As a veterinarian, however, I'd much rather expose my animals to trace levels of pentobarbital than feed them raw foods,
There's a reason why my vet and I don't discuss pet nutrition.
As a veterinarian, however, I'd much rather expose my animals to trace levels of pentobarbital than feed them raw foods,
They would if they were outside and hungry. Your house cat is no different than a feral cat. Your house cat is a wild cat.While I know my cats are "obligate carnivores", it's not like they are out catching their own dinner like the ferals. Nope, they are lounging the day away.
Check the FDA pages. Not nearly as much as raw food is recalled. Commercial raw is recalled at least 10 times more often - that's my impression after following recalls for a few months.And yet dry food has been recalled for years for salmonella, aflatoxins/mycotoxins, antibiotic residues, improper vitamin/mineral levels and much more.
Cats have been living in proximity to humans for 6000 - 10000 years. Processed cat food with all the carbohydrates and synthetic vitamins has been around for 60-70 years. One could argue that it has taken several decades for evidence to build up against the processed pet feed industry and their products.Now, feeding raw is a relatively new practice (compared to vaccines) so it has taken a couple of decade for evidence to build up around it and the process is ongoing.
As a veterinarian, however, I'd much rather expose my animals to trace levels of pentobarbital than feed them raw foods...
I am very curious about whether you can give us some links for studies showing the adverse effects of raw food for cats? As a raw feeder I am always looking for new studies on the topic and would like to be informed. From my own research, I have only found studies showing that commercial raw food often contains pathogens, which is a bit of a no-brainer to me since it's raw. The whole point of why we feed raw food to cats is that their digestive systems can handle the pathogens, so it doesn't scare me that pathogens are in raw food. And besides this, I have also seen a couple studies showing that raw food is more digestible than dry food for cats.Check the FDA pages. Not nearly as much as raw food is recalled. Commercial raw is recalled at least 10 times more often - that's my impression after following recalls for a few months.
Bringing a list of pages from so-called holistic vets does not help much. You can do the exact same thing in a vaccine argument. Bring 10 pages of people with the Dr. title before their name who oppose vaccines (even though most are not real MD's but that's another problem). That doesn't change the big picture which is that 99% of doctors are pro-vaccines and - more importantly - that they are because of overwhelming evidence presented by a large corpus of scientific evidence.
Now, feeding raw is a relatively new practice (compared to vaccines) so it has taken a couple of decade for evidence to build up around it and the process is ongoing. There are many cats who are fed raw and live good healthy lives and many owners who are happy to feed raw and who are not affected (i.e. don't catch infections themselves, or at least are not aware of that). On the other hand, there is a growing number of case studies about cats (and sometimes humans) who were ill because they ate raw food.
IMHO (feel free to ignore my site owner badge here, I'm just expressing a personal opinion), as the years go by, more evidence against feeding raw is accumulating. That does not necessarily mean that it's a bad choice for a specific cat or a specific owner. Only that when you look at it from the public health angle, it's not as safe as feeding dry food and definitely not as safe as feeding canned.
Personally, I think that feeding raw is still a legitimate choice, especially for a cat who's already used to the diet. Just do so with a clear understanding of the very real risks so you can do your best to mitigate them.
Mostly the latter of the three. And it's the one most likely to have the most effect, as we know from general health studies.Three things happened simultaneously with the rise in chronic disease in cats (and dogs): vaccines, processed foods with ingredients which are inappropriate for cats, and a sedentary indoor-only lifestyle.
Why are you guessing that an indoor lifestyle is more harmful to cats than processed foods or vaccines? That doesn't make sense to me.Mostly the latter of the three. And it's the one most likely to have the most effect, as we know from general health studies.
Cats hunted mice and small birds for millenia. They did not eat raw meat that comes from chickens, cows and pigs raised and slaughtered in an industrial setting. Unless you happen to be feeding your cats wild mice and birds, the plethora of pathogens is bound to be different and a far cry from their natural history.
A Azazel the studies are mostly case studies showing that cats become sick and die of salmonella. Quite a bunch of them and growing in number -
raw cat salmonella - PubMed - NCBI
I'm really sorry that I can't go into more detail. I'd love to discuss this in depth but I'm super busy this week - sorry!
Me, I'm still waiting for the Powers That Be to manufacture some canned food for my kitty called, "Bushtits & Robins and Pumpkin in gravy" or "Minced Finch with extra Taurine" or "Mice Stew with a dash of Halibut"....
Cats hunted mice and small birds for millenia. They did not eat raw meat that comes from chickens, cows and pigs raised and slaughtered in an industrial setting. Unless you happen to be feeding your cats wild mice and birds, the plethora of pathogens is bound to be different and a far cry from their natural history.
...
You're saying there are general health studies stating that indoor-only lifestyle has more negative health effects specifically on cats than either diet or pharmaceutical vaccines? Or do you mean "general" studies which apply to humans and then extrapolated to apply to felines?Mostly the latter of the three. And it's the one most likely to have the most effect, as we know from general health studies.
