Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / April 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The wet-food/dry-food debate.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Nell - 18 Apr 2005 15:29 GMT
A couple of facts to toss into this unresolved and ongoing debate.

1.  I have purchased FIVE different brands of dry cat-food and none of
these comprises biscuits which are big enough to require my young cats
to crunch or chew.  The biscuit is taken into the mouth and simply
swallowed.  I have asked at my pet shop if there is a brand consisting
of biscuits sufficiently large that they MUST be crunched and broken and
been told they don't exist.  (One would have to give dry dog-food to
cats in order to furnish them with something that requires chewing -
but, of course, dog-food is comprised of different nutrients.)

2.  My cats receive only wet-food for their thrice-a-day meals.  I clean
my cats' teeth every few days.  Every time I clean their teeth I notice
that the incisors, canines, and molars are already pretty clean.
However, the small somewhat-recessed pre-molars are covered externally
in a residue (small amount) of wet-food and plaque.  (Hence, I pay
particular attention to cleaning these pre-molars.)

Thus, a matter for consideration is:

If cats are fed on dry cat-food (small biscuits that they are simply
swallowed without contact with the teeth) will their teeth therefore not
benefit by not accumulating wet-food matter and hence plaque etc?  

(Note, this question is separate from whether or not the constituents of
dry cat-food biscuits is the most appropriate.)

(I currently use dry cat-food biscuits only as a treat, carrying a
supply in my pocket at all times, to be used as a reward when and if
appropriate.)

Thoughts, people?

Nell.
CATacombs - 18 Apr 2005 15:57 GMT
Thoughts?

I think your fake British syntax is for the boids.
Joe Canuck - 18 Apr 2005 20:56 GMT
> Thoughts?
>
> I think your fake British syntax is for the boids.

Troll.
---MIKE--- - 19 Apr 2005 00:06 GMT
Friskies "Dental Diet" has large pieces that require the cat to bite
them into smaller pieces.  This is one of the few dental foods that Phil
P approves of.

                 ---MIKE---
Mary - 19 Apr 2005 00:23 GMT
> Friskies "Dental Diet" has large pieces that require the cat to bite
> them into smaller pieces.  This is one of the few dental foods that Phil
> P approves of.

This was my cat Gnarly's alternative food. I gave it to her a few times a
month. She died at age 20 with all her teeth.
---MIKE--- - 19 Apr 2005 00:59 GMT
>>This was my cat Gnarly's alternative
>> food. I gave it to her a few times a
>> month. She died at age 20 with all her
>> teeth.

Are you saying that the Friskies Dental Diet killed Gnarly?  <G>

                 ---MIKE---
Mary - 19 Apr 2005 04:36 GMT
> >>This was my cat Gnarly's alternative
> >> food. I gave it to her a few times a
> >> month. She died at age 20 with all her
> >> teeth.
>
> Are you saying that the Friskies Dental Diet killed Gnarly?  <G>

<G> That was funny!
Nell - 19 Apr 2005 14:01 GMT
Mike wrote:
> Are you saying that the Friskies Dental Diet killed Gnarly?

> That was funny!

Nell writes:
Yes, funny indeed.  And thanks, people, for helpful referrals to Science
Diet's "Oral Care Adult" and Friskies' "Dental Diet".

Catacombs wrote:
> I think your fake British syntax is for the boids.

Nell writes:
Catacombs, there is more world beyond the borders of your own particular
country, you know!  (I write from the UK and I am British.)
Joe Canuck - 18 Apr 2005 20:54 GMT
> A couple of facts to toss into this unresolved and ongoing debate.

The issue has already been resolved.

Wet food is better if one can get their cat to eat it and it agrees with
their digestive system.

> 1.  I have purchased FIVE different brands of dry cat-food and none of
> these comprises biscuits which are big enough to require my young cats
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> cats in order to furnish them with something that requires chewing -
> but, of course, dog-food is comprised of different nutrients.)

Feeding cats any dog food is a bad idea.

> 2.  My cats receive only wet-food for their thrice-a-day meals.  I clean
> my cats' teeth every few days.  Every time I clean their teeth I notice
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> swallowed without contact with the teeth) will their teeth therefore not
> benefit by not accumulating wet-food matter and hence plaque etc?  

No benefit.

> (Note, this question is separate from whether or not the constituents of
> dry cat-food biscuits is the most appropriate.)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thoughts, people?

For dental benefits, you need to pick a dry food that will not simply
crumble under pressure but stay intact long enough to actually provide
some sort of "scrubbing" effect the length of the tooth.

There are particular formulas that have been certified to provide some
dental benefits. Science Diet makes one, it is called: Oral Care Adult.
There is also a prescription diet that offers dental benefits by the
same company.
Brad - 19 Apr 2005 08:11 GMT
>> A couple of facts to toss into this unresolved and ongoing debate.
>
>The issue has already been resolved.


Gee I didn't know that.......who resolved it you....??

All of a sudden everyone thinks the only issue is if the dry food
cleans teeth. The issue is if the dry or wet food gives them all the
nutrients they need and is healthy for them.

