Best diet for cats?

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

Just because a food meets AAFCO guidelines does not make it a great food. Beneful probably meets AAFCO guidelines for dog food but it's a terrible food.

Passing AAFCO trials simply means it is tested to be a nutritionally complete food, not a premium food. It means that it is not nutrient deficient, and that is very important from a food safety standpoint.

The commercial raw foods presented to the AVMA were said to be nutrient deficient for example, and we have demonstrated that cats have in fact died from lacking macro or micro nutrients. If you recall somewhat recently on the forum the post about Wellness cat food that was quickly recalled due to suspected vitamin B1 deficiency in the food that did not meet AAFCO minimums. A regular Joe or Jane may not realize when the diet they have created is lacking in vitamin B1, as they have no means of testing this, no others to provide advanced warning of concerns, or random lot inspections, so the first sign is when the cat starts showing symptoms. In the case of some deficiencies, the first outwardly visible symptom can be blindness or heart failure.

Of course that does not mean that Friskies is an excellent protein source fantastic food because it meets AAFCO nutrient minimums, but it absolutely means that unregulated home-fed raw diets or pet food that is not verifiably listed as nutritionally complete represent a potential risk for deficiencies.

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

The commercial raw foods presented to the AVMA were said to be nutrient deficient for example, and we have demonstrated that cats have in fact died from lacking macro or micro nutrients.

Which foods were these??

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by Minka

Which foods were these??

This discussion was many pages back. The AVMA would not list the specific brands brought to them, but did make this public statement:

Originally Posted by AVMA

Nutritional analysis of 5 types of "Raw Food Diets"
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
(JAVMA), Vol 218 No.5, p.705

"Nonetheless, the results of the small number of diets analyzed here indicated that there are clearly nutritional and health risks associated with feeding raw food diets. All the diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program. Of equal concern is the health risks associated with bacteria in the raw food diets, especially the homemade diet that yielded E. coli O157:H7. Although owners feeding raw food diets often claim that dogs are more resistant to pathogenic bacteria, we are not aware of evidence to support that claim."

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

This discussion was many pages back. The AVMA would not list the specific brands brought to them, but did make this public statement:

Reading what it says there, it sounds like they tested 5 different recipes, not commercial raw diets. It's all very vague and not something I can comfortably go by.

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by Minka

Reading what it says there, it sounds like they tested 5 different recipes, not commercial raw diets. It's all very vague and not something I can comfortably go by.

Here, I found the full article for you and background. The manufacturers hired attorneys to get the AVMA to take down its publication citing the danger of their product. The tests were rerun, the findings duplicated, and AVMA upheld in its right to publish its warning against the unhealthy raw food diets tested.

Originally Posted by AVMA

Nutritional analysis of 5 types of "Raw Food Diets"
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
(JAVMA), Vol 218 No.5 March 1, 2001 p. 705.

Comparison to AAFCO nutrient standards for maintenance or growth and reproduction, non-standard results/nutritional imbalances noted below. Microbial analysis also completed for total bacterial count, identification of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7:

Diet 1: homemade diet being fed to adult Irish Wolfhound - fed in accordance with The Bones and Raw Food (BARF) diet of Dr. Ian Billinghurst. low in phosphorus & calcium content unbalanced (low) calcium to phosphorus ratio high in Vit. D (greater than AAFCO maxium) less than AAFCO minimum standards for potassium, manganese, zinc, magnesium more than AAFCO maxium standards for Vit. E microbial analysis: positive for E. coli O157:H7, no salmonella, 45,000 colony-forming-units (CFU) bacteria

Diet 2: homemade diet being fed to adult St. Bernard - fed in accordance with the Ultimate Diet, Kymythy Schultze low in phosphorus & calcium content unbalanced (high) calcium to phosphorus ratio high in Vit. D (greater than AAFCO maximum) less than AAFCO minimum standards for manganese, zinc, iron more than AAFCO maximum standards for magnesium microbial analysis: negative for E.coli O157:H7, no salmonella, 250,000 colony-forming units bacteria

