Pork in cat food - what's the deal?

[ldg]

Just the mention of Hills and Science Diet is enough of a suggestion to indicate the kind of information I might find in Anne Martin's book, which I was aware, exists out there.

Well, you're confusing the two books. It is Dr. Hodgkins that worked for Hill's.

Anne Martin didn't single out Hill's, she wrote about her 7 years of research into what goes into pet food.

My comments are in response to your suggestion that scraps, garbage and leftovers are all one can expect from ALL cans of cat food, and how it is that you know this for a fact. I can't see that this is the case, particularly in the premium brands.

First of all, I haven't said that is true of "ALL" pet food. And feel free to believe whatever you want. There is no "proof" one way or another.

It seems to me that you are saying that people can avoid all of this 'garbage' by simply making their own food. I have said it before that I think a raw or cooked diet is fine, but its not for everyone or every pet, for different reasons.

What does the one statement have to do with the other?

1) Yes, you can provide human grade food by making your own.

2) Of course it's not for everyone, no one implied it is. :scratch:

Moreover, what does this say to those who are either in the process of currently switching their pets to a wet canned diet from a dry diet, (because one of us at one point or another made the suggestion that wet is best), or are doing their best in meeting their cats need for a species appropriate diet in feeding a wet canned food. They may be reading these comments and wondering, well gee, I have just switched my cat to wet canned from dry, but based on this post over here, wet canned may not be good enough either? Where does it end, and what becomes good enough. It should be about doing the best you can with what you've got.

So... information shouldn't be provided so people can make informed decisions? Or were you asking a rhetorical question?

Because I completely agree, and I find constantly that people, when they begin to understand a cat's needs and pet food choices, they feed to the best of their ability - whether it's a better dry food, a combination of wet and dry food, or species-appropriate canned foods; a mix of inexpensive canned foods and perceived higher quality canned foods, maybe a mix of canned and commercial raw, or one meal of homemade raw: the mix and match options are quite a few.

But one thing I'm quite sure of: the point of the forums is for people to share information so informed decisions can be made.

I think it is to a certain extent. This is actually a really good topic for another thread, one I bet would consist of a hearty debate. :lol3:

I always like to tell people to feed the best you can afford that your cat will actually eat. That means completely different things to different people. IMO, no one diet is perfect and will work for every cat, just the same way it is with humans. I am also sick to death of the human scientific food studies that constantly conflict each other. It really comes down to doing the best you can under your circumstances. :nod:

 

[oneandahalfcats]

Well, you're confusing the two books. It is Dr. Hodgkins that worked for Hill's.

Anne Martin didn't single out Hill's, she wrote about her 7 years of research into what goes into pet food.
First of all, I haven't said that is true of "ALL" pet food. And feel free to believe whatever you want. There is no "proof" one way or another.
What does the one statement have to do with the other?

1) Yes, you can provide human grade food by making your own.

2) Of course it's not for everyone, no one implied it is.

So... information shouldn't be provided so people can make informed decisions? Or were you asking a rhetorical question?

Because I completely agree, and I find constantly that people, when they begin to understand a cat's needs and pet food choices, they feed to the best of their ability - whether it's a better dry food, a combination of wet and dry food, or species-appropriate canned foods; a mix of inexpensive canned foods and perceived higher quality canned foods, maybe a mix of canned and commercial raw, or one meal of homemade raw: the mix and match options are quite a few.

But one thing I'm quite sure of: the point of the forums is for people to share information so informed decisions can be made.

The way you worded the mention of the two books seemed to suggest that Anne Martin was involved with both and Elizabeth Hodgins co-authored the second. If you re-read that sentence its easy to draw this conclusion.

Yes it is important to share information for the purposes of informing others, but its clear that your opinion of canned cat food is that most or all of it is garbage. Just wondering how helpful you feel this information is to someone who chooses to feed canned wet food to their pet?