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Mary - 19 Apr 2005 08:15 GMT
> >> A couple of facts to toss into this unresolved and ongoing debate.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Brad

Try Googling this group for "wet or dry food" or something like that.
Joe was being polite. The issue is discussed weekly--and has pretty
much been resolved.
Steve Crane - 19 Apr 2005 14:05 GMT
At the present time the only proven advantage of feeding a canned food
over a dry food is relative to the excretion of water. Cats that ingest
canned foods will excrete the majority of the water in the urine - thus
diluting the urine and reducing the possibility of urolith and crystal
formation. Cats ingesting dry foods and an ~equal amount of free water
will excrete the majority of the water in the feces.

All other claims or advantages for canned foods are merely hypothesis
and opinion and are totally unsupported by any clinical trials or
studies which prove the hypothesis.

Crystal formation in cats hits a very small percentage of cats - in
Lunds study it was less than 2% of cats during thier lifetimes can be
expected to have some form of crystal or urolith problems.
zuzu22@webtv.net - 19 Apr 2005 16:28 GMT
Steve Crane lied:
>At the present time the only proven
>advantage of feeding a canned food over
>a dry food is relative to the excretion of
>water.

Not true. Feeding canned food has been shown to consistently and
sometimes dramatically reduce insulin needs in diabetic cats, with some
cats requiring no insulin after switching to an all canned diet. It does
not take a rocket scientst to understand that high carb content is
related to diabetes and probably causes it.
That's a study your company will never fund, because the results would
be financially catastrophic.  

And since your on your bender about kidney failure, it is more likely
that the rise in CRF is because there are more cats eating a convenient
(to people) dry diet and thus living in a lifetime chronic state of
dehydration, which in turn stresses the kidneys and results in CRF. I
doubt your company will be doing any studies on that either for obvious
reasons.

Megan

                                   
Signature


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray


Suzanne - 19 Apr 2005 16:54 GMT
I feed Girlfriend Wellness, half a can in the morning, half at night. It's
easy to monitor how much she has been eating, plus, from the majority of
opinions here, it's good for her.

I tried dry food - she did eat it, but just pecked at it half-heartedly. I
just felt like I was giving her breakfast cereal, or rabbit pellets...like
we were on the space station and that was her "ration". Why not give her as
close to normal food as possible?

I use the remainder for "fetch" games. Maybe for my next party I'll mix the
rest of it in with the PartySnax and see if anyone notices.

While she eats, I stand behind her going "tweet tweet" so she thinks it's
the real thang. Sounds wierd, but what I do in the privacy of my own home
is my business.
Nell - 19 Apr 2005 21:54 GMT
> While she eats, I stand behind her going "tweet tweet" so she thinks it's
> the real thang. Sounds wierd, but what I do in the privacy of my own home
> is my business.

Hee, hee!  Funny!  I love the image of this!  Can you send me a
recording?  Audio will do, though video would be better.  (And maybe I
find this so funny because yesterday I found one of my 8-month-old
kittens had caught and disembowelled a greenfinch and when called for
dinner had little appetite!  "Ha!" he seemed to be saying.  "I don't
need this tinned rubbish - I've already had REAL protein this
afternoon!")

Nell.
gaubster2@comcast.net - 20 Apr 2005 02:10 GMT
> Steve Crane lied:
> >At the present time the only proven
> >advantage of feeding a canned food over
> >a dry food is relative to the excretion of
> >water.

Megan, just because you disagree w/ someone doesn't mean that they are
"lying".  Know the difference.

> Not true. Feeding canned food has been shown to consistently and
> sometimes dramatically reduce insulin needs in diabetic cats, with some
> cats requiring no insulin after switching to an all canned diet. It does
> not take a rocket scientst to understand that high carb content is
> related to diabetes and probably causes it.

Do you have any peer-reviewed, published studies to back up your
opinion?  No?  I didn't think so!

> And since your on your bender about kidney failure, it is more likely
> that the rise in CRF is because there are more cats eating a convenient
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Megan

Same question again.  Do you have any peer-reviewed, published studies
to support your hypothesis?  It just sounds like another one of your
conspiracy theories!  If you are so sure that your opinion has any
merit, then why don't YOU do a study?  It's easy to tear down
something/someone else, but unless you are willing to step up and pony
up...then perhaps you ought to shut up?
CatNipped - 20 Apr 2005 02:15 GMT
> Megan, just because you disagree w/ someone doesn't mean that they are
> "lying".  Know the difference.

It does in Megan's world, Steve.  I'm just surprised she hasn't demanded an
apology from you yet!  LOL!

Hugs,

CatNipped
Steve Crane - 20 Apr 2005 17:42 GMT
That is incorrect - it was not the fact the food was "canned" but
rather the nutrient levels in the food based on a DMB comparison. Far
more cats have been able to reduce insulin levels by feeding a dry food
with >10% fiber than have ever been able to reduce insulin due to
feeding a low carb diet. That is primarily due to the fact that the low
carb diets for diabetes (Prescription Diet Feline m/d in dry or wet
forms for example) have only been on the market a for a few years and
most cats were fed a high fiber food that controlled diabetes prior to
the arrival of low carb diets.