Diet 3: homemade diet being fed to 4-month-old Bull Mastiff puppy - the Wendy Volhard diet. compared to AAFCO nutrient standards for growth: low concentrations of sodium, iron, zinc high calcium content, high calcium - phosphorus ratio higher in Vit. E than AAFCO maximum (nearly 900 IU/d) - "may have negative effects on immune system function" microbial analysis: no E. coli, no salmonella, 760,000 CFU bacteria

Diet 4: commercial diet combination grain-supplement mix mixed with raw meat and water per mfg. instructions - Sojourner Farms European-Style Dog Food Mix, Sojourner Farms, Minn. MN. Low in phosphorus & calcium content unbalanced (low) calcium to phosphorus. Less than AAFCO minimum standards of potassium, zinc when compared to AAFCO standards for growth (label claim says meets requirements for growth, reproduction, maintenance): low in phosphorus, sodium. Severely deficient in calcium, calcium to phosphorus ratio of 0.15 low in potassium, high concentration of zinc microbial analysis: neg. for E. coli, not tested for Salmonella, 250,000 CFU bacteria

Diet 5: commercial "complete" frozen diet - Steve's Real Food for Dogs, Steve's Real Food, Eugene, OR. Low in phosphorus, sodium. microbial analysis: not tested for Salmonella, 250,000 CFU bacteria.

"Although there are numerous claims to the health benefits of raw food diets, all are ancedotal. Putting aside the lack of evidence for benefits of these diets, there are a number of important concerns regarding raw food diets. First there is the nutritional balance of the diets. It can be difficult to formulate a balanced homemade diet in the best of circumstances."

"However, even if it were assumed that the nutrients in the diets analyzed had a bioavailability of 100%, in most cases the nutrients that were deficient when compared to AAFCO standards were also deficient when compared with the more stringent guidelines established by the National Research Council".

....

"Nonetheless, the results of the small number of diets analyzed here indicated that there are clearly nutritional and health risks associated with feeding raw food diets. All the diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program. Of equal concern is the health risks associated with bacteria in the raw food diets, especially the homemade diet that yielded E. coli O157:H7. Although owners feeding raw food diets often claim that dogs are more resistent to pathogenic bacteria, we are not aware of evidence to support that claim."

 

[sweetpea24]

I thought we were talking about homemade raw? Even if we weren'tbI am sure that there are kibbles and canned foods that were too high or too low in some nutrients.

The issue I have with pre-made raw is that you are not getting the variety and thus, the balance over time that a raw diet aims for. I feed my dog various meats hoping that I will achieve that balance, (along with bone, organs, muscle etc) but with pre-made, you are limited. However, if you to by AAFCO standards, Nature's Variety would give your pet a balanced meal at each meal, the same way kibble or canned would.

If the factories that make pet food are as bad as those that make human food, then there's really nothing to discuss. I know people who work in meat factories who have told me how the meat is handled, like meat falling on the floor and putting it back into production. Hoe many times have meat products been recalled? The good thing is that cats and dogs are able to handle more 'crap' than humans can. A food can pass all the aafco tests but if meat, whether put into a bag of kibble or a Styrofoam tray, is not handled by the.processor in a proper manner, it doesn't make any difference.

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

I thought we were talking about homemade raw? Even if we weren'tbI am sure that there are kibbles and canned foods that were too high or too low in some nutrients.

You'll see above that they tested both commercial and home made raw made to exact instruction of popular raw-diet recipes someone would find online when creating their own diet, and in their expert opinion they found all the tested diets imbalanced with concerning levels of bacteria.

The AAFCO sets minimums and some maximums for various macro and micro nutrients, so no a kibble and canned for that is guaranteed for the appropriate profile cannot be too high or too low as the raw food tested was. If it doesn't state that its "complete" or "meets xxx profile", then you are absolutely correct, but I would not feed something like that as more than a treat.

