Best diet for cats?

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
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.
That's a good point, although it would be hard to argue that the cats weren't likely eating some human food waste just as they do today. The Egyptians, where many argue wide-scale cat domestication is likely to have occurred, fed their cats on bread and milk and slices of Nile fish, and certainly considered cats not only pets but family. In addition to finding some wealthy mummified with their cats, a specialized cat tomb was found with approximately eighty thousand cat mummies where the Egyptians laid their loved ones to rest at approximately 2000 BCE.

Here from 1876 was a resident 'cat expert' Gordon Stables:
"If then, only for the sake of making more valuable as a vermin-killer, she ought to have regular and sufficient food. A cat ought to be fed at least twice a day. Let her have a dish to herself, put down to her, and removed when the meal is finished. Experience is the best teacher as regards the quantity of a cat's food, and in quality let it be varied. Oatmeal porridge and milk, or white bread steeped in warm milk, to which a little sugar has been added, are both excellent breakfasts for puss. Remember that too much flesh-meat, especially liver,—which ought only to be given occasionally,—is very apt to induce a troublesome diarrhea."

I don't think modern nutritionists would agree though!
YUCK! But with absolute certainty we can say that domesticated cats being in such close proximity to humans for so long have been exposed to a different diet than wildcats for a very long time.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Originally Posted by Minka

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.
Yeah, the more I think about it while it is certainly possible that some large number prior generations of our current cats did a lot of scrounging of cooked human food, there just doesn't seem to be any way for us to know that for sure.
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by mschauer

My added bold:



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.
You know, the most frustrsting thing about this thread is that people are replying to my posts without apparently having actually read them in their entirety. One sentence or comment gets questioned without the context in which it was made.


In case no one has noticed, I'm not arguing a point. I'm thinking the original question through, weighing information provided, looking up research and dats, and wondering about just what is best as the information and discussion evolves.

Why do cats need to be considered pets to have been fed table scraps or eat garbage?

My grandfather raised sheep and chickens. He didn't have cats, but he had working dogs. They lived in the barn with the sheep. The chicken coop nearest the house got the leftover scraps of fruit tossed into it, and the dogs got the leftovers from the meals.

Were people 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 years ago not capable of caring or empathy? Cats ere demonized by one of the Popes during one of the bubonic plagues... Were the cats of the middle ages not eating our garbage? Did no one love them and toss a scrap of something their way?

I asked a question, and I pointed out something that I do think is very likely the case. Given their nature as opportunistic feeders and scavengers in addition to being hunters, yes, I think it highly likely that unless cats have been living around people eating raw food that they have at a minimum supplemented their hunting with our garbage.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
I did read your entire post and I don't see how my post indicates otherwise. I'm sorry my post upset you. It truly wasn't meant to. I thought to have a discussion with you on your view. If you would rather not that is perfectly OK.


Originally Posted by LDG

You know, the most frustrsting thing about this thread is that people are replying to my posts without apparently having actually read them in their entirety. One sentence or comment gets questioned without the context in which it was made.


In case no one has noticed, I'm not arguing a point. I'm thinking the original question through, weighing information provided, looking up research and dats, and wondering about just what is best as the information and discussion evolves.

Why do cats need to be considered pets to have been fed table scraps or eat garbage?

My grandfather raised sheep and chickens. He didn't have cats, but he had working dogs. They lived in the barn with the sheep. The chicken coop nearest the house got the leftover scraps of fruit tossed into it, and the dogs got the leftovers from the meals.

Were people 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 years ago not capable of caring or empathy? Cats ere demonized by one of the Popes during one of the bubonic plagues... Were the cats of the middle ages not rating our garbage? Did no one love them and toss a scrap of something their way?

I asked a question, and I pointed out something that I do think is very likely the case. Given their nature as opportunistic feeders and scavengers in addition to being hunters, yes, I think it highly likely that unless cats have been living around people eating raw food that they have at a minimum supplemented their hunting with our garbage.
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by mschauer

I did read your entire post and I don't see how my post indicates otherwise. I'm sorry my post upset you. It truly wasn't meant to. I thought to have a discussion with you on your view. If you would rather not that is perfectly OK.
Definitely here for the discussion. I (thought) I was asking questions, and it seemed to me you replied as if I was making definitive statements, but no matter, my misunderstanding.

