own, when an animal that is small enough, manages to get into their enclosure or some larger animal happens to get to close to the enlcosure and well, I won't go into details. My wildcats get all raw meat with bone, that is supplemented with a vitamin made for wildcats. This same supplement can be given to domestic cats as well. Feeding a raw meat diet, you will find that your cats will have very few, if any, dental issues as well as very minor issues with hair balls. In fact, rarely do I ever have an issue with hair balls with my wildcats

If you feed whole prey, there is nothing else you need to do. No vitamin supplements would be required, since it is whole prey.

 

[ldg]

IMO, there are risks and benefits to ANY diet. Salmonella happens to be a real risk whether feeding dry, wet, or raw. When feeding raw you can reduce the risk by purchasing – as John points out – whole prey. But the processing of even raw meat and organs, whether organic grass fed or steroid and grain fed, and whether ultimately sold at a health food store or in a supermarket, presents a risk, just as commercially prepared dry or wet foods do.

I also believe that to say

Originally Posted by Minka

I don't agree with this.

Fresh meat from the wild, if anything, would be more prone to bacteria. Small birds like pigeons carry so many diseases it's not even funny. Rats and mice are also well-known for carrying diseases. But cats manage. Like Auntie said, their digestive tracts are short and their stomach acids strong, so you really do not have to worry about them catching anything.

is completely irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is that cats are susceptible to enteric bacterial and parasitic infection. Cats can be carriers, presenting zoonotic risk, and/or can become ill - ranging from mildly ill to dying - from many types of enteric infection.

According to the University of Wisconsin Veterinary Medical School, cats are more often “subclinical carriers” of salmonella, but they definitely can become ill from it. Further, salmonella can be isolated from cats at rates of up to 18%. Hardly “no worry.” http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/pbs/zoono...almonella.html

I did find reference to cats being considered to have a high immunity to Salmonella infection “under normal circumstances.” It was in an MS Thesis written in 2003, “Prevalence of Salmonella sp. in domestic cats in an animal shelter and the comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction techniques as diagnostic tools,” by Melinda Lee. http://txspace.di.tamu.edu/bitstream...ence=1mjkkkkkk The citations were both Timoney. 1976, “Feline Salmonellosis,” Vet. Clinics of N. Am. 6:395:398, and Timoney et al. 1978, “Feline Salmonellosis – A nosocomial outbreak and experimental studies,” Cornell Vet. 68:211-219.

I found no scientific literature supporting the claim that the stomach enzymes and short intestinal tracts of dogs and cats enable them to bear a bacterial load that would be harmful to humans. Or that the stomach enzymes and short intestinal tracts of dogs and cats helps prevent bacterial infection. It is found in a lot of discussions of raw proponents, but I haven’t found anything to support the claim yet.

I did find that 16.3% of all chickens in the U.S. were found to be contaminated with Salmonella in 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/dining/08well.html

As to whether a raw diet is better than a commercially prepared diet (of course, there are now commercially prepared raw diets available), there are few actual studies on the subject. The one I found was conducted by School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis in May 2002. They compared a diet of whole prey (rabbit) to “a premium brand of commercial cat food that had been tested for its ability to sustain normal growth in normal kittens.” The purpose of the study was to investigate food/nutrition in the role of inflammatory bowel disease. The study found, “although it appeared that the raw rabbit diet was significantly beneficial for the stool quality and appearance of health [edited by me to add - appearance of health meaning coat quality] in the cats, the sudden and rapidly fatal illness of one of the cats that were fed the raw rabbit diet for 10 months was chilling and unexpected. The affected cat was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy due to a severe taurine deficiency. Moreover, 70% of the remaining raw rabbit diet fed cts, which appeared outwardly healthy, also had heart muscle changes compatible with taurine deficiency and could have developed heart failure if continued on our raw rabbit diet. For the remaining three months of the study, the raw rabbit diet was supplemented with taurine and taurine levels returned to normal.” So taurine supplementation, at a minimum, is a good idea when feeding a raw diet.