It wasn't so long ago that my cats were on a dry food diet. I took the decision to change this in response to a medical condition in one of my cats, and today I can say that all of my cats are better for this decision. Remembering how it was, I try not to be that person who makes judgements about the food that other people choose to feed, but try and encourage others to do the best they can.

 

[ldg]

Yes it is important to share information for the purposes of informing others, but its clear that your opinion of canned cat food is that most or all of it is garbage. Just wondering how helpful you feel this information is to someone who chooses to feed canned wet food to their pet?

Where did I ever say canned cat food is garbage, used as an adjective?

I have used it as a noun. I personally don't even have anything against "by products." I feed the ferals Friskies pate foods and I feed the indoor cats Fancy Feast classics periodically to ensure non-raw doesn't upset their tummies because we have regular power outages here.

Cats in the wild eat veins and lungs and feet and feathers and fur and munch on dead deer that's been baking in the sun for three days. Anne Martin says the "chicken" in cat food isn't something she"d want on her dining table. No, it's not. But I wouldn't want most of what a cat would eat on my dining table.

The issue is marketing vs reality, and what we believe we're feeding them vs what's in that kibble or that can. We like to believe it is ... for the most part, something it isn't. GoHolistic's comment/question pointed that out.

No, you're reading something into my comments that isn't there.

Completely off-topic, my issue with pet food is partly quality, and mostly processing. No, the issue isn't that I think the food is garbage, used as an adjective. The issue as I see it is that it's so processed. I wouldn't want to live on canned stew, dry cereal and vitamins. And I fed my cats Hill's Rx diet (c/d) free-fed kibble with two meals a day of c/d canned for six years. I didn't think about the ingredients or the format or the processing. And yes, I am upset with myself and my vet. I think there's something wrong with the mindset, and I think there's something VERY wrong with the lack of transparency in cat food ingredient definitions and labeling.

It wasn't so long ago that my cats were on a dry food diet. I took the decision to change this in response to a medical condition in one of my cats, and today I can say that all of my cats are better for this decision. Remembering how it was, I try not to be that person who makes judgements about the food that other people choose to feed, but try and encourage others to do the best they can.

You changed what you're feeding. You see health and vitality improvements. Because of this, you will likely help educate and encourage others to improve on their choices when they're asking questions and looking for information. Does that mean you are judging those who don't feed what you are?

You have taken information I provided in response to a comment that indicated unrealistic expectations on what to expect to find in a food out of context and projected judgment where there is none. Not only do I recommend Friskies pate and Fancy Feast classics to people who can't afford Weruva or don't want to make homemade, I use those foods. But I don't expect them - or most any cat food other than what I make - to have what I think of as "meat" in any quantity. :dk: Cats need "by products" and veins and connective tissue. I just prefer it be less processed and in better proportion.

 

[oneandahalfcats]

Where did I ever say canned cat food is garbage, used as an adjective?

I have used it as a noun. I personally don't even have anything against "by products." I feed the ferals Friskies pate foods and I feed the indoor cats Fancy Feast classics periodically to ensure non-raw doesn't upset their tummies because we have regular power outages here.

Cats in the wild eat veins and lungs and feet and feathers and fur and munch on dead deer that's been baking in the sun for three days. Anne Martin says the "chicken" in cat food isn't something she"d want on her dining table. No, it's not. But I wouldn't want most of what a cat would eat on my dining table.

The issue is marketing vs reality, and what we believe we're feeding them vs what's in that kibble or that can. We like to believe it is ... for the most part, something it isn't. GoHolistic's comment/question pointed that out.

No, you're reading something into my comments that isn't there.

Completely off-topic, my issue with pet food is partly quality, and mostly processing. No, the issue isn't that I think the food is garbage, used as an adjective. The issue as I see it is that it's so processed. I wouldn't want to live on canned stew, dry cereal and vitamins. And I fed my cats Hill's Rx diet (c/d) free-fed kibble with two meals a day of c/d canned for six years. I didn't think about the ingredients or the format or the processing. And yes, I am upset with myself and my vet. I think there's something wrong with the mindset, and I think there's something VERY wrong with the lack of transparency in cat food ingredient definitions and labeling.
You changed what you're feeding. You see health and vitality improvements. Because of this, you will likely help educate and encourage others to improve on their choices when they're asking questions and looking for information. Does that mean you are judging those who don't feed what you are?