Minka, just to be clear, I am not sure I'm suggesting that what the wild cat ancestors ate is meaningless. What I'm wondering is how appropriate completely mimicing their diet is. (Not that their diet includes things like raw beef or lamb lol.)

For those wondering about cats not eating cooked food as part of their diet from the dawn of their interaction with humans, can you please elaborate your thinking beyond the point already made about them (not) being pets, as I don't really see what bearing that has. Or feel free to elaborate on that point to make it clearer to me why that matters. Thanks.
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by 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....

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? ...
Well, that's my question.
Are our domesticated cats meant to eat a 100% raw diet?

And even if so, given they've likely at least adapted to eating cooked food (at a minimum supplementing their diet with our garbage and scraps for thousands of years), given the prevalence of salmonella and other bacteria and parasites in our current (in the U.S. at least) commercial meat industry, is raw best?


I mean, now that cats are our pets, and we are feeding them nutritionally complete food, they live well into their teens on average instead of the 3-5 years of wild cats.
Just like with people, the quality of the diet impacts the quality of their "golden years" .... But they reach those "golden years."

 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
When I wrote...

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?
... it was a sincere question. I thought that was what you were saying but was asking for confirmation.

Given your later posts it still seems to me that that is what you are suggesting.
However they are getting the food, being given it by people or by digging in the
garbage, you believe cats have been getting cooked human food for thousands of years and so have adapted to eating it.

Is that not a fair summary?

I'll hold off explaining why I brought pets into the discussion until I get your answer to the above.

BTW, I have recently started questioning whether it is really the "raw" part of a raw diet that is so benefical or if it is really just that a raw diet is fresh? Most people accept that a diet composed of a lot of processed foods isn't what is best for us so why don't people question whether feeding a cat a diet composed *entirely* of processed foods might not be the best for them? I think you, or maybe it was someone else, said much the same thing in a recent post.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Originally Posted by LDG

I mean, now that cats are our pets, and we are feeding them nutritionally complete food, they live well into their teens on average instead of the 3-5 years of wild cats.
Just like with people, the quality of the diet impacts the quality of their "golden years" .... But they reach those "golden years."
I think modern, processed foods, along with other things, have enabled cats to live longer. I also think those foods may have introduced diet related illness at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other does it? Can't it be that processed foods have helped cats in some ways and harmed them in others? Isn't it possible that there might be something better than processed foods despite it's benefits?
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by mschauer

Given your later posts it still seems to me that that is what you are suggesting.
However they are getting the food, being given it by people or by digging in the garbage, you believe cats have been getting cooked human food for thousands of years and so have adapted to eating it.

Is that not a fair summary?

I'll hold off explaining why I brought pets into the discussion until I get your answer to the above.
Yup, that's what I'm wondering.


Originally Posted by mschauer

BTW, I have recently started questioning whether it is really the "raw" part of a raw diet that is so benefical or if it is really just that a raw diet is fresh?
Well, not as processed, anyway.


Originally Posted by mschauer

Most people accept that a diet composed of a lot of processed foods isn't what is best for us so why don't people question whether feeding a cat a diet composed *entirely* of processed foods might not be the best for them? I think you, or maybe it was someone else, said much the same thing in a recent post.
I don't know if it was me, though I just brought that up in the sense of quality of food impacting quality of life. But how processed commercial cat food is depends on the brand, just as it does with people. Of course... there are people who believe people should be eating only raw, non-GMO, organic food (ovo-lacto-vegetarian, of course).


Originally Posted by mschauer

I think modern, processed foods, along with other things, have enabled cats to live longer. I also think those foods may have introduced diet related illness at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other does it?
Nope, and I think it's true for people too.


Originally Posted by mschauer

Can't it be that processed foods have helped cats in some ways and harmed them in others? Isn't it possible that there might be something better than processed foods despite it's benefits?
Of course. But even in today's world, unless you're an organic farmer, as Carolina already pointed out, raw food requires processing, handling, and packaging. It requires being frozen, most likely, and being dead for some time. The government doesn't think it's safe for us to eat unless certain meats have been cooked to certain temperatures. (Cats may be able to handle a bigger bacterial load under normal circumstances than people do, though no one yet has provided actual science to support that claim). But even if cats can handle a bigger bacterial load than people... our salmonella ridden meat is probably not carrying a bacterial load found in nature.