The conclusion of the study?

The cats readily consumed both diets, but the palatability of the raw rabbit was noticeably greater; the cats ate it more rapidly and aggressively. After one week in the study, the cats on the rabbit diet all had significant improvements in their stool quality based on a visual stool grading system (developed by the Nestle-Purina PetCare Company). After one month, the cats on the rabbit diet all had formed hard stools, while the commercial diet cats had soft formed to liquid stools. These differences persisted to the end of the feeding trial. The cats that were fed the whole rabbit diet outwardly appeared to have better quality coats, but objective measurements were not made. Interestingly, we could find no relationship between the type of diet consumed and: 1) the rate of growth, 2) degree of inflammation in the tissue lining the intestinal tract, or 3) the numbers of bacteria in the upper small intestine. The numbers of cats shedding pathogenic type organisms (Giardia and Cryptosporidia species) were on average slightly higher for the cats that were fed the raw diet. Therefore, it appeared that the raw rabbit diet did not have its beneficial effects on stool quality by reducing pathogenic organisms in the intestine, altering the numbers of bacteria in the small intestine or by diminishing the levels of inflammatory changes in the intestinal wall.

Bold, my emphasis.

Here is a link to the study: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ccah/l...th_Glasgow.pdf

The bottom line is that it’s not just about dry, wet, or raw… just as the discussion about WHAT dry or wet is “best,” within raw foods that discussion exists.

What the animal of what is going to become your cat’s food was fed makes a difference. In the wild, cats eat rabbits that were grazing on greens, not fed grains or pellets or something. So eating pellet-fed rabbit, your cat may fall short on necessary omegas. Same with grain fed beef. But of course, in the wild, cats don't hunt cows or sheep or deer, and don't eat beef, lamb, or venison. Or if you grind your food, your cat may become taurine deficient, because the taurine is destroyed by oxidation so quickly.

Raw may well be superior to commercially prepared dry or canned foods. I don’t know, I haven’t fed my cats raw. I did see their overall energy and appearance improve when I switched them to an all wet diet. Perhaps the same thing would happen if I switched them to raw. I live in an RV and have 8 cats, so the lack of freezer space itself makes this an impractical diet even if I wanted to try it. But I’ve not seen actual research that indicates that over the life of a cat, they’re actually healthier on a raw diet than on a commercially prepared wet or dry diet.

Common sense dictates that as humans are healthier the less processed the food they eat is, the same would likely be true for our animals. The fewer colorings, preservatives, and unnecessary additives, the likely higher quality of life in one's later years.

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by LDG

As to whether a raw diet is better than a commercially prepared diet (of course, there are now commercially prepared raw diets available), there are few actual studies on the subject. The one I found was conducted by School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis in May 2002. They compared a diet of whole prey (rabbit) to “a premium brand of commercial cat food that had been tested for its ability to sustain normal growth in normal kittens.†The purpose of the study was to investigate food/nutrition in the role of inflammatory bowel disease. The study found, “although it appeared that the raw rabbit diet was significantly beneficial for the stool quality and appearance of health [edited by me to add - appearance of health meaning coat quality] in the cats, the sudden and rapidly fatal illness of one of the cats that were fed the raw rabbit diet for 10 months was chilling and unexpected. The affected cat was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy due to a severe taurine deficiency. Moreover, 70% of the remaining raw rabbit diet fed cts, which appeared outwardly healthy, also had heart muscle changes compatible with taurine deficiency and could have developed heart failure if continued on our raw rabbit diet. For the remaining three months of the study, the raw rabbit diet was supplemented with taurine and taurine levels returned to normal.†So taurine supplementation, at a minimum, is a good idea when feeding a raw diet.