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

If the factories that make pet food are as bad as those that make human food, then there's really nothing to discuss. I know people who work in meat factories who have told me how the meat is handled, like meat falling on the floor and putting it back into production.

Very true, which is why the FDA states that uncooked meat is not suitable for consumption and is in fact likely to contain dangerous bacteria such as salmonella (typically at least one in every ten chickens) and thus should be cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 165oF. Other than young animals exposed to high bacterial loads developing a tolerance, just as we see with people in third world countries that can easily drink water and eat at food stands that would make the average European or American violently ill, there are no scientific studies that verify that cats or dogs are capable of handling higher bacterial infections than humans, per the American, Canadian, and British Veterinary Medical Associations. Not to say that its impossible, but it is certainly unsubstantiated and thus there is concern raised at least when there is an elderly or otherwise immune compromised cat that is fed a raw diet.

 

[sweetpea24]

The aafco can set whatever they want but it is up to the pet food company to abide by their guidelines. Not every food is made according to aafco nutrient profiles and/or feeding trials. Like I said before, even rx foods are not all 'certified' (in quotes because aafco doesn't certify anything).

I see your point of view but my point was to say that cannot place much faith in companies or the regulatory bodies. It's not okay to feed a cat raw meat which it should be eating yet it's okay to cook the sh*t (I mean that both literally and figuratively) out of meat and other nutrients to make them unavailable to the animal it is meant to feed? I still would feed raw if my cats would eat it.

 

[yosemite]

Moving this to the raw forum since it basically has become a raw food endorsement.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

The aafco can set whatever they want but it is up to the pet food company to abide by their guidelines. Not every food is made according to aafco nutrient profiles and/or feeding trials. Like I said before, even rx foods are not all 'certified' (in quotes because aafco doesn't certify anything).

I see your point of view but my point was to say that cannot place much faith in companies or the regulatory bodies. It's not okay to feed a cat raw meat which it should be eating yet it's okay to cook the sh*t (I mean that both literally and figuratively) out of meat and other nutrients to make them unavailable to the animal it is meant to feed? I still would feed raw if my cats would eat it.

Hiya, SweetPea.

If you're interested, I'd be very happy to help you transition your kitties. I'm assuming - since you certainly seem to have done your homework - that you feed canned; if you chose to go the home-prepared raw route, your monthly feeding bill should drop considerably (a nice side benefit!

).

Pm me, if you're amenable, and let's talk!

AC

 

[ldg]

Sorry, I might be back-tracking a bit here because my participation in the thread got interrupted by the hurricane... but actually, my question got touched on during my absence.

The question related back to the point-counterpoint between Ducman and Auntie Crazy about the use of the term, "prey-based diet."

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

A prey-based (also called prey-modeled) diet, from my understanding of raw-feeding parlance (and how I use the term today) is a diet based on the average prey proportions a cat would naturally eat, and is where the 80/10/5/5 guideline came from (also sometimes written as 80/10/10). That's 80%-87% meat, fat, skin, sinew, connective tissue and heart, 5%-10% edible bone, 3%-5% liver, and 5% other secreting organ. (Rodents are roughly 5% bone and 4% liver, rabbits are slightly less than 10% bone and less than 4% liver. Birds have even lower bone and organ content.)

Whole prey is actually feeding a variety of whole animals (also called "whole prey-based" feeding)….None of these raw-feeding methods limit themselves to any particular type of meat (i.e. we don't seek to emulate what a cat in our neck of the woods would be eating if she were catching her own food), but seek instead for the greatest variety of meats (and organs, etc.) available to us and feeding them according to the nutritional (meat, bone, organ) percentages she would have consumed during that hunting.

Is that different than what you were thinking when you read "prey-based"?