But I get ahead of myself here... I haven't come back around to the place where I'm even sure all raw is best.


I'm definitely not questioning that less processed is healther - for people and our pets.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
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.

As far as raw just not being "as processed" as canned and bagged food we might just have to agree to disagree. I think there is a huge difference between what happens to pet food before it goes into those cans and bags and what happens to the raw food I mix up and freeze. What I feed may bear little resemblance to a mouse but it comes a heck of a lot closer than the stuff in the cans and bags!


I'll just add that the reason I came to believe in the benefits of a raw diet over a processed one is because when I was trying to find a solution to Coco's chronic diarrhea I was struck by how often the "solution" to various cat disorders involved a change in diet and how often the single food that resolved a number of different problems was raw. That made me think that feeding raw might not only be a way to solve Coco's current problem but might also be a way to avoid those other disorders in the future. And in fact, when I adopted Jeta and she turned out to be prone to struvite crystals I was about to "solve" both her problem and Coco's by switching to a single food, raw.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Originally Posted by LDG

(Cats may be able to handle a bigger bacterial load under normal circumstances than people do, though no one yet has provided actual science to support that claim). But even if cats can handle a bigger bacterial load than people... our salmonella ridden meat is probably not carrying a bacterial load found in nature.
True enough. But if you believe raw meat is salmonella ridden wouldn't the fact that my cats that have been eating that raw meat for 4 years be proof positive that cats can handle ingesting at least some level of salmonella without becoming ill? Also consider the dog food recall of a couple of years ago. About 60 people were stricken with salmonella poisoning after having only casual contact with the contaminated food. None of the dogs that actually ate the food got sick. I'm not suggesting that there is not an upper limit of how much salmonella a cat can handle before becoming ill, of course there is. But, I know you know that processed food can be contaminated also. So the question becomes which is more likely, that a cat fed a raw diet will become ill from contamination or that a cat fed a processed diet will? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. I can tell you I feel better knowing that I have at least some control over that risk.
 

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
Just got my first chance to catch back up on this thread - wow, it's really discussing a variety of raw-feeding and feline nutrition/health topics! Love it!

Originally Posted by Ducman69

...

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.
This is a great illustration of how adaptable the human digestive system is. Now think... if we, as omnivores, can adapt to manage high bacterial loads, imagine how much better our obligatorily carnivorous cats - who evolved to eat a diet exclusively of potentially bacterial-laden animals (primarily fresh-killed, but not exclusively so) - can handle them?

And think about this - if humans, who have been modifying our environment and drastically changing what we eat for as long as we've been around, haven't changed from our inherently omnivorous state, it makes sense that cats, who have been eating their natural prey for far longer than they've been eating commercially-prepared food products (or food scraps), haven't changed from their naturally obligatorily carnivorous state.

In fact, I'm not aware of any animal that has changed from one eating classification to another. That would be an interesting "random fact", wouldn't it?


(Another random fact that many don't know, but might find interesting, is that we actually do have minimum estimates of the numbers of cats and dogs affected by the 2007 pet food recall, thanks to the Veterinary Information Network (30,000 - 50,000), and the FDA itself is now admitting that 8,500 alone were killed. We'll never know the totals, but we do have minimums [my Ollie was one of those sad souls].)

As an obligate carnivore, a cat's entire digestive system is set up to process protein from prey animals, and it's an extraordinarily refined and efficient system (think top-of-the-line performance engine). Their digestive tract is acidic, one of the shortest in the animal kingdom per body size, and processes a species-appropriate raw diet in only 12 hours. This gives very little time for bacteria to proliferate, so cats are naturally resistant to food poisoning: U.S. National Research Council Ad Hoc Committee on Dog and Cat Nutrition, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats, 2006, pages 7-10.