I think it's great that you wanted to put so much effort into your response, but it is already well known that if a rabbit only raw diet is fed, there will be taurine deficiencies. Therefor, I do not think this study is qualified to show whether raw has more redeeming qualities than a commercial diet. If a study has been done showing a complete raw diet vs commercial, then that would be great to bring up.

 

[ducman69]

Minka, as I understood the study, the warning was that "raw is not raw" anymore than "dry is dry" or "wet is wet". Airplanes are generally faster, but a Japanese bullet train sure as heck will get to its destination quicker than our Fairchild 24, heh! A poor quality or improperly balanced or prepared raw diet, can be not only unhealthy, but in fact fatal. Unlike commercial diets that have to meet AAFCO nutrition guidelines to be considered "complete" in both macro and micro-nutrients for growth and maintenance life stages respectively, self-prepared raw requires the preparer to be well educated in feline nutrition and safe food handling practices, which is important for people to be aware of. Hopefully we'll see more commercial raw food hit mainstream.

Originally Posted by LDG

The bottom line is that it’s not just about dry, wet, or raw… just as the discussion about WHAT dry or wet is “best,” within raw foods that discussion exists.

Very well said, an often overlooked fact where many get so hung up on type X, Y, and Z food that they forget that really each type should have a sub a,b,c,d,f grade as well for quality, to where even if you prefer Y over X, an Xa diet can be far more healthy than a poor quality Yf one... ew, that sounds like math now!

 

[ldg]

Minka, I completely fail to understand your point.

The question was what diet is best for cats. The OP is apparently new to the discussion of cat nutrition and requirements. It is important in any discussion of such things to note that a raw or home-created diet of some kind runs the risk of taurine deficiency.

The study merely illustrates that with a raw diet there is a risk of taurine deficiency. If you want to attribute that to the fact that they were feeding just one source of protein, fine. But it doesn't diminish the fact that there are nutritional considerations that need to be taken into account when feeding raw, and one of the most important is taurine. ESPECIALLY as there may be absolutely no indication there's a problem until your cat is dead.

Some here are proponents that raw diets are the best diet for cats. The idea that they are safe and that people feeding a raw diet to their cats need not worry about bacterial infection was put forward. I addressed that. If you choose to feed raw and not supplement in any way, that is your choice. The point of my post, as you may have noticed, was to point out that there are benefits and risks to ANY diet. One of the risks of a raw diet is taurine deficiency. You really want to argue this? And salmonella is a consideration, not something one shouldn't worry about.

I'm not arguing for one diet over another. I pointed out problems with some of the information presented.

 

[sweetpea24]

I'm sorry but I cannot agree that a raw diet will provide a taurine deficiency. If the diet is fed properly, i.e. the correct balance of muscle, organ, bone and meat, then there is no deficiency. So all the lions, tigers and jaguars of the world are taurine deficient? The problem with raw or homecooked diets is that you have to be careful to make it complete and balanced. Canned and kibble makes it much easier for us humans.

As for feeding a combination of wet and dry - this is fine if feeding all wet is not in your budget but in my opinion, there is no reason to feed a cat dry. I'm not saying it's poison and if your cat refuses to eat anything else, fine. But canned food is ideal, other than raw, for cats as it provides the essential moisture and digestibility a cat needs. Dry food is maybe 10 % moisture and even if your cat drinks, it will not compensate for the lack of moisture in dry food. If your cat is an outdoor cat then the mice and rats he eats will be sufficient to keep him going. Or, you can feed him more of the wet food to maintain the energy he needs to be outdoors.

If you must feed a dry food, then choose a good one. One with meat, no fillers, especially corn, soy and wheat. Many of the premium dry foods now contain herbs, fruits and veggies which are not necessary but in reality, anything after salt in the ingredients is minimal. For example, if it says blueberries after salt, there is probably one blueberry in the entire bag. Meat should comprise the first five ingredients - keeping in mind that meat has a lot of moisture so the actual amount of meat is skewed.

