My first cooked chicken cat food!

[lcat4]

I'm not concerned about the Ca in this instance, I can work around that.  My concern is whether to use cooked weight or raw weight in the calculation.  The difference between your two calculations above, is that you are not adding back water in the second calculation, you are adding back fat and other nutrients, sort of liquid meat. In the same way adding chicken skin affects the Alnutrin calculation, the cooked liquid returned to the meat must have a factor in the end result. 

I equate raw meat to cooked meat if all cooked liquids are added back.  We are not expected to determine the DMB weight of our raw meat when using the calculator.  So if we add back in all the cooked liquid from that (now cooked) raw meat, how can we ignore it when using the calculator? 

Am I looking at this picture wrong? 

 

[mschauer]

My ponderings thus far:

In determining the nutrient profile for a cooked food one problem is how to account for the nutrients in the cooking liquid. When using the USDA entry for a cooked food and its cooked weight, as I did, the nutrients that leached out into the cooking liquid and were "reclaimed" by using the liquid in the recipe are unaccounted for. 

When using the USDA entry for a raw food and its raw weight that is then cooked, the nutrients that are permanently lost due to the cooking are unaccounted for.

In my analysis I choose the conservative route and used the cooked entry knowing that it would under report the nutrients in my recipe because of not accounting for the nutrients in the cooking liquid.

In looking at just the Ca neither is affected by cooking as long as the cooking liquid is used. So using the USDA entry for the raw ingredient and its raw weight will result in a more accurate result for that particular calculation.

I'm not done pondering yet...

 

[mschauer]

I'm not concerned about the Ca in this instance, I can work around that.  My concern is whether to use cooked weight or raw weight in the calculation.  The difference between your two calculations above, is that you are not adding back water in the second calculation, you are adding back fat and other nutrients, sort of liquid meat. In the same way adding chicken skin affects the Alnutrin calculation, the cooked liquid returned to the meat must have a factor in the end result. 

I equate raw meat to cooked meat if all cooked liquids are added back.  We are not expected to determine the DMB weight of our raw meat when using the calculator.  So if we add back in all the cooked liquid from that (now cooked) raw meat, how can we ignore it when using the calculator? 

Am I looking at this picture wrong? 

No there is no need to calculate DMB. I was just saying that the *calculator* does its analysis on a dry matter basis and that is why the moisture content doesn't matter.

The issue with using raw weight or cooked weight is this: If there were no permanent nutrient loss during cooking then the raw ingredient and the cooked ingredient plus cooking liquid would have exactly the same nutrient content. But there is permanent nutrient loss during cooking.

Edit: I just realized, talking about which weight to use ultimately isn't the issue. I mean I know that is the ultimately the question you need an answer to. But the whole thing is greatly confused because you compared my recipe with cooked chuck roast against a recipe with raw 90% lean ground beef. I understand you think the amount of Alnutrin for the two recipes should be reasonable close and are wondering why they aren't. I'll look into it in detail tonight and tell you exactly why there is such a big difference. I can't do it right now though.

 

[lcat4]

I realize you're still thinking.  I'm reading what you're saying and I understand.  Here's the actual from my end as I'm trying to determine if I've been doing it wrong. 

For example, in generalized terms (ignoring liver and added water)... I start with one pound of raw meat and cook it.  I don't know cooked weight, but obviously less than raw (let's say .75 pounds).  I also have a cup of liquid.  I enter into the calculator 100% beef and 1 pound for my meat weight.  It calculates 6.5 g Alnutrin, based on my desired Ca ratio (doesn't matter what for this purpose).  I take my .75 pounds cooked meat, my cup of liquid and add 6.5 g Alnutrin.  This is how I've been doing it. 

You are saying I should enter .75 pounds meat into the calculator.  That will result in a lesser amount of Alnutrin, let's say 5.5 g.  I then take my .75 pounds cooked meat, my cup of liquid and add 5.5 g Alnutrin. 

The difference is the amount of Alnutrin, which changes some nutrients and the eggshell amount added.  In this example, 1 gram spread over 1 pound (or .75 pounds) of meat isn't much, maybe it isn't anything to worry about.  In your recipe, I thought the Alnutrin should be more like 27 g, depending on calcium ratio, so spread that over 4 pounds cooked meat/liquid.  Again, we're probably still within the accepted range of calcium to phosphorus.   

I have only been doing the cooked meats for a couple months, and my cats still mostly get fed raw.  But I would like to do this correctly if I'm continuing to cook some meats. 