I see some folks are mentioning that if we take the raw "argument" to it's logical end, then we should actually be feeding small animals to our cats (as well as insects - I feed crickets once a week - and lizards). I would submit that this is exactly so, and exactly what many raw feeders do feed. Except for insects, not alive, though, because that's unnecessarily cruel to the prey animal, and while we want our cats to be healthy, we also want them to be safe and prey animals can and do fight back.

While feeding various types of whole prey is the "best" diet from a whole-body perspective, it is also the most difficult for the majority of cat owners. Most of the time, kibble and/or canned fed cats don't recognize the little animals sitting in their dishes as any sort of food and while it's definitely possible to help them come to relish this diet, the effort is time-consuming. In addition, many cat owners are actually animal people and feeding one fur-clad "friend" to another is difficult, especially during the transition process when extraordinary measures (don't ask unless you really want to know) are almost always necessary (this is the reason I do not fed whole prey - I tried and simply could not handle what I had to do before all my cats became aware that what I was offering was actually edible). Finally, most people don't have the resources necessary to raise their own cat food, and purchasing whole prey is more expensive than any other diet I've ever seen.

Thankfully, several other ways to feed raw are available. In descending order of value (to the cat), we have Frankenprey diets (which I feed), a variety of home-prepared ground recipes, and commercially-prepared ground products (with it's wide range of nutritional value, as seen in any commercially-prepared food item). This thread Natural Diet Information Resources outlines the definitions and pro and cons of Whole Prey, Frankenprey and ground diets.

Another poster postulated that the diets of the prey animals will impact the health of a cat fed those animals; this is also true. As part of learning about raw feeding methods, cat owners learn that if grain-fed animals or animal products are not available, we must add some type of Omega supplement to the diet, usually in the form of a fish oil (which has to be carefully chosen as these go rancid quickly) or fresh/canned packed-in-water-no-salt-added Sardines (I offer my cats three quarters of a Sardine each once a week.)

This post is way long, so I'll end it here, but I'll be back. (That's not a threat, I promise!
)

AC
 

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
The comment made earlier is that bacteria from a FRESH kill such as a mouse or bird or other small prey that a cat in the wild could take down would be inherently very low bacteria. I don't see any evidence to suggest that domestic cats were ever scavengers that would scare off other animals from large older kills and eat them, as in fact is the case for human predators (its homo-sapiens that were killing far larger prey than themselves and scavenging, not small domestic cats). Hence the analogy between perfectly safe fresh sushi or steak tartare that humans can eat without issue, but you'd have to be a bit loopy to risk that with far less fresh average store bought fish or beef. Point was that a five year old cat that has grown up in a very sterile environment may not be able to cope with salmonella infection as well as a wild cat just as there are differences in what humans can tolerate depending on the environment they grew up in, especially if immune compromised. Ultimately, indoor cats on commercial diets are not unheard of living 20years, but its not common for ferals on their "more natural" diet to live past the age of 5, so the "processed" sterilized food isn't necessarily a bad thing. As mentioned early on "it is not doom and gloom" but a potential risk to be aware of and manage accordingly.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

(Another random fact that many don't know, but might find interesting, is that we actually do have minimum estimates of the numbers of cats and dogs affected by the 2007 pet food recall, thanks to the Veterinary Information Network (30,000 - 50,000), and the FDA itself is now admitting that 8,500 alone were killed.
If you read the article, its the author Mary who makes the statement. The FDA has only ever confirmed fourteen out of the possibly as high as 50,000 cases where animals became so sick or lethargic that they were put down. The FDA WILL however happily warn you about dangers and issue recalls, as they do for salmonella contamination (which according to pets.webMD article on salmonella "more than 23,000 tons of dry dog and cat pet foods from more than 100 different brands were recalled between 2006 and 2008" alone).