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

I'm sorry but I cannot agree that a raw diet will provide a taurine deficiency.

I don't see where anyone's said "will."

Originally Posted by LDG

The question was what diet is best for cats. The OP is apparently new to the discussion of cat nutrition and requirements. It is important in any discussion of such things to note that a raw or home-created diet of some kind runs the risk of taurine deficiency.

...

I'm not arguing for one diet over another. I pointed out problems with some of the information presented.

You think we should not mention in discussion of what is best that raw diets can run the risk of taurine deficiency if not properly managed?

 

[minka]

LDG, maybe I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say (Aspergers for ya :/) but I thought you were meaning to say that raw diets weren't any better than anything else/possibly worse because a raw rabbit only diet caused taurine deficiences and lack of improvement in the cats.
Sorry if that's not what you meant. >__<

 

[ldg]

Definitely not what I said.

I'm not advocating any particular diet. In fact, a properly managed raw diet probably is best. Certainly intuitively it's what should be best. I'll never know, because I don't have the means to implement it.

I'm in the camp of "the highest possible quality ingredients that you can afford and your cat will eat" is what's best. I don't have a particular ideology as to what that is.

But inaccurate information was provided (telling people you don't need to worry about salmonella on a raw diet), and people had asked for documented information about risks that had been mentioned as opposed to opinions. I addressed that.

The whole raw rabbit diet was a study. It merely pointed out something the OP may not know, and that is that proper amounts of taurine must be taken into consideration, or your cat could wind up dead. Without doing enough research, someone could provide a whole prey diet - rabbit, mouse, chicks... and wind up with a taurine deficiency by grinding it all up before feeding it to the cat.

That was my point. It's something that needs to be taking into consideration.

 

[auntie crazy]

Raw diets that consist of a single meat source, such as the rabbit study Laurie mentions, are unnatural and will almost always come up deficient in one nutrient or another. Rabbit is comparatively low in taurine and the additional grinding and freezing the food was subjected to in the study reduced those levels further.

Raw diets that consist of multiple meat sources, however, especially if those sources are not subjected to the grinding process, basically can't come up nutrient deficient, since they are, in fact, precisely what the cat evolved to eat.

And salmonella and similar bacterial contaminations really and truly are NOT something a normal, healthy cat isn't equipped by nature to deal with. I'm in the middle of a party and am getting harassed for stepping away, so I will come back tomorrow and post information and sources that will further explain and define this info.

Best regards.

AC

 

[carolina]

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Raw diets that consist of a single meat source, such as the rabbit study Laurie mentions, are unnatural and will almost always come up deficient in one nutrient or another. Rabbit is comparatively low in taurine and the additional grinding and freezing the food was subjected to in the study reduced those levels further. Ok.... Considering that we do not live in the wild, our meats are previously frozen, and most of the raw food is chopped before serving... uh... am I missing something here?

Raw diets that consist of multiple meat sources, however, especially if those sources are not subjected to the grinding process, basically can't come up nutrient deficient, since they are, in fact, precisely what the cat evolved to eat. IMHO yes they can... Cats were evolved to eat that in the wild. But let's not forget we are not in the wild. They ARE being fed dead meat. Traveled, frozen meat. The closest way you can get to "what they evolved to eat" is, IMHO, to release them outside and let them kill and eat their preys. Or, raise live prey and feed them live for them to eat. That is what they evolved to eat. Otherwise, yep, it can become nutrient deficient. Let's remember: We are humans - we are not God. Human-made Raw diet is just that - human made.... In this case humans are involved into developing/mixing a diet, and as such, it is subjected to human error - in a raw diet, specifically speaking, that could very well result in dangerous nutrient deficiencies. It is close to the natural stuff, but we are still imitating nature... And it is not as perfect as nature. Sorry, it is not.

