Future of veterinary/nutrition industry?

Mailmans_Mom

TCS Member
Young Cat
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
47
Purraise
34
I somewhat agree. However, I'm not saying it would always have to be homemade food. As I said there are more and more companies coming out with natural, raw foods. Even though homemade would be healthiest if done correctly, a change in the industry toward healthier and more ethically sourced food would be a great thing and I believe that trend is on the upswing already. So, the parent could still have the option of purchasing a better quality food.

And take me for example...I hate prepping food & cooking for myself. I am SO lazy about it. BUT I still go all out for my fur babies. Chopping up whole chickens, grinding them & the bones, sticking my hands it all that nastiness!! I never ever thought I would enjoy doing it but I only do it for them and that makes it totally worth it! I know I'm only one person, but I know many pet owners and many of them are very passionate about their pets in this same regard.
I totally agree. There are a huge number of people who want to go all out for their pets. But I think the lion's share are still a bit lazy.

I also wish there were more ethically sourced options. There was a period in my life where I was vegan (but feeding my snake live mice...) because of the treatment of animals. Now I live in the countryside and can meet the farmers and still afford to buy animal products to eat. There's still a long way to go, though, but I think people like you will help to push things in the right direction.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22

CFD-JTZ

TCS Member
Thread starter
Young Cat
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
29
Purraise
44
I totally agree. There are a huge number of people who want to go all out for their pets. But I think the lion's share are still a bit lazy.

I also wish there were more ethically sourced options. There was a period in my life where I was vegan (but feeding my snake live mice...) because of the treatment of animals. Now I live in the countryside and can meet the farmers and still afford to buy animal products to eat. There's still a long way to go, though, but I think people like you will help to push things in the right direction.
Thank you! And don't worry...I'll drag some of you with me if I can!

😜
 

moxiewild

Seniors, Special Needs, Ferals, and Wildlife
Super Cat
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,112
Purraise
1,520
Late to this, but I’m part of a forum of veterinarians (I am not a vet), who take the mainstream stance on raw food.

As much as we talk about this here, they have some points (actually, some of their most prominent points), I constantly see repeated there but have never once seen mentioned here.

One, is that they view prescription foods as evidenced based in their safety and nutritional adequacy.

To some extent, this is true. And as an evidence-based individual myself, I can appreciate this point of view.

But regardless of obvious flaws like conflict of interest, it’s also difficult to call something superior when 99.999% of the other foods have never been studied for comparison.

I mean, they’re technically right - we know prescription foods are generally adequate and safe, especially in the short term. And that's more than we can empirically show with any nonprescription food.

But that doesn’t justify the leap to superior or the only safe food. In most fields, a more objective stance would be stated: “We know x, but we can’t say y yet because xyz has never been studied, so further research is needed” rather than taking a hardline position either way.

Another point they make is the diet of the domestic cat evolved for fast reproduction during a short life span (2-5 years).

So, because cats live much longer than that now and don’t spend their lives reproducing, that diet is no longer suitable and you’re just invoking naturalistic fallacy.

I thought this point was interesting. And I felt like there may very well be something to it.

Except... I work with big cats. A lot of wildlife, actually.

Some of these species live much longer in captivity. Yet we plan their diet the same - or very nearly so - as their natural diet.

And we know the entire Felidae family are obligate carnivores - every Felid, from the lion all the way down to the manx.

Big cats can subsist on diets with plant matter too, yet we feed them meat and only meat because we know they are obligate carnivores.

And guess what? That lion lives almost as proportionately longer in captivity than it does in the wild, too compared to the domestic cat.

So why aren’t we feeding them grain and starch mixed diets (lord knows it would be WAY cheaper than the obscene amounts of meat we feed them).

There’s not a single species that lives much longer and reproduces far less in captivity that I can think of that we use the same logic on. Not a single one.

That’s not to say we never modify diets, though.

Opossums, for instance. They live about twice as long in captivity. In the wild, these amazing little creatures walk insane distances every day, which is something they can’t do (typically) in captivity.

Because of this, we limit their protein just a little bit more than what they would naturally consume.

However, the difference isn’t hugely substantial, and when we reduce protein, we’re replacing it with......, other things completely natural and that already exists in large amounts as part of their natural diet.

Which is completely different to a domestic cat, where the animal protein discrepancy between their natural diet and the prescription diets is incredibly substantial, and we replace protein with significant quantities of things that show up so little in their natural diet that it’s almost entirely insignificant.

I just don’t get it.

Anyway, because I’m evidenced-based, I have an open mind. I’m not an expert, there could be so much I don’t know or don’t understand, and I am totally and completely open to that.