Scientific evidence outweighs anecdotal evidence. Everyone can point to the practices you cite with cat feeding. The cats didn't go to the vet either. While some cats may have been long-lived, most did not live long enough to develop age-related illnesses. The "huge rise" in diseases you mention--is it a statistical increase or a increase due to reporting? In other words, in the age when grandparents fed their cats food scraps (my grandmother did the same) who knows what killed her barn cats? Bone in the throat? Untreated UTI? Urinary blockage? Cancer? Most likely distemper for sure but these other diseases surely occurred but the numbers and diagnostic tools for pet animals has advanced. For virtually any set of symptoms or disease, a google search will turn up multiple peer reviewed veterinary medical journal articles on the conditions.Cats have been living in proximity to humans for 6000 - 10000 years. Processed cat food with all the carbohydrates and synthetic vitamins has been around for 60-70 years. One could argue that it has taken several decades for evidence to build up against the processed pet feed industry and their products.
I remember visiting my grandmother and watching her put scraps of raw meat trimmings and a chicken wing tip or quail bones in the cat's bowl, along side a bowl of kibble which was out 24/7. She worried the cat never touched the dry food. That cat also went out at night to hunt prey, bringing her a "gift" every morning, and lived to the ripe old age of 23.
Hunting prey and getting extra scraps of meat from humans was the traditional way of feeding cats before the huge rise in UTI's, cancers, IBD, and obesity leading to diabetes and arthritis seen in the last 50 or so years.
Three things happened simultaneously with the rise in chronic disease in cats (and dogs): vaccines, processed foods with ingredients which are inappropriate for cats, and a sedentary indoor-only lifestyle. We can't pinpoint any one of those changes as the sole villain (or as a major hero) in our cats living longer but less healthy lives, but those are the variables we added during the last half century.
Anecdotal evidence is a legitimate form of scientific evidence. We are living in an age of naive empiricism where people believe that "data-driven" science is the ultimate form of knowledge. This is one way of thinking about science and philosophers of science call it a "naive" empiricist view because even a true empiricist wouldn't hold such a rudimentary perspective on science. Science is a powerful tool but when people begin to tie science to one specific way of obtaining knowledge of the world it becomes dangerous. Not all questions of life are empirical questions and there are different ways of obtaining empirical knowledge.Scientific evidence outweighs anecdotal evidence. Everyone can point to the practices you cite with cat feeding.
I apologize if I came off as argumentative but this was not my intention. I often get passionate about feline nutrition because I have had cats that have had medical issues that have been benefited very highly from raw food. I think in this case I will agree to disagree with you.A Azazel these case studies show exactly what I said which was that cats do get sick and die from salmonella poisoning linked to eating raw food. That the statement I had made. You asked for the references and I provided them. I am not trying to argue with you or anyone who feeds raw food. You happen to know that feeding raw comes with a risk. Not everyone knows that and I think it's important to educate people about it so they can make their own decision.
I'm not about to get into the vaccines argument here. Understanding how vaccines actually work is complicated. I've taken the time and effort to study that, actually, including taking an entire course in epidemiology for that. Vaccines are never 100% risk free but they are about 1000 safer than not vaccinating. It's just a question of understanding how vaccines work and not falling for the fear mongering hype Mercola and co. are (literally) selling.
Anyway, the last thing I'm about to do is get into a vaccine debate here on TCS, sorry. I am not even arguing about feeding raw. I still think it's a legitimate choice at this point as long as the owner is aware of the risks both to the cats and humans in the household.
I do think we're not only going off topic though but into clear IMO territory too. I'm reporting my own post to the mods so they can make the call and will now bow out of the thread so I can get some work done.
Anne, of the studies you posted, two of them are about the same cats, and the others are not about cats who died. One is a opinion - studies shouldn't be opinion pieces.A Azazel these case studies show exactly what I said which was that cats do get sick and die from salmonella poisoning linked to eating raw food. That the statement I had made. You asked for the references and I provided them. I am not trying to argue with you or anyone who feeds raw food. You happen to know that feeding raw comes with a risk. Not everyone knows that and I think it's important to educate people about it so they can make their own decision.
I'm not about to get into the vaccines argument here. Understanding how vaccines actually work is complicated. I've taken the time and effort to study that, actually, including taking an entire course in epidemiology for that. Vaccines are never 100% risk free but they are about 1000 safer than not vaccinating. It's just a question of understanding how vaccines work and not falling for the fear mongering hype Mercola and co. are (literally) selling.
Anyway, the last thing I'm about to do is get into a vaccine debate here on TCS, sorry. I am not even arguing about feeding raw. I still think it's a legitimate choice at this point as long as the owner is aware of the risks both to the cats and humans in the household.
I do think we're not only going off topic though but into clear IMO territory too. I'm reporting my own post to the mods so they can make the call and will now bow out of the thread so I can get some work done.