In conclusion, no one has ever said that eating raw can't be a very healthy diet, at least not in this thread and quite the contrary. There has certainly been question if grocery bought chicken, pork, beef, and fish (don't think cats were ever hunting those anyway) fed raw is the "best" diet in all possible ways compared to commercial alternatives. Its certainly not foolproof as opening a can or bag that we know is nutritionally complete at least as much as the AAFCO minimum guidelines. My Wellness wet food was recalled earlier this year IIRC for being deficient in one particular mineral, which certainly wouldn't be policed for random people feeding their own hopefully complete diets. Raw is arguably less convenient and potentially more wasteful than making one stop every couple months to pick up food at Petsmart and putting it in a cabinet to feed on demand. Its also I'm sure easily agreed that can/dry exposes lesser risk of salmonella exposure to humans since they aren't very directly handling raw poultry on a daily basis, especially if like myself they let it sit for a couple months before feeding ensuring plenty of time for a recall. Raw is also certainly not as cost effective as some alternatives, especially if you factor in gas costs if you don't live right next to a grocery store. So to say that raw can be a healthy diet is much different than saying that raw is the ONLY dietary choice that produces healthy pets and the absolute BEST cat food in all measurable ways.
 

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
Originally Posted by mschauer

...

As far as raw just not being "as processed" as canned and bagged food we might just have to agree to disagree. I think there is a huge difference between what happens to pet food before it goes into those cans and bags and what happens to the raw food I mix up and freeze. What I feed may bear little resemblance to a mouse but it comes a heck of a lot closer than the stuff in the cans and bags!


...
This point is, I think, a pivotal one. Feeding exactly what a cat would normally eat (a range of freshly-killed prey animals, insects and lizards) isn't a realistically achievable goal for the vast majority of the population. However, that doesn't mean we give up on a natural diet altogether; instead, we get as close to it as we can. Even if all my animal products arrived at my house already frozen and I thawed and ground them, mixed and then packaged and re-froze them, what I eventually put on my cat's plate would be far closer to it's natural diet - and, not incidentally, more bio-nutritionally available (more easily digested with nutrients easier to reach and break down) - than what comes in any can (or bag). (Side note for those reading with an eye to feeding raw: It's highly recommended that you thaw/freeze as minimally as possible, and if you grind your cat's food, you add taurine to the mix.)

Another point I think bears consideration is this: Science has not yet identified all of the nutrients present in the array of prey animals cats eat, nor has it identified how those nutrients are used singly or in their natural combinations by the cat's body. Therefore, it follows the pet food industry is only guessing that they've got everything covered in the supplements added back into their foods - foods that've been cooked at the extraordinarily high temperatures known to destroy nutrients. Whole feeders and frankenprey feeders don't have to worry about supplementing because we're either offering just what the cat needs to eat in the package it was meant to come in (whole prey), or we're offering a variety - or patchwork - of whole pieces that, at the end of the day, come together to equal virtually the same thing (frankenprey). Grinders, of course, do, but not nearly to the extent of the pet food industry, whose products bear no resemblance to their natural state.

A couple of thoughts to mull on the salmonella, etc. issue. One, of course, is the cat's natural ability to handle any bacteria that may be present in their food. Another, both Salmonella and e-Coli (the two bacteria that cause folks the most concern when contemplating raw food) are contaminants in the human food chain. E-Coli grows in the gut of animals and can contaminate meat when those animals are not slaughtered properly. Salmonella occurs when fecal matter comes into contact with the food product and is then spread by touch. As such, both are typically only present on the surface of those meats (buying product in ground form is strongly discouraged). If this is the only issue keeping you from feeding raw to your cats, you can address it by rinsing and then searing the meat. Also, in all the research I've done over the years and all the folks I've spoken with who have researched this issue more deeply and for longer than I have - I've never come across a single documented instance of either a cat or it's owner becoming ill from feeding raw food products. Conversely, in the last few years, there have been several instances of owners (but not pets!) becoming sick from Salmonella-contaminated commercial kibble. The CDC even recommends that pet owners not feed their pets kibble in their kitchens (though no such warning has ever been issued to people buying chicken or steak for dinner). Finally, kibble takes much longer for cats to digest than does raw meat, allowing for a longer time for bacteria to grow. If you're comparing the two, kibble products have been recalled for Salmonella contamination more often than human grade meat products AND allow for the growth of bacteria in a cat's gut during digestion, making it a greater risk to both the cat and it's owners. In comparing canned to raw, the risk of the presence of Salmonella is higher with raw, but is naturally managed due to the cat's evolutionary gift.