And salmonella and similar bacterial contaminations really and truly are NOT something a normal, healthy cat isn't equipped by nature to deal with. I'm in the middle of a party and am getting harassed for stepping away, so I will come back tomorrow and post information and sources that will further explain and define this info.

Best regards.

AC

...........................................

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

I did not mean to insult the sensibilities of passionate raw-food advocates in expressing a balanced viewpoint:

#1 I'm not an advocate of raw-food.
#2 The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with raw food and has everything to do with you making a false statement and refusing to acknowledge it as false.

 

[sweetpea24]

Originally Posted by LDG

I don't see where anyone's said "will."

I stand corrected. Sorry for my oversight. I should clarify by saying that using only one protein source will lead to some kind of deficiency. My point was that variety is key in a raw diet to ensure that it is complete and balanced. I think it's important to feed a variety of protein sources. No, I didn'tbamke that clear.

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

I stand corrected. Sorry for my oversight. I should clarify by saying that using only one protein source will lead to some kind of deficiency. My point was that variety is key in a raw diet to ensure that it is complete and balanced. I think it's important to feed a variety of protein sources. No, I didn'tbamke that clear.

No problem.

Getting back to the OP's question, what is the best diet for cats...

This comment by Carolina got me thinking:

Originally Posted by Carolina

IMHO yes they can... Cats were evolved to eat that in the wild. But let's not forget we are not in the wild. They ARE being fed dead meat. Traveled, frozen meat. The closest way you can get to "what they evolved to eat" is, IMHO, to release them outside and let them kill and eat their preys. Or, raise live prey and feed them live for them to eat. That is what they evolved to eat.

and I want to revise this statement because of it.

Originally Posted by LDG

I'm not advocating any particular diet. In fact, a properly managed raw diet probably is best. Certainly intuitively it's what should be best.

I do a lot of cat predation and feral cat research. One of the points of the wildlife people is that our pet cats are Domestic Cats. They are not wild cats. And I've never argued this, because they're right. Scientific American did the gene study, and found that our domestic pets are basically all descended from the African Wild Cat... and research published in Science magazine in 2007 found evidence that Domestic Cat domestication began (at least) 10,000 years ago.

The premise of the raw food diet is that it is "natural" for cats to eat raw meat.

Is this really the case? Cats may have domesticated themselves, but it was literally thousands and thousands of years ago. They have hunted mice for us, and they definitely hunt live prey... but they have also eaten man's leftovers for this entire period of time. I don't know if anyone's seen cats at a garbage dump, or cats raiding the garbage can... but cats are not only hunters, they are highly adaptable scavengers. In fact, all of the research I've done on feral cat behavior indicates that cats are first and foremost opportunistic in their eating habits. Cats have been eating our cooked scraps since the dawn of domestication.

So just what is "natural?"

I'd like to revise my statement that an all raw diet is "probably" best, and that intuitively it's what's best. It's what's best for African Wild Cats. I'm not so sure than an all raw diet is what's best for our domestic pets, because I'm not so sure it is what is "natural" after (at least) 10,000 years of living in a symbiotic relationship with humans.

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by LDG

I'm in the camp of "the highest possible quality ingredients that you can afford and your cat will eat" is what's best. I don't have a particular ideology as to what that is.

And I think everyone can agree with that.

Originally Posted by LDG

I'd like to revise my statement that an all raw diet is "probably" best, and that intuitively it's what's best. It's what's best for African Wild Cats. I'm not so sure than an all raw diet is what's best for our domestic pets, because I'm not so sure it is what is "natural" after (at least) 10,000 years of living in a symbiotic relationship with humans.

*nods* Or that one single "best" is even necessary to get the result of a healthy, long-lived, proper weight, and shiny coat cat. "Best" also depends on what factors you include and what weight you as an individual place on them. I love my Corvette for example, and its certainly higher performance than most cars, but its not "best" at getting from point A to point B in every single way, just one of many great options with its own pros and cons. Throw in "cost" and "practicality" as major factors, and a Camry is a heck of a lot better than my Corvette.