You have taken information I provided in response to a comment that indicated unrealistic expectations on what to expect to find in a food out of context and projected judgment where there is none. Not only do I recommend Friskies pate and Fancy Feast classics to people who can't afford Weruva or don't want to make homemade, I use those foods. But I don't expect them - or most any cat food other than what I make - to have what I think of as "meat" in any quantity.

Cats need "by products" and veins and connective tissue. I just prefer it be less processed and in better proportion.

My initial objection (not judgement) Laurie, was with the suggestion that most canned cat foods contain garbage ingredients. You have to admit that the word 'garbage' is pretty derogatory. It is my hope that with all of the recalls, consumer complaints and competition from emerging smaller companies through the years, that there has been some improvement in the quality of canned and dry cat food. I think in some respects, this is certainly the case. The real proof is in the pudding when you crack open a can of cat food, you get a sense right off the bat of what the quality of the contents are like. Case in point, I recently purchased a can ($2.19) of Wild Calling to try it out, but upon opening the can and having a look, I just couldn't bring myself to feed this to my cats. The contents were a greyish-tinged pink blob, and I ended up tossing it. I find the Nature's Variety to be much better in terms of consistency, smell, overall look, taking into consideration what is listed for ingredients. I was feeding Wellness grain-free for awhile but switched to NV on account of the inconsistencies with the consistency of the Wellness.

It is my understanding that if a can of pet food has by-products, that it has to say so in the ingredients list. If the ingredients do not list by-products but a meat protein such as chicken or turkey, rabbit, then I take this to mean that I can expect something other than spleens, connective tissues, and hopefully something that resembles muscle meat, especially for canned food that costs well above $1/can. It concerns me as well that much of the canned food is very processed. When you can take the contents of some stuff and it all falls out of the can in one gelatinous blob, then you know there has been a lot of heavy mixing going on, to the point where, the contents are virtually indiscernible. Dirt could be in there and you wouldn't know it. I think there is less chance of by-products with rabbit as there isn't a lot of mainstream human foods that contain rabbit that would result in much left over?

There is a heck of a lot of marketing out there but also a certain amount of influence from the veterinary industry. I think consumers have gotten a lot more savvy in realizing that marketing doesn't always match the reality, in this case, that healthy looking chicken on the bag, is not what is going to be in the food verbatim. If chicken breast or pork chops were part of the recipe, this would definitely mean a higher price tag. I learned through feeding RC Fibre food, just what corn, wheat and glutens can do in causing much bloating, gas, and really stinky, huge stools.I knew this food was bad and felt badly the whole time my cats were on it. It was expensive. My vet insisted that Max needed to stay on this to manage his constipation and for a year this is what I fed. Last October I put my foot down and said, enough. There has got to be a better way and proceeded to transition everyone to 75/25 split of wet/dry.

In response to your expectations regarding canned cat food, I think its important for expectations to be high when it comes to commercial pet foods. To report things that are not right rather than just move on to another brand, to insist that pet food companies do a better job. Consumers place a lot of trust in the pet food industry which is a billion dollar business. This industry has the responsibility for ensuring that the food they make is safe, nutritionally complete and reasonably wholesome in terms of the contents. I don't think better food has to mean higher prices. I certainly expect that if I am paying upwards of $3/can for cat food that there better be something resembling muscle meat in there, or someone is going to hear about it.

  In fact, I think on that note, I am going to dash off an email to Wellness and Nature's Variety, and perhaps Hound & Gatos, to see what they have to say on this subject.

 

[ldg]

In response to your expectations regarding canned cat food, I think its important for expectations to be high when it comes to commercial pet foods. To report things that are not right rather than just move on to another brand, to insist that pet food companies do a better job. Consumers place a lot of trust in the pet food industry which is a billion dollar business.