Something else Mschauer mentioned that I'd like to comment on is the results. Cats with IBD, diabetes, chronic vomiting and diarrhea, urinary tract issues and more have had their diseases vastly improved and many times completely eradicated by the switch to a raw diet. As Dr. Hodgkins (author of YourDiabeticCat.com) states in her book, "Your Cat: Simple New Secrets to a Longer, Stronger Life.":
"I have never seen a single case of serious obesity, diabetes, urinary tract disease, or IBD in a cat fed meat instead of commercial dry foods. Many other people have seen the same results. Further, I do not see nutritional deficiencies in cats fed properly balanced raw-meat diets. I want to emphasize a point here. The incidence of these problems has not just declined on a raw-meat diet, they have entirely disappeared. These results are too dramatic to ignore."
I've seen it in the dozens of people I've personally helped make the switch (some of the correspondence I get would make you cry it's so amazing; certainly, it makes me tear up). Feline Instincts.com has a page listing too many success stories to count. Just as important (from a 'why do raw' perspective), even with those I've personally assisted whose kitties had no underlying issue prior to the transition, in every single instance, the followup contact has been highlighted with amazement at the improvement in the cat's behavior. Improvement in breath, coat, and stool scent and volume have often been noted as well, but it's the crazy-beautiful change in behavior that is universally remarked upon and is - at least for me - it's biggest selling point.

AC
 

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by mschauer

But if you believe raw meat is salmonella ridden wouldn't the fact that my cats that have been eating that raw meat for 4 years be proof positive that cats can handle ingesting at least some level of salmonella without becoming ill?
I fear one of the issues here is that some are becoming so entrenched in their position, that they really aren't reading the posts of the other side and assuming a position of complete and total polar opposite. "If they don't agree its the best in all ways, they must be saying its the worst" which is certainly not the case.


It has been brought up that salmonella poisoning is a matter of degree, and that most infected cats and dogs only demonstrate sub-clinical conditions but are stills shedding carriers, which one needs to be aware of for people or other immune compromised pets. That salmonella is common in raw poultry is not a matter of opinion, but verified FDA fact.
 

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Something else Mschauer mentioned that I'd like to comment on is the results. Cats with IBD, diabetes, chronic vomiting and diarrhea, urinary tract issues and more have had their diseases vastly improved and many times completely eradicated by the switch to a raw diet.
There are also cats that experienced difficulty switching to a raw diet, either in lack of desire to eat or diarrhea for example, there are threads in this forum on that. There are also cats with IBD, diabetes, vomiting, diarrhea, and urinary issues that have had their diseases vastly improved and completely eradicated by dietary changes in their COMMERCIAL diets. And sometimes it wasn't really dietary at all, as Otto I believe was helped w/ a chronic vomiting problem by just raising the food bowl. Therefor it is a fact to say that a raw diet by no means has a monopoly on benefits nor is immune from complication. A non-commercial diet is more prone to human error for example, where the caretaker may have misjudged a balanced diet or proper preparation techniques (grinding meat and exposing it to air can deplete taurine levels which some people don't know), which as we've seen can result in sudden-death scenarios with few symptoms.
Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

And think about this - if humans, who have been modifying our environment and drastically changing what we eat for as long as we've been around, haven't changed from our inherently omnivorous state, it makes sense that cats, who have been eating their natural prey for far longer than they've been eating commercially-prepared food products (or food scraps), haven't changed from their naturally obligatorily carnivorous state. In fact, I'm not aware of any animal that has changed from one eating classification to another. That would be an interesting "random fact", wouldn't it?
Cats are carnivores. Was anyone disagreeing with that at some point?


What has been said is that for a huge number of generations, cats have been exposed to food in their domestication that is removed from their wild cat ancestors, and that long dead cows, chicken, and fish are hardly "natural" anyway. There are numerous examples of animals adapting to available food sources over time. Many humans over the years have adapted genetic tolerance to lactose, to the point that milk is a very common ingredient in western and middle-eastern dishes. Other animals have gone to much further extremes developing an ability to tolerate the venom of their prey (snakes and poisonous frogs) or strong toxins in plants. So while certainly no reasonable person would argue a domestic cat is an herbivore, it is certainly reasonable to question that a modern day domestic cat needs a diet that is identical to an african wild cat to be healthy and live a very long time with a shiny coat.