AC

In answer to your question at the end there, yes, it is different than what I was thinking when using the term “realistic prey based diet.†AC, as youâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]ve clarified, youâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]re talking about a prey-based MODEL, but not a prey-based DIET.

I appreciate all the work and research you've put into the subject, and your willingness to share it with us here (and your patience).

Which is why I ask...

As you point out here:

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

… In addition, the pet food industry is only guessing they've got everything covered in their supplemental programs, despite the fact their supplement processes and mixtures differ one from another, and the extraordinary fact that science has not yet come even close to identifying all of the nutrients present in any prey animal (never mind the assortment of prey animals) that cats eat, nor has it identified how those nutrients are used singly or in their natural combinations by the cat's body. It defies logic and is the ultimate of hubris to believe those supplemental programs are complete. (This is, I believe, the largest contributor to the leap in vitality seen in cats transitioned from commercial products to raw.)

You may go above and beyond by feeding your cats lizards and insects, but Iâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]m wondering that if for many feeding a raw diet, even if the protein sources are varied, isnâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]t it generally the same protein sources as commercial cat foods… just raw?

Yet as a “natural prey diet†for a cat would not include cow, bison, venison, lamb, pork, duck (perhaps on rare occasions), Turkey (generally) or chicken (perhaps on rare occasions), and (usually) most fish... is what we're feeding our cats - whether raw or not - nutritionally appropriate?

Everyone seemed to agree earlier (if I understood correctly) that even though cats are not eating what they would in nature, that's not the point. The point is that it is being fed to them in a manner that they would eat it in nature? Did I understand this correctly?

Where I'm going with this is questioning the assumption that the protein sources ARE appropriate.

As you also mention,

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

This method requires only a little prep work, but a very solid understanding of the 80/10/5/5 guideline. You MUST understand what 80%-87% meat, fat, skin, sinew, connective tissue and heart, 5%-10% edible bone, 3%-5% liver, and 5% other secreting organ means and why it's important from the cat's perspective.

and

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

Interestingly enough, the diseases that are quite common in cats now were virtually unknown in the late 70's when I was in veterinary school. We had two donated diabetic beagle siblings who lived in the hospital and taught us about this strange disease. It was something we never saw in cats, and it was pretty uncommon in dogs for that matter. We learned of hypothyroidism from several canine cases, but cats didn't have thyroid problems, and hyperthyroidism was not in the books or the exam rooms. We saw horrible skin allergies in dogs, with crusts and scabs and red feet and unending itchiness, but we didn't see cats with this disease, either.

Well, if you've been observant in recent years, you know that these chronic diseases are fairly commonplace now in the feline population. As are heartworm (again, a dog disease originally), asthma, kidney failure, inflammatory bowel disease, dental calculus and decay, heart disease, and cancer. Why? Could it be that the cat is now following the same road that the dog has gone down? I think so, and what's more, I think we need to redefine what is the best way to raise a healthy animal.

I do happen to agree with Willowy that a big part of this is very likely the level of vet care that cats receive today vs. in the 1970s.

However... is the source of the problem the way the food is being fed? (Cooked vs. raw). Or is it potentially the commercialization of cat food in general... meaning the major sources of protein and the protein/fat mix/content?

In the prey-based-model, the mix is "80%-87% meat, fat, skin, sinew, connective tissue and heart, 5%-10% edible bone, 3%-5% liver, and 5% other secreting organ meats," where meat, fat, skin, sinew, connective tissue and heart is all lumped together.

Yet cow, chicken, pig, duck, turkey, vension, even bison are all far higher fat (and cholesterol?)/protein mix in content than rabbit, chipmunk, squirrel, mouse, vole, lizard, bird, &etc. Aren't they?

Even on the raw diet, it seems to me that perhaps cats are still eating a "McDonald's menu" equivalent. (Sorry, I dont' have a better analagy, but hopefully the point and the question aren't overlooked).