BTW, speaking of a possible distinction between indoor domesticated and wild that some of us may be able to relate to, I'm reminded of my SCUBA trips in the poorer remote parts of SE Asia. Some of the American, British, and Japanese guys and gals thought that because the food was perfectly fine for the locals to eat, that it'd be healthy for them too. I TOLD them their pale butts couldn't handle it, and yeah... The kids there grow up subjected to high bacterial loads their whole life and are immune, as a wild cat would be, but you aren't in your pampered protected bubble lifestyle. And there's virtually ZERO genetic difference there, unlike domestic to wildcats, just environmental ones.

 

[mschauer]

My added bold:

Originally Posted by LDG

Is this really the case? Cats may have domesticated themselves, but it was literally thousands and thousands of years ago. They have hunted mice for us, and they definitely hunt live prey... but they have also eaten man's leftovers for this entire period of time. I don't know if anyone's seen cats at a garbage dump, or cats raiding the garbage can... but cats are not only hunters, they are highly adaptable scavengers. In fact, all of the research I've done on feral cat behavior indicates that cats are first and foremost opportunistic in their eating habits. Cats have been eating our cooked scraps since the dawn of domestication.

Are you suggesting that domestic cats have eating cooked food for 10,000 years? If so, that's a mighty big assumption isn't it? The impression I've gotten is that for the majority of recent history (last 100 years or so), in the west at least, that most cats weren't even considered pets. They were kept primarily as mousers and so, of course, lived off of what they could kill. Prior to recent history, how can we know what they ate? I can't say I know either way. It just seems like an assumption to say they have evolved over a long period of time to eat cooked food.

 

[sweetpea24]

You have a point, LDG, as our cats do not need to reproduce quickly to ensure their survival so theoretically, they don't need the levels of protein a raw diet provides. However, I was reading an article in National Geographic about the.evolution of cats (the piece was.about both wild and domestic cats) and it said that over the last 34 million years, cats have not changed much. Their bodies have basically remained the same making them the perfect hunters. The article did not talk about diet other than the prey they hunt.

Whether that's true, I don't know, but being fair to our cats who we've brought into our homes and made them live by our rules, are we not obligated to provide them with activities that evoke their hunting instincts and provide a diet that is optimal? Obviously, not everyone chooses raw and understandably so. But if possible, why not feed them what they are meant to eat? Don't paint me as a 'raw Nazi' but if one can and is willing.to feed it, why not? I'm not saying I'm right, just adding my thoughts.

It's always interesting to discuss nutrition isn't it?

Mind you, my one cat seems to like hunting my hair elastics so who knows?

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

Mind you, my one cat seems to like hunting my hair elastics so who knows?

For some reason, hair bands are a hit with Every cat I've known. I don't really get why. xD

Originally Posted by mschauer

Are you suggesting that domestic cats have eating cooked food for 10,000 years? If so, that's a mighty big assumption isn't it? The impression I've gotten is that for the majority of recent history (last 100 years or so), in the west at least, that most cats weren't even considered pets. They were kept primarily as mousers and so, of course, lived off of what they could kill. Prior to recent history, how can we know what they ate? I can't say I know either way. It just seems like an assumption to say they have evolved over a long period of time to eat cooked food.

I was going to say that something didn't seem quite right about the whole 'cats have been domesticated for so long, what their wild counterparts ate doesn't matter' argument. I was going to say that horses have been domesticated forever, but that doesn't mean we feed them a different diet, but wasn't sure if that would apply so well.

But you are right Mschauer, up until pretty recently (as far as history goes), cats were kept as mousers and not much more. It was only in the 1800s I believe that someone finally realized that a cat fed at home was actually a better mouser than one who went hungry. And I think in starting to feed cats, people became more attached to them like they were with dogs. Just my 2cents anyways.