And my two kitties enjoy their completely unnatural greenies treats to clean their teeth, and may get completely unnatural tooth cleaning gel as well as an added precaution, just as their unnatural petroleum jelly to help with hairballs or a bit of organic pumpkin or a probiotic to help w/ loose stools, which certainly no wild cat ever had access to. Natural or not is irrelevant to me, but my cat's health certainly is not.
 

minka

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
2,437
Purraise
49
Location
Denton, Texas
Originally Posted by mschauer

So the question becomes which is more likely, that a cat fed a raw diet will become ill from contamination or that a cat fed a processed diet will? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.
I certainly believe that cats are more likely to become ill from a commercial diet versus a raw one. I'm fairly sure I heard a statistic here somewhere that said there haven't been any reported salmonella cases from raw, versus the numerous deaths and recalls from commercial.

Originally Posted by Ducman69

*edited for space*The comment made earlier is that bacteria from a FRESH kill such as a mouse or bird or other small prey that a cat in the wild could take down would be inherently very low bacteria. I don't see any evidence to suggest that domestic cats were ever scavengers that would scare off other animals from large older kills and eat them, as in fact is the case for human predators (its homo-sapiens that were killing far larger prey than themselves and scavenging, not small domestic cats). Hence the analogy between perfectly safe fresh sushi or steak tartare that humans can eat without issue, but you'd have to be a bit loopy to risk that with far less fresh average store bought fish or beef. Point was that a five year old cat that has grown up in a very sterile environment may not be able to cope with salmonella infection as well as a wild cat just as there are differences in what humans can tolerate depending on the environment they grew up in, especially if immune compromised. Ultimately, indoor cats on commercial diets are not unheard of living 20years, but its not common for ferals on their "more natural" diet to live past the age of 5, so the "processed" sterilized food isn't necessarily a bad thing. As mentioned early on "it is not doom and gloom" but a potential risk to be aware of and manage accordingly.
I don't think it's so much that domestic cats would scare off anything from their food, but more that they would find already killed prey. I know if my cat found a dead bird, he'd run off with it faster than I could catch him. And eating scraps out of the garbage counts also.

Indoor cats live so much longer because they don't have any real threats to their health. And if something does happen, they have a guardian to take them to the vet. Feral cats and the ancestors of domestic cats have predators, other cats and now cars to watch out for. Not to mention other people. :[


Raw is arguably less convenient and potentially more wasteful than making one stop every couple months to pick up food at Petsmart and putting it in a cabinet to feed on demand. Its also I'm sure easily agreed that can/dry exposes lesser risk of salmonella exposure to humans since they aren't very directly handling raw poultry on a daily basis, especially if like myself they let it sit for a couple months before feeding ensuring plenty of time for a recall. Raw is also certainly not as cost effective as some alternatives, especially if you factor in gas costs if you don't live right next to a grocery store. So to say that raw can be a healthy diet is much different than saying that raw is the ONLY dietary choice that produces healthy pets and the absolute BEST cat food in all measurable ways.
You have to keep in mind that raw feeders can buy a months worth up front as well and freeze it until need be. And raw feeders don't have all the packaging left over that commercial feeders do.
Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Another point I think bears consideration is this: Science has not yet identified all of the nutrients present in the array of prey animals cats eat, nor has it identified how those nutrients are used singly or in their natural combinations by the cat's body. Therefore, it follows the pet food industry is only guessing that they've got everything covered in the supplements added back into their foods - foods that've been cooked at the extraordinarily high temperatures known to destroy nutrients. Whole feeders and frankenprey feeders don't have to worry about supplementing because we're either offering just what the cat needs to eat in the package it was meant to come in (whole prey), or we're offering a variety - or patchwork - of whole pieces that, at the end of the day, come together to equal virtually the same thing (frankenprey). Grinders, of course, do, but not nearly to the extent of the pet food industry, whose products bear no resemblance to their natural state.
^This
 

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
That is true, I didn't think of freezing large quantities of raw, although that is still much less convenient IMO.