To me, this is part of the reason the studies would be so important. It is also one of the issues I have with the use of "prey based diet" referencing raw, when, in fact, the model is based on something that doesn't break down the protein vs. fat content - and we don't have studies (do we?) that indicate whether or not THIS may be the source long term health issues as opposed to the assumption that it's the raw vs. cooked.

Ultimately, we're generally not talking about a species-appropriate raw diet, we're talking about a species-appropriate raw model, and it seems to me these are two very different things.

I realize the topic is what diet is best for a cat... and the discussion has revolved around dry, cooked (canned), or raw. But with the benefits or risks of raw being compared to canned... it seems to me that perhaps the real discussion ought to be whether or not we ought to be looking at something that doesn't really exist... and that is an actual species-appropriate diet, and that from that perspective, raw vs. cooked is not the issue, and the sources of protein are. And if that's the case, is there actually a benefit of raw over cooked? And is the benefit seen primarily because of the lack of additives... in which case, the argument could be made that one could take the principle of the raw diet, and simply cook the meat to avoid the potential bacterial and parasitic problems - and with taurine supplementation, still be providing a superior diet, simply because it is less processed and contains less additives.

 

[minka]

Ducman, you still didn't answer my question:

Originally Posted by Minka

Now I will ask again: Now that you realize there is a AAFCO approved prepackaged raw food, do you agree it is best? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by LDG

You may go above and beyond by feeding your cats lizards and insects, but I’m wondering that if for many feeding a raw diet, even if the protein sources are varied, isn’t it generally the same protein sources as commercial cat foods… just raw?

Not quite. Most cat foods are either chicken, turkey or beef. Cat foods that carry other protein sources are much less prevalent.
But even if we are comparing a raw chicken and beef diet with a commercial chicken and beef diet, the commercial version meat is months old. The commercial version is more than likely the leftovers of the meat, not the prime cuts you pick up at the grocery store. And there in lies the problem.

Everyone seemed to agree earlier (if I understood correctly) that even though cats are not eating what they would in nature, that's not the point. The point is that it is being fed to them in a manner that they would eat it in nature? Did I understand this correctly?

Pretty much. Also that the meat is closer to being fresh like it would be from a kill. And that cooked meat looses some of the nutritional value that raw meat has.

Yet cow, chicken, pig, duck, turkey, vension, even bison are all far higher fat (and cholesterol?)/protein mix in content than rabbit, chipmunk, squirrel, mouse, vole, lizard, bird, &etc. Aren't they?

Possibly, but when picking out meats for a raw diet, you have to keep that in mind. You would choose either a meat that is low in fat or high in fat based on what your recipe is and what other meats you are mixing it with.

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

The aafco can set whatever they want but it is up to the pet food company to abide by their guidelines. Not every food is made according to aafco nutrient profiles and/or feeding trials.

Correct, not all pet food meets AAFCO nutrient profiles nor feeding trials. But any pet food that does state it meets AAFCO nutrient profiles or feeding trials says so under penalty of law.

I certainly would not feed a commercial food (such as that raw we saw) to my cat as more than just a treat if there was no way to verify it was a complete and healthy diet. One thing is for certain, I would certainly enjoy an imperfect safety net, over walking a tight-rope with nothing at all.

Originally Posted by SweetPea24

It's not okay to feed a cat raw meat which it should be eating yet it's okay to cook the sh*t (I mean that both literally and figuratively) out of meat and other nutrients to make them unavailable to the animal it is meant to feed?

I'm not sure what is confusing about the distinction. Raw processed meat as you will find in the grocery store as you know regularly contacts unsanitary surfaces. Cooking meat kills bacteria in the food. That is the benefit of cooking and canning, it kills and then seals out bacteria. Why do you cook the food you eat?