And that trust has been misplaced time and time again. :dk:

"Complete and balanced" foods were killing pets when they didn't know about the importance of taurine in the diet.

Now, dry foods are killing our pets because of the lack of hydration, and CRF is the result. When is WATER going to be considered an essential "nutrient?" The link between dry foods, chronic (if mild) dehydration and FLUTD has been established. CRF is one of the leading causes of death in cats, and chronic mild dehydration is known to be a factor in kidney disease.

:dk:

This industry has the responsibility for ensuring that the food they make is safe, nutritionally complete and reasonably wholesome in terms of the contents.

Do they? The AAFCO isn't even a regulatory body. Yes, they can't poison our pets with salmonella, the FDA does act on that. But all they "have" to do is follow the AAFCO guidelines for ingredient definitions, labeling, nutrient targets (many of which have no maximum established, so cat foods can do things like... have far too much iodine in them, which likely contributes to the condition of hyperthyroid in our cats). I guess it depends upon your definition of "safe." And THAT is my point - as a consumer, my definition of safe is not at all the same as that of Nestle, or Mars, Inc., or P&G, or Colgate Palmolive, or Del Monte, etc. Many argue that the very idea of "nutritionally complete" is misleading.

I don't think better food has to mean higher prices. I certainly expect that if I am paying upwards of $3/can for cat food that there better be something resembling muscle meat in there, or someone is going to hear about it. :wife:   In fact, I think on that note, I am going to dash off an email to Wellness and Nature's Variety, and perhaps Hound & Gatos, to see what they have to say on this subject.

Excellent. Contacting the companies is a great idea. I'd love to know if you get an answer to the question, what percentage of one can of food is muscle meat.

Of course... NV is 45% fat. But of the protein portion, it'll be interesting to hear if they answer that question.

Edited to add: might want to specify that when using the term "muscle meat" you mean breast, thigh, or leg, not lung, veins, mechanically recovered meat etc.

 

[oneandahalfcats]

And that trust has been misplaced time and time again.

"Complete and balanced" foods were killing pets when they didn't know about the importance of taurine in the diet.

Now, dry foods are killing our pets because of the lack of hydration, and CRF is the result. When is WATER going to be considered an essential "nutrient?" The link between dry foods, chronic (if mild) dehydration and FLUTD has been established. CRF is one of the leading causes of death in cats, and chronic mild dehydration is known to be a factor in kidney disease.

Do they? The AAFCO isn't even a regulatory body. Yes, they can't poison our pets with salmonella, the FDA does act on that. But all they "have" to do is follow the AAFCO guidelines for ingredient definitions, labeling, nutrient targets (many of which have no maximum established, so cat foods can do things like... have far too much iodine in them, which likely contributes to the condition of hyperthyroid in our cats). I guess it depends upon your definition of "safe." And THAT is my point - as a consumer, my definition of safe is not at all the same as that of Nestle, or Mars, Inc., or P&G, or Colgate Palmolive, or Del Monte, etc. Many argue that the very idea of "nutritionally complete" is misleading.
Excellent. Contacting the companies is a great idea. I'd love to know if you get an answer to the question, what percentage of one can of food is muscle meat.

Of course... NV is 45% fat. But of the protein portion, it'll be interesting to hear if they answer that question.

Edited to add: might want to specify that when using the term "muscle meat" you mean breast, thigh, or leg, not lung, veins, mechanically recovered meat etc.

Yes, I find it really tragic and unfortunate that so many cats seem to be developing URIs, FLUTD. Its almost epidemic it seems! I am thankful that my cats are good drinkers, but have noticed a bit of a decline in water intake since feeding more canned. To be expected.

I don't see where you are getting 45% fat in the NV? There is not a lot of carb to speak of. Unless you are counting chicken liver, the numbers are 95% protein, 5% carb. 0% grains. Overall I find the NV to be pretty lean, compared to the Wellness which often (not always) had fat swimming at the top of the can when first opened.