Edit:  I just read your last post.  While I would like to know the difference in Alnutrin calculation between a roast and ground beef, I believe the bigger question to me is whether to use the raw or cooked weight (without liquid) to determine the amount of Alnutrin.  I have no problem doing it either way, I just want to end up with a correctly balanced meal for my cats.  In my example above, if I add 6.5g Alnutrin to 1 pound meat, the calculator shows a 1.17:1 Ca ratio.  If I add 6.5g Alnutrin to .8 pounds meat (their rounding), the calculator shows 1.48:1 Ca ratio.  On the flip side, if I add 5.5g Alnutrin to 1 pound meat, the Ca ratio is 1.02:1.  The same amount added to .8 pounds meat has a ratio of 1.25:1.  My goal is somewhere around the 1.2:1 mark.  In general, I prefer the conservative approach, but my concern is the swing from 1.02 to 1.48 if I don't have it right. 

I have other work to do today too.  I'm sure we'll figure it out.  Thanks!

 

[mschauer]

You are saying I should enter .75 pounds meat into the calculator.  That will result in a lesser amount of Alnutrin, let's say 5.5 g.  I then take my .75 pounds cooked meat, my cup of liquid and add 5.5 g Alnutrin.

It only results in a lower amount of Alnutrin because you are entering it as .75 lbs of "raw" meat but it isn't really raw. The amount of Alnutrin should be close if you entered 1 lbs of raw beef vs .75 lb of cooked beef (assuming the .75 is the correct cooked yield). Cooked meat has a higher concentration of nutrients because of the lower moisture content so you need less of it to equal the same nutrient content of the raw version even despite cooking losses.

 

[mschauer]

Well I just checked and entering raw chicken breast or cooked chicken breast in their online calculator results in the same needed amount of Alnutrin contrary to what I said. 

I have to stop messing with this for now. I'll get back on it when I get home. 

 

[lcat4]

Before you posted #145, did you see my edit to post #144? 

I'm going to go to the source and email Know What You Feed.  I probably won't hear back until tomorrow.  I'll share once I do. 

 

[goholistic]

It does conflict! Maybe contact them for clarification?

I decided to start a new thread on this so that more people can learn from the different products that Balance IT offers.

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/263825/clarification-on-balance-it-supplement-for-home-cooked

 

[mschauer]

I thought you already asked them and they said to use the raw weight??

 

[mrsgreenjeens]

Has anyone asked Marta what she thinks?  (whether to measure the meats raw or cooked to determine the amount of Alnutrin to use)

 

[mrsgreenjeens]

Has anyone asked Marta what she thinks?  (whether to measure the meats raw or cooked to determine the amount of Alnutrin to use)

Oops!  Sorry, several more posts happened while I was typing this

.  Now I see Marta is being asked as we type (so to speak

)

 

[goholistic]

I thought you already asked them and they said to use the raw weight??

I didn't get a response from them until just a little bit ago, and I used the information they gave me to start the new thread. It really depends on which one of their products is being used.

 

[mschauer]

Has anyone asked Marta what she thinks?  (whether to measure the meats raw or cooked to determine the amount of Alnutrin to use)

Marta had told me to use the raw meat weight, adding back all the reserved liquid after cooking, when determining the Alnutrin calculation. If you don't add back the reserved liquid, which to me would affect the nutrient profile of the meat, we should use the cooked weight and calculate the Alnutrin accordingly.

 

[mschauer]

I thought you already asked them and they said to use the raw weight??

I didn't get a response from them until just a little bit ago, and I used the information they gave me to start the new thread. It really depends on which one of their products is being used.

That question was meant for LCat4. She and I had the thread all to ourselves for a while. 

 

[ldg]

When there is an answer as to how to use the Alnutrin calculator for cooked meats, it'd be nice if someone started a Clarification on the use of Alnutrin for Cooked Recipes thread, so it's easily referenced. Thank you.

 

[goholistic]

When there is an answer as to how to use the Alnutrin calculator for cooked meats, it'd be nice if someone started a Clarification on the use of Alnutrin for Cooked Recipes thread, so it's easily referenced. Thank you.

 

 

[mschauer]

Before you posted #145, did you see my edit to post #144? 

I'm going to go to the source and email Know What You Feed.  I probably won't hear back until tomorrow.  I'll share once I do. 

OK, here is what I predict Marta is going to say (all of which is essentially what she already told you): 

When cooking and using the cooking liquid, use the raw weights. The analysis will, somewhat incorrectly, show all nutrients preserved.  Alnutrin is formulated with enough of a safety factor that it will cover the additional nutrients lost during cooking.