The idea that nutrients are unavailable if they are added in after the meat is cooked rather than in the meat itself is also not accepted by any recognized medical association for humans nor animals. Whether you feed a food high in vitamin A or add a vitamin A supplement, the vitamin A is in the diet and available to the person/animal. There is no "tummy police" that rejects one molecule that was originally in the food versus one that was added in at some point. And as was shown, raw food that is fed to big cats in zoos are all supplemented as well, as otherwise they have been shown to be short in some essential vitamins and nutrients.

Originally Posted by Minka

Ducman, you still didn't answer my question

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...&postcount=155

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

You might want to spend a few extra seconds and verify that they carry the AAFCO seal as I asked, and not just "formulated to meet AAFCO guidelines" or "exceeds AAFCO guidelines", since neither claims to be approved.

I don't think this has been made clear yet. There is no "seal" to "carry" as proof of anything. The AAFCO guidelines allow pet food manufacturer to use AAFCO approved language to indicate that they (the manufacturer *not* the AAFCO) can prove that their food either meets AAFCO nutritional requirements via formulation or that they have successfully conducted feeding trials as specified by AAFCO protocols.

Nature's Variety indicates that they are the only raw food manufacturer on the market to have actually passed AAFCO Protocol Feeding Trials and gotten the seal:
http://www.naturesvariety.com/vet/aafco

So that is good there is one available now that is at least nutritionally complete even if it isn't clean of bacteria, but please buyer beware on the others.

At least Bravo! and Primal also have certified that their foods meet or exceed the AAFCO requirements.

If you are trying to suggest that just meeting the requirements isn't sufficient, that conducting feeding trials is also necessary then you need to extend your warning to the following brands that also only certify that they meet the requirements:

Blue Buffalo
Nutro
Avoderm
Simply Nourish
Wellness
Innova
Royal Canin

I only found 1 brand at PetsMart that certifies it has completed feeding trials: Pro Plan.

I didn't look at all brands or all varieties within a brand. I just kept picking up bags (the labels on the bags were easier to read) and writing down brand names until I found one that says it has conducted feeding trials.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

...

Ultimately, we're generally not talking about a species-appropriate raw diet, we're talking about a species-appropriate raw model, and it seems to me these are two very different things.

I realize the topic is what diet is best for a cat... and the discussion has revolved around dry, cooked (canned), or raw. But with the benefits or risks of raw being compared to canned... it seems to me that perhaps the real discussion ought to be whether or not we ought to be looking at something that doesn't really exist... and that is an actual species-appropriate diet, and that from that perspective, raw vs. cooked is not the issue, and the sources of protein are. And if that's the case, is there actually a benefit of raw over cooked? And is the benefit seen primarily because of the lack of additives... in which case, the argument could be made that one could take the principle of the raw diet, and simply cook the meat to avoid the potential bacterial and parasitic problems - and with taurine supplementation, still be providing a superior diet, simply because it is less processed and contains less additives.

If you don't mind, I'd like to rephrase this and give it back to you before we go any further to be sure we're both talking about the same questions.

You're wondering if any menu that consists of animals not normally found in a cat's diet could be inappropriate; you're thinking perhaps it's not the amount of processing the animal's flesh, etc. has gone through prior to being fed, but the type of animal being fed that is at issue?

And if it is the processing, you're wondering if a cooked home-made diet with taurine supplemented back in would be the answer to "what's the healthiest diet a cat can eat"?

Am I reading you correctly?

AC

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

Why do you cook the food you eat?

Because we are not carnivores that can handle the type of bacterial load raw meat carries.

The idea that nutrients are unavailable if they are added in after the meat is cooked rather than in the meat itself is also not accepted by any recognized medical association for humans nor animals. Whether you feed a food high in vitamin A or add a vitamin A supplement, the vitamin A is in the diet and available to the person/animal. There is no "tummy police" that rejects one molecule that was originally in the food versus one that was added in at some point. And as was shown, raw food that is fed to big cats in zoos are all supplemented as well, as otherwise they have been shown to be short in some essential vitamins and nutrients.