Sent notes to Wellness and Nature's Variety. Should hear something this week, if not, next. Will start a new thread with reports on this (AbbysMom )

 

[ldg]

I don't see where you are getting 45% fat in the NV? There is not a lot of carb to speak of. Unless you are counting chicken liver, the numbers are 95% protein, 5% carb. 0% grains. 

You're confusing ingredients for nutrients. The product is 95% "meat", 5% other stuff.

The guaranteed analysis is http://www.instinctpetfood.com/product/instinct-grain-free-canned-cat-food-chicken

Crude Protein (min): 11.0%
Crude Fat (min): 8.0%
Crude Fiber (max): 3.0%
Moisture (max): 75.0%

So on a dry matter basis, it is

Crude Protein (min): 44.0%
Crude Fat (min): 32.0%
Crude Fiber (max): 12.0%

Sorry - I was thinking about mschauer's analysis of the foods on an ENERGY basis, not the dry matter basis. But even there I was wrong. On an energy basis, 62% of the calories come from fat:

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/245993/high-quality-canned-high-fat

Click on the link she provided to the spreadsheet for the comparison information.

 

[oneandahalfcats]

You're confusing ingredients for nutrients. The product is 95% "meat", 5% other stuff.

The guaranteed analysis is http://www.instinctpetfood.com/product/instinct-grain-free-canned-cat-food-chicken

Crude Protein (min): 11.0%
Crude Fat (min): 8.0%
Crude Fiber (max): 3.0%
Moisture (max): 75.0%

So on a dry matter basis, it is

Crude Protein (min): 44.0%
Crude Fat (min): 32.0%
Crude Fiber (max): 12.0%

Sorry - I was thinking about mschauer's analysis of the foods on an ENERGY basis, not the dry matter basis. But even there I was wrong. On an energy basis, 62% of the calories come from fat:

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/245993/high-quality-canned-high-fat

Click on the link she provided to the spreadsheet for the comparison information.

Not confused, just going with the information I have at hand. I have seen the GA analysis. You were obviously taking your figures based on other calculations.

I have received responses from both Nature's Variety and Wellness which I will be sharing in another thread.

 

[ldg]

OK - but 95% protein is not at all the same thing as 95% meat.

 

[Willowy]

OK - but 95% protein is not at all the same thing as 95% meat.

Well. . .the website (and on the cans) says "95% meat/liver, 5% fruits/veggies, 0% grains"

But obviously a lot of that meat is quite fatty.

 

[ldg]

Well. . .the website (and on the cans) says "95% meat/liver, 5% fruits/veggies, 0% grains"

But obviously a lot of that meat is quite fatty.

Right. But "meat" is not synonymous with "protein" (as a macronutrient). NV does not claim the food is 95% protein. We wouldn't want to feed it if it was. Cats don't need that much protein.

All meat has some fat in it and a lot of moisture. Stewed skinless chicken breast, for example: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/858

On a "guaranteed analysis" basis is

68.27% moisture
28.98% protein
3.03% fat

On a dry matter basis, it is

91% protein
9% fat

With the skin http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/854

66.27% moisture
27.39% protein
7.42% fat

Dry matter:

81% protein
19% fat

 

[slykat12]

Excellent thread. I asked a few months ago regarding the new fad of pork only canned cat foods but no one responded. I am glad to read all of your opinions and will peruse the links and articles provided. My 7 monther loves NV pork and Lotus Just Juicy Pork. 

 

[oneandahalfcats]

Well. . .the website (and on the cans) says "95% meat/liver, 5% fruits/veggies, 0% grains"

But obviously a lot of that meat is quite fatty.

Yes, it is my understanding that meat can be fatty IF the source is a lot of trimmings. Liver, while quite high in fat is I think a good source of protein so long as it is not an overwhelming part of the meat source. Much better than skin, especially chicken skin. NV is pretty low carb at 3% which is one of the things I liked about it.

Right. But "meat" is not synonymous with "protein" (as a macronutrient). NV does not claim the food is 95% protein. We wouldn't want to feed it if it was. Cats don't need that much protein.