Its hurricane season now, and getting prepared one of the things on the check list is to ensure you have a bit of their food stocked. If power goes out, you're in a bit of a pinch with raw. If you have to evacuate and can't bring your cat/litterbox/raw to a hotel, and need to board your cat in a safe place you can't simply give them some cans of wet/dry to feed and will likely end up with loose stools for a while.

Its also a bit more of a challenge when you go on vacation, as for me I have a dry autofeeder that gives them two meals when I'm away and the sitter (a friend/relative/neighbor) only needs to know how to pop the top on a can and toss it on a plate once a day. I wouldn't trust them or ask them to invest the time to feed a raw diet several times a day.

Again, that is not to say that raw can't be a very healthy diet, but just that there are pros and cons and several great options available that cats can live long and healthy lives on. IMO, its better to just ask what NOT to feed your cat, and that typically is more about ingredients than raw/wet/dry or whatever mix of those.

Originally Posted by Minka

I'm fairly sure I heard a statistic here somewhere that said there haven't been any reported salmonella cases from raw, versus the numerous deaths and recalls from commercial.
If you did, I'm fairly sure its a made up one. Where could anyone possibly get a verifiable statistic on a completely unregulated market? Outside of this forum, raw feeding is very rare compared to cats fed commercial diets, and who would be reporting it and to whom? Certainly the poultry itself is regulated, but we already know for a fact that a varying but significant portion is contaminated w/ salmonella, which is why the FDA advises to cook the chicken to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165oF to kill the bacteria. The raw fed cats on the forum aren't showing obvious signs of being sick, so its not doom and gloom, but lets be realistic here that the threat of salmonella is in no way higher in commercial food which is cooked, regulated, and recalled upon discovery of salmonella contamination.
 

minka

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
2,437
Purraise
49
Location
Denton, Texas
Originally Posted by Ducman69

If you have to evacuate and can't bring your cat/litterbox/raw to a hotel, and need to board your cat in a safe place you can't simply give them some cans of wet/dry to feed and will likely end up with loose stools for a while. You actually can give canned to a raw fed cat. I've heard several people say that they have canned stocked in their pantry for 'just in case.'

Its also a bit more of a challenge when you go on vacation, as for me I have a dry autofeeder that gives them two meals and the sitter (a friend/relative/neighbor) only needs to know how to pop the top on a can and toss it on a plate. I wouldn't trust them or ask them to invest the time to feed a raw diet several times a day. As long as you grind it up before hand, all they have to do is defrost and put in a bowl. Doesn't sound too hard to me.

Again, that is not to say that raw can't be a very healthy diet, but just that there are pros and cons and several great options available that cats can live long and healthy lives on. IMO, its better to just ask what NOT to feed your cat, and that typically is more about ingredients than raw/wet/dry or whatever mix of those.


If you did, I'm fairly sure its a made up one. Where could anyone possibly get a verifiable statistic on a completely unregulated market? Outside of this forum, raw feeding is very rare compared to cats fed commercial diets, and who would be reporting it and to whom? Certainly the poultry itself is regulated, but we already know for a fact that a varying but significant portion is contaminated w/ salmonella, which is why the FDA advises to cook the chicken to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165oF to kill the bacteria. Certainly the raw fed cats on the forum aren't showing obvious signs of being sick, so its not doom and gloom, but lets be realistic here that the threat of salmonella is in no way higher in commercial food.It's not really as issue of reporting to whom, as there are studies that pertain to raw (the rabbit one that was mentioned), as well as many articles, blogs, and more that are dedicated to either pro or anti raw. So it would just be a matter of reporting coming either from the owners themselves, or the veterinarians who saw the pet.
(it wont let me post unless i wrote something here..)
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by Minka

I'm fairly sure I heard a statistic here somewhere that said there haven't been any reported salmonella cases from raw, versus the numerous deaths and recalls from commercial.
Definitely made up. Shane et al. 2003. "Septicemic Salmonellosis in Two Cats Fed a Raw-Meat Diet;" Jour Am Animal Hosp Assoc 39:538-542. http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/6/538

For general informational purposes: Human Health Implications of Salmonella-Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food (Oxford Journals): http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/5/686.full

Of course, we know commercial pet food runs the same risk.
 
Top