You must not look into nutrition very much. It is actually much harder for your body to absorb vitamin C from a capsule or powder than it is from say, and orange. That's why it is recommended to eat fresh fruits and veggies versus supplements. In fact, thats the reason we still eat real food instead of a pill 3 times a day. We know how to replicate almost everything in supplement form, but the reason we don't live off of them is because our bodies can not process them as effeciently as when they are contained in the original food source.

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...&postcount=155

You didn't answer yes or no, you said "Better than what canned or dry?" and then walked in circles avoiding the question.

 

[ducman69]

Minka, your question was answered in great detail in accordance with the limitation of your phrasing, and I can't imagine how you manage if you demand a simplified "yes" or "no" answer from everyone you query. If you take nothing else from this thread, at least accept that the world does not operate on exclusive disjunction.

PS: A Ford Mustang is better than a boat; yes or no?

 

[minka]

Originally Posted by Ducman69

Minka, your question was answered in great detail in accordance with the limitation of your phrasing, and I can't imagine how you manage if you demand a simplified "yes" or "no" answer from everyone you query. If you take nothing else from this thread, at least accept that the world does not operate on exclusive disjunction.

PS: A Ford Mustang is better than a boat; yes or no?

Except that we aren't comparing apples and oranges. We are comparing two diets for cats. Or in your 'man terms': what's better, a mustang or a corvette?


In fact, I was very specific about it.
Is the AAFCO approved commercial raw diet better than commercial dry and wet foods?

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by Minka

Except that we aren't comparing apples and oranges. We are comparing two diets for cats. Or in your 'man terms': what's better, a mustang or a corvette?

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!

 

[ldg]

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

If you don't mind, I'd like to rephrase this and give it back to you before we go any further to be sure we're both talking about the same questions.

You're wondering if any menu that consists of animals not normally found in a cat's diet could be inappropriate;

With (most) kibble or canned, and some raw commercially prepared diets, cats are now being fed what we currently understand to be nutritionally complete diets. Our cats are living much longer than they do in the wild as a result. Some suffer diseases, immune-system problems, and slow organ degeneration or failures. Whether this is the diet or genetics, or a combination of the two, my understanding is that raw feeders believe the underlying problem is the kibble or the canned food. However, my understanding is there isn't enough documentation to know if such problems also exist on a raw diet.

Typical sources of protein in most diets (correct me if I'm wrong), including raw, are beef, chicken, turkey, and duck. And fish. Now we're seeing bison, venison, rabbit. I don't know if raw feeders feed pork, but it's a source of protein in a lot of kibble and canned foods.

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.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

...you're thinking perhaps it's not the amount of processing the animal's flesh, etc. has gone through prior to being fed, but the type of animal being fed that is at issue?

If you refer to cooking as processing, I guess the answer is yes...

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

And if it is the processing, you're wondering if a cooked home-made diet with taurine supplemented back in would be the answer to "what's the healthiest diet a cat can eat"?

If it's species-appropriate, e.g. mice, chipmunks, squirrel, rabbit, voles, lizards... things a cat would hunt on its own, yes, that's what I'm wondering. Is the issue cooking? Or additives? Or sources of protein?

What I'm wondering is, are the raw feeders blaming the cooking... when the problem may simply be

A) the sources of protein are actually species-inappropriate, and/or

B) the additives in kibble and canned, which a raw diet doesn't have.

If studies of a raw diet showed benefit to the animal's health over the long term, how would we know that it's due to the food being raw, when the issue may be that it's got less additives (like carageenan or rosemary extract, or whatever), not that it is raw as opposed to cooked?

And while less-processed, less additives are better for ANY species... could part of the issue of immune-related problems, certain diseases, or organ failure problems be related to the fact that we're feeding our cats inappropriate sources of protein (for the most part)? e.g. is the problem not that the food is cooked, but that their systems are being forced to process proteins/fats and percentages that they would not normally have in a species-appropriate diet?

Just thinking out loud here.... but does that help clarify the question(s)?