All meat has some fat in it and a lot of moisture. Stewed skinless chicken breast, for example: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/858

On a "guaranteed analysis" basis is

68.27% moisture
28.98% protein
3.03% fat

On a dry matter basis, it is

91% protein
9% fat

With the skin http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/854

66.27% moisture
27.39% protein
7.42% fat

Dry matter:

81% protein
19% fat

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You are saying on the one hand that protein is not necessarily meat, but then go on to say that meat is not necessarily protein? Which is it? There are different sources of protein but in this case we are talking about the meat in NV.

What is important to me is that canned cat food contains a good amount of quality protein, is low carb and reasonable fat content. Cats need a certain amount of fat in their diet. So far the NV seems to be meeting my expectations, especially in the low carb department. Ultimately, there is NO perfect canned cat food, but NV is one of the brands that comes pretty close.

 

[ldg]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You are saying on the one hand that protein is not necessarily meat, but then go on to say that meat is not necessarily protein? Which is it? There are different sources of protein but in this case we are talking about the meat in NV.

I'm not at all clear on what you're reading in my comment. But I'll rephrase it. Meat is referred to as a protein. Meat contains protein. But meat is not the same thing AS protein. Canned foods that are 95% meat claim to be... 95% meat, not 95% protein. You said that Nature's Variety is 95% protein. That is inaccurate, and they do not make that claim.

:dk:

What is important to me is that canned cat food contains a good amount of quality protein, is low carb and reasonable fat content. Cats need a certain amount of fat in their diet. So far the NV seems to be meeting my expectations, especially in the low carb department. Ultimately, there is NO perfect canned cat food, but NV is one of the brands that comes pretty close.

That you are happy with it (and your cats like it!) is all that matters.

 

[oneandahalfcats]

I'm not at all clear on what you're reading in my comment. But I'll rephrase it. Meat is referred to as a protein. Meat contains protein. But meat is not the same thing AS protein. Canned foods that are 95% meat claim to be... 95% meat, not 95% protein. You said that Nature's Variety is 95% protein. That is inaccurate, and they do not make that claim.

 

My mention of the 95% protein was in error. It should have read meat which is what is indicated at the website and on the cans, as Willowy pointed out.

You said earlier that meat is not synonymous with protein? Meat in and of itself, is a complete protein.

 

[ldg]

:lol3: Yes, meat is a protein, I haven't said anywhere it isn't. :lol3: But when referring to the contents of cat food, the meat content is not the same as the protein content. In that context, "meat" and "protein" cannot be used interchangeably. That is my only point. I don't know how it became so seemingly complicated! :lol3:

 

[cheddi]

Foods for cats with chronic kidney disease are mostly pork based.  Perhaps it is lower in phosphorus than other meats.

Cheri

 

[char-char]

 
Foods for cats with chronic kidney disease are mostly pork based.  Perhaps it is lower in phosphorus than other meats.

Cheri

I was looking for info on CRF and pork for a friend with a kitty in need when I found this thread...For the meats I have used: pork center cut lion 26g protein + 240mg  phosphorus/100g, thighs 18g + 216mg, beef round 30g + 200mg, lamb 23g + 180mg.

But with ANY meat used it depends on the cut. I would not feed my cat pork by-products or any cuts from the back ham or belly. Those parts may have less phosphorus, but certainly less protein and more fat.

I've been making cat food for awhile and started using cooked pork (center cut lion) with the chicken thighs after Charlie started walking away from her chicken only food last year. She doesn't like beef, lamb or even white meat chicken breasts!

It's about a 2:1 chicken-pork meat mix. And ever since she looks healthier, the food has less fat more protein (pork 26g vs. thighs 18g). I added 1% dry pumpkin fiber cause her poops got so tiny. So the digestibility of pork with my cat seems to be higher than chicken alone. Charlie is also a speedy eater and would regurgitate sometimes, but it really helped once I added the leaner pork and pumpkin.