 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / February 2006Before commercial cat food.....
Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) what were they feeding their cat? Is there such a thing like a traditional "home made" cat food? If you were living with a cat/cats back in those days, what did you usually end up feeding them? Thank you very much for your help! Marie >From: PuddyTad@webtv.net (Kitten M) >Please help my research for cat food. =A0 Before lots of people started >feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thank you very much for your help! Hi Marie, I feed my cats a homemade diet and having been doing so for almost 4 years. They are thriving on it. I have a link in my signature for more information. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm Kitten M <PuddyTad@webtv.net> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: > Please help my research for cat food. ? Before lots of people started > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Marie I'm thinking Ralston Purina was among the first commercial cat foods. Look at their site and maybe even send them an email. I'm sure they have lots of information.  SignatureBrandy??Alexandre? http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx Well, would you? Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) what were they feeding their cat? Is there such a thing like a traditional "home made" cat food? Sure. It's called "table scraps." Dogs lived on it too, somehow. > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) > what were they feeding their cat? > Is there such a thing like a traditional "home made" cat food? > > Sure. It's called "table scraps." Dogs lived on it too, somehow. I believe that for the most part, cats have historically been kept to do a job: pest control. As a result they were generally expected to feed themselves if they were successful at their job. Puss probably got the occasional bowl of fresh warm milk by the hearth, and was quite loved, but until our society had acquired a certain amount of luxury you couldn't probably afford to have an animal that didn't pull its own weight. -Alison in OH > > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Alison in OH Good point. But you know there were some big-hearted cat lovers out there, not to mention kids, who snuck the cats some goodies from the table every now and then! The more things change the more they stay the same, right? *S* >> > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started >> > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >now and then! The more things change the more they stay the same, right? >*S* I suppose cats and dogs became domesticated when people threw them scraps of food from their fire. I could see doing that with a wolf, but with a big cat? I'm not so sure about that. > I suppose cats and dogs became domesticated when people threw them > scraps of food from their fire. I could see doing that with a wolf, > but with a big cat? I'm not so sure about that. Here are some theories, I don't know which ones are scientifically "approved" and which aren't. Wolves could have been domesticated by scavenging from the midden heap--the garbage. This abundant source of calories would be easier to obtain than prey, and would select for dogs that were either outcasts from the pack--unable to take down large prey by themselves and desperate for food--or those that were unafraid of strange stimuli so they were not repelled by the humans nearby. Humans would soon find that the semi-domesticated wolves followed their encampment as they moved, and would encourage this relationship as they discovered that they would be warned of raids by other humans when the wolves barked or otherwise defended their food stash. There are also suggestions about hunters killing momma wolves and finding their large-eyed, big-headed offspring irresistable (as the characteristics of babies make all species predisposed to shelter and care for them). They'd bring the cute pups home and raise them up in their dwellings. Konrad Lorenz thought they might have brought the smaller, yappier dogs indoors to defend their dwellings, as they left the larger ones outside as general guardians against wildlife and other humans. Regardless, the wolves left their packs and thereby their way of obtaining food when they joined forces with humans, and so the humans had to reciprocate by providing food to their new companions. Scraps of meat and leftovers would probably have been the main fare. As for cats, however, we have to look to the origins of agriculture (later than the hunter/gatherer, nomadic cultures) and the *small* desert cats that followed along as their rodent prey infested grain stores. The cats would have been encouraged--a la the temple cats of Egypt--but there would be no reason to do more than let them go about their business. So true domestication didn't really take place. Humans and cats lived side-by-side, separate but equal as they say. :) That's why I'd say that, prior to the advent of commercial food for cats, their "traditional" staple would have been mice, voles, birds, etc. Also known as--a raw-foods diet!! ;) -Alison in OH dgk said: > I suppose cats and dogs became domesticated when people threw them > scraps of food from their fire. I could see doing that with a wolf, > but with a big cat? I'm not so sure about that. What an interesting question you raise. I think it was the Egyptians who first domesticated the cat? But I'm not sure. I seem to remember that they were already a breed by the time the "New World" was discovered in the late 1500s. Great idea for some research! > dgk said: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Great idea for some research! There's very strong evidence that supports the theory that domestication of Felis silvestris libyca (African Wildcat) -- which produced Felis catus libyca ("domectic" cat) -- began over 6,000 years ago in Egypt. The original reason for domestication of the African wild cat was for rodent control in the granaries rather than for pets. The first step