I’d love to ask these questions and bring up these counterpoints on the forum to see if there IS something I’m unaware of, but unfortunately (and not so surprisingly), you’ll get banned for anything deemed as “promoting raw” 🙄

/rant
 

Azazel

Time spent with cats is never wasted.
Top Cat
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Messages
2,844
Purraise
3,465
Late to this, but I’m part of a forum of veterinarians (I am not a vet), who take the mainstream stance on raw food.

As much as we talk about this here, they have some points (actually, some of their most prominent points), I constantly see repeated there but have never once seen mentioned here.

One, is that they view prescription foods as evidenced based in their safety and nutritional adequacy.

To some extent, this is true. And as an evidence-based individual myself, I can appreciate this point of view.

But regardless of obvious flaws like conflict of interest, it’s also difficult to call something superior when 99.999% of the other foods have never been studied for comparison.

I mean, they’re technically right - we know prescription foods are generally adequate and safe, especially in the short term. And that's more than we can empirically show with any nonprescription food.

But that doesn’t justify the leap to superior or the only safe food. In most fields, a more objective stance would be stated: “We know x, but we can’t say y yet because xyz has never been studied, so further research is needed” rather than taking a hardline position either way.

Another point they make is the diet of the domestic cat evolved for fast reproduction during a short life span (2-5 years).

So, because cats live much longer than that now and don’t spend their lives reproducing, that diet is no longer suitable and you’re just invoking naturalistic fallacy.

I thought this point was interesting. And I felt like there may very well be something to it.

Except... I work with big cats. A lot of wildlife, actually.

Some of these species live much longer in captivity. Yet we plan their diet the same - or very nearly so - as their natural diet.

And we know the entire Felidae family are obligate carnivores - every Felid, from the lion all the way down to the manx.

Big cats can subsist on diets with plant matter too, yet we feed them meat and only meat because we know they are obligate carnivores.

And guess what? That lion lives almost as proportionately longer in captivity than it does in the wild, too compared to the domestic cat.

So why aren’t we feeding them grain and starch mixed diets (lord knows it would be WAY cheaper than the obscene amounts of meat we feed them).

There’s not a single species that lives much longer and reproduces far less in captivity that I can think of that we use the same logic on. Not a single one.

That’s not to say we never modify diets, though.

Opossums, for instance. They live about twice as long in captivity. In the wild, these amazing little creatures walk insane distances every day, which is something they can’t do (typically) in captivity.

Because of this, we limit their protein just a little bit more than what they would naturally consume.

However, the difference isn’t hugely substantial, and when we reduce protein, we’re replacing it with......, other things completely natural and that already exists in large amounts as part of their natural diet.

Which is completely different to a domestic cat, where the animal protein discrepancy between their natural diet and the prescription diets is incredibly substantial, and we replace protein with significant quantities of things that show up so little in their natural diet that it’s almost entirely insignificant.

I just don’t get it.

Anyway, because I’m evidenced-based, I have an open mind. I’m not an expert, there could be so much I don’t know or don’t understand, and I am totally and completely open to that.

I’d love to ask these questions and bring up these counterpoints on the forum to see if there IS something I’m unaware of, but unfortunately (and not so surprisingly), you’ll get banned for anything deemed as “promoting raw” 🙄

/rant
I have heard these arguments before. They are based on a profound misunderstanding of the research that is available about prescription foods. Most of it is based on 30 day trials, not longitudinal studies, and most is also funded by the very pet feed companies that make the food. We don’t know how many studies that don’t support the “benefits” of their food have been withheld from publication.

Being someone who works in science, I also cringe every time I hear the phrase “evidence-based.” Most people who use this phrase have no idea what they mean by evidence. In science, there are many different ways to provide evidence. Some evidence is based on deduction and logic. Such as, we know that cats are obligate carnivores therefore we deduce an appropriate diet that’s high in animal protein. Anecdotal evidence can also be valuable. I have been feeding healthy cats raw meat for over 10 years.

Vets can proclaim to be “evidence-based” but they often lack critical thought. I’m lucky to have a vet who’s been practicing for over 30 years and who does think critically and does support me feeding fresh raw meat.

When the norm in a health care profession is to recommend processed feed over fresh food then you know there’s some serious lack of critical thinking going on.

edit: Just want to clarify that I wasn’t trying to take a jab at you about using the phrase “evidence-based.” My comments are directed at the vets we are talking about.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25

CFD-JTZ

TCS Member
Thread starter
Young Cat
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
29
Purraise
44
Well I'm really glad we can have this conversation here. I would love to be able to find a vet that was an advocate for the raw diet. I plan on taking some online classes because I really want to understand this better. But the friction from commercial food companies will prove to be a difficult barrier to break through. It's simply honesty that we want. Y'all are giving me plenty to think about!
 
Top