When cooking and discarding the cooking liquid use the cooked weight. 

In my analysis I did the second method even though I actually used the cooking liquids and I used the USDA database entry for cooked beef which reflects the nutrient loses from cooking. The only side affect I was expecting from taking that approach is that my analysis would underestimate the amount of some nutrients. Which would be OK because the underestimation wouldn't be enough to result in over supplementation when I was determining how much of each supplement to use. BUT, in cooking a higher proportion of phophorus is leached into the cooking liquid than calcium. So the cooked beef database entry I used has a starting Ca higher than what I really had given that I preserved the cooking liquids. So when I figured out how much Alnutrin to use to achieve the Ca I wanted I didn't use enough because the actual phosphorus content I was starting with was higher than what my analysis was showing me.

OK, I know that is probably impossible to follow. Here is the short version: I was wrong! 

I should have used the raw weight and the raw ingredients from the database which would result in me using 27.3 g of Alnutrin to get a Ca of 1.2.

But, using the raw weight and raw ingredient entries from the database means my analysis, before supplementation, will overstate some nutrients so I need to include a "cooked" factor to some of the nutrients to account for the unrecoverable losses during cooking. 

I've asked that my beef recipe with Alnutrin post be deleted. 

 

[lcat4]

Thanks Mschauer, for spending so much time trying to figure this out, and working through all the chemistry behind it.  I emailed Marta, and she responded.  Unfortunately, in trying to provide a simplified example, I confused the issue. 

  Her answer related to meat with skin and no skin and how the Alnutrin calculator makes adjustments required by the differences in calories and energy density over 4 kcal ME, according to AAFCO rule.  In retrospect, (keeping in mind my lack of understanding for anything related to science) her response and mschauer's summary above are somewhat related.  In much fancier words, Marta basically said the presence of the skin/fat raises the energy density of the meat and therefore requires more adjustment from the Alnutrin.  Mschauer is saying the phosphorus that leaches into the reserved liquid must be accounted for and adjusted by the calcium in Alnutrin.  My take, we have to consider the skin/fat in our calculation, even if it's now in liquid form.  So as mschauer said, raw weight. 

Since I was hoping for a very simple, do this and then do this with the calculator, I re-emailed her.  She always responds quickly, and I assume she will again.  I'll let you know if I get the how-to kind of response. 

 

[mschauer]

Thank you for bringing up the whole issue. Who knows how long it would have taken me to notice my mistake if you hadn't.

The energy density of food is an issue I've willfully turned a blind eye to in my analyses. 

For those interested "energy density of food" refers to how many calories are in the food. We have to feed less of a high calorie food if we don't want weight gain. But eating a lower quantity of food means getting fewer nutrients. So the high calorie food needs to have a higher concentration of nutrients.

I'll be interested in Marta's response!

 

[lcat4]

I've had a couple of back and forth emails with Marta Kaspar at Alnutrin and wanted to share our conversation. 

My final question to her was whether she could provide an overall guideline for using the Alnutrin with eggshell to balance meats (cooked or raw) when those meats are not listed on her online calculator.  As an example, I asked if the raw ground beef category (included in the calculator) could be used to calculate the Alnutrin requirement to safely balance a raw or cooked beef chuck roast (which is what I have done to supplement my cooked roasts), knowing there are differences in the two meat profiles, but hoping (?) the meal would still meet AAFCO requirements. 

Here is her response (she gave permission to reprint here):

Our Alnutrin with Calcium (or EggShell Calcium) was originally designed only for raw diets and as such, it is flexible enough to use it for almost any raw meat. Unfortunately, that is not the case for cooked meats. Due to the fact that cooked meat is much higher in calories than raw meat, the energy densities are automatically corrected and all nutrients recalculated back to 4 kcal ME. This adjustment shifts few nutrients below the AAFCO minimum requirement values. In most cases it is phosphorus that drops too low. And because there is no phosphorus in Alnutrin, increasing the amount of supplement is not going to help. That is why only couple of cooked meats that are higher in calories but also higher in phosphorus content like beef, would work with Alnutrin with Calcium.

I realize that there are products out there that work for any recipe. I am sure they have more ingredients(including phosphorus) added probably in higher concentrations than Alnutrin. But that is not our vision. We want to keep the diet as natural and as low in artificially added vitamins and minerals as possible. 

Best regards,   Marta Kaspar

I am still thinking about what she said, but I wanted to post this right away.