towards domestication began with the cats that tolerated the close proximity of other cats (conspecific-tolerant) in the graaries -- highly territorial cats wouldn't have been very successful in controlling the large number of rodents. . The next step was selecting those cats from the original conspecific-tolerant population that displayed affiliative behavior towards people. Those affiliative behaviors could have been refined further by breeding only within that population. This "selective breeding" would have .produced kittens which inherited their parents' more sociable tendencies. After a few generations, the Egyptians "created" a "new" cat that was human and conspecific-tolerant The process of creating this "new" cat might have made her even more accepting of members of her own species. Maybe that's why when some cats become feral, they're able to form independent social groups. I shake my head in amazement when I read articles that say the domestic cat is a solitary creature! I wonder if those authors ever lived with or even saw real live cats! They should manage a few feral colonies.... > There's very strong evidence that supports the theory that domestication of > Felis silvestris libyca (African Wildcat) -- which produced Felis catus [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > is a solitary creature! I wonder if those authors ever lived with or even > saw real live cats! They should manage a few feral colonies.... Wonderful synopsis, Phil, thank you. I agree that they are social creatures. Otherwise my dear kitty would first run to her food bowl in the morning rather than downstairs to visit with our other cat and watch the birds and squirrels from the window ledge with her, side by side. As it is, she watches while I put the food in her dish, then does the classic "approach/avoid" looking from the food down to the family room, and opts for the family room and the company of the other cat every time. > > There's very strong evidence that supports the theory that domestication > of [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > "approach/avoid" looking from the food down to the family room, and opts > for the family room and the company of the other cat every time. My cats have little cliques! My oldest two eat and sleep together, and my youngest two do the same. What's so funny, is that my oldest two groom each other but don't play with each other, but they each have their favorite playmate in the younger clique! My fifth cat grooms and plays with my youngest, but sleeps alone up in her perch. Its cuter than it sounds ;) I guess cats are a lot like people... they seem to choose thier friends and tolerate the others! Phil. >What an interesting question you raise. I think it was the Egyptians who >first domesticated the cat? But I'm not sure. I seem to remember that they >were >already a breed by the time the "New World" was discovered in the late >1500s. Ancient Egyptians mummified cats. These animals were sacrifices instead of natural deaths, so the practice was hard on the cat. Until modern times the people of Ypres, Belgium, annually would throw a cat from a tower in the town. It was considered good luck to catch the cat. I don't know why that was the case, considering what the terrified cat was likely to do to the catcher. Nowadays they throw a stuffed toy cat. This probably is a throwback to some arcane ritual of forgotten times. That's all the cat ritual I know about. > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) > what were they feeding their cat? > Is there such a thing like a traditional "home made" cat food? > > Sure. It's called "table scraps." Dogs lived on it too, somehow. But alas not for very long. Modern commercially prepared foods, good veterinary care and routine vaccinations have vastly extended the life of domestic pets. > > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > veterinary care and routine vaccinations have vastly extended the life > of domestic pets. Cite source or retract!!!!!!!!!! :) (smiling, but serious) -Alison in OH > > > Sure. It's called "table scraps." Dogs lived on it too, somehow. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Alison in OH I must agree, Alison. If one were to choose a single factor that has extended the lives of cats, for example, I would choose the fact that more people keep them inside where they are safe. UK or US, I make no distinction. Anywhere there may be fleas and other parasites, dogs and other predators, motor vehicles, vicious humans, and/or potentially dangerous temperature extremes is not a safe place for a cat. Do they have more fun outside? You bet! They just do not tend to live too long. I had a friend who once said she would rather her cats live shorter lives and be outside "as they are meant to be." She got her wish. Three disappeared, either poisoned, stolen, or killed, two got hit by cars, and one was killed and tossed in her yard. She has a new one now. >From: "Mary" rosefan@email.co >> > > Sure. It's called "table scraps." Dogs lived on it too, somehow. >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >either poisoned, stolen, or killed, two got hit by cars, and one was killed >and tossed in her yard. She has a new one now. I believe you are definitely right. Many more people are keeping cats indoors and this is the biggest factor in life extension for cats. I think cats live longer if they are living the cushy life :) Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm "PawsForThought" <darnit7@aol.comnolitter> wrote: > > I believe you are definitely right. Many more people are keeping cats indoors > and this is the biggest factor in life extension for cats. I think cats live > longer if they are living the cushy life :) > > Lauren > ________ And it it so hard to see that my rescue is being deprived by living inside. This cat sleeps on her own pillow on our bed, wakes me every morning with the neatest kitty greating--she begins meowing softly as she approaches, then stops at about my hip level and peers at me, meowing questioningly, like, "you awake?" I then greet her, "Cheeky, good