The objective of the low carb diet in diabetic catsis to put them into
a state of metabolic ketosis. Once that is accomplished the need for
further reduction in carbs is zero. Like everything else we tend to
think if one vitamin pill is good for me then two must be even better.
That is NOT the case. The clinically proven low carb diets for diabetes
are available in both canned and dry form and work equally well - it
has nothing whatsoever to do with canned or dry - but has everything to
do with the nutrient composition.

As for your silly and totally unsupported nonsensical claims around
renal failure and commercial diets - watch out the boogy man is
probably hiding under your bed too and chicken little is running loose
in the yard.
kaeli - 19 Apr 2005 16:42 GMT
> Crystal formation in cats hits a very small percentage of cats - in
> Lunds study it was less than 2% of cats during thier lifetimes can be
> expected to have some form of crystal or urolith problems.

Wow, I should bet on the ponies.

[Had 2 cats with this problem. Both died from it. Both exclusively ate dry
food.]

Signature

--
~kaeli~
If you drink, don't park. Accidents cause people.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Phil P. - 20 Apr 2005 09:14 GMT
> At the present time the only proven advantage of feeding a canned food
> over a dry food is relative to the excretion of water. Cats that ingest
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and opinion and are totally unsupported by any clinical trials or
> studies which prove the hypothesis.

Tony Buffington found a link- although not necessarily a cause between IC
and dry food.  His comment in CVT:

"This does not mean that dry food consumption causes IC, but it could mean
that dry food consumption unmasks or aggravates the disorder in cats that
are predisposed to it (making it a nutrient-sensitive rather than a
diet-induced disease)."

You know and I know that once IC is unmasked it can be a recurring problem
even after the cat is switched to a canned diet.  The way I see it, why take
the risk since there is little if any benefit in feeding dry food to cats-
maybe just a little if the nuggets are large and not brittle.

Debra Grecco and Mark Peterson- former professor of endocrinology at Cornel
and who now heads up the endocrinology dept.at AMC believe that the high
carbohydrate content of most dry foods stresses the pancreas and unmasks
subclinical diabetes in cats with underlying disease and may predispose
other cats to the disease.  Again, since there's little benefit in feeding
dry food to cats, why even take the risk?

Cats fed canned food not only have higher urine volumes, they have a higher
water *intake* than cats fed canned food. See the NRC:

"A number of studies have been conducted in which the ratio of free water to
dry matter intake of cats has been measured (Carver and Waterhouse, 1962;
Thrall and Miller, 1976; Holme, 1977; Jackson and Tovey, 1977; Seefeldt and
Chapman, 1979). Anderson (1983) summarized these data and showed that for
commercial dry foods the ratio of water to dry matter intake varied from 2.0
to 2.8-1 and for canned foods from 3.0 to 5.7: 1."  (That's about 150% to
200% higher water intake on canned).

"All studies on water and dry matter intakes of cats indicate higher total
free water to dry matter ratios for cats given commercial canned food diets
than for cats given commercial dry foods. That is, cats given dry food do
not voluntarily consume water to equal the ratio of water to dry matter of
cats given canned diets containing about 75 percent moisture." (NRC)

Good hydration status will prevent or at least forestall dehydration in
stressed or diseased states. ...not to mention that canned food is also more
digestible than equal quality dry food- that also comes from Tony
Buffington.

I think we'll see a link between CRF and dry food, too, within the next few
years.

Phil
equalizer - 20 Apr 2005 15:58 GMT
>> At the present time the only proven advantage of feeding a canned food
>> over a dry food is relative to the excretion of water. Cats that ingest
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Tony Buffington found a link- although not necessarily a cause between IC
>and dry food.  His comment in CVT:

<SNIP>

Excellent info, Phil! You sure provided lots of stuff to counterpoint
everything that Steve and Gaubster said. I'd say you pretty much proved
Steve's point about water content being the only difference between dry
and canned food!

Thanks for the info. Folks like you and Marshall Dermer are a boon to
these groups!

eq
Steve Crane - 20 Apr 2005 17:45 GMT
Agreed!  I don't see any risk in using canned foods either - but I hate
for people to do so based on nonsensical hysterical claims of impending
doom that are totally unsupported in the literature.

>From a personal perspective my 401K would be much better looking today
if everyone fed canned foods anyway :-)
Steve G - 21 Apr 2005 00:08 GMT
> Agreed!

Um, Phil just spent a few paragraphs trashing dry food ... and you
agree with him? And do you really agree with:

"I think we'll see a link between CRF and dry food, too, within the
next few years."

If so, that's a sudden change of heart!

Steve.
Steve Crane - 21 Apr 2005 04:46 GMT
> > Agreed!
>
> Um, Phil just spent a few paragraphs trashing dry food ... and you
> agree with him? And do you really agree with:

I don't disagree at all that canned foods have a positive benefit -
dilution of urine. I don't ascribe any other benefits to canned foods
that are as yet expressed only as opinions and hypothesis.

> "I think we'll see a link between CRF and dry food, too, within the
> next few years."

No I must have missed that comment. I read the first few sentences and
thought it was entirely about dry vs wet in realtion to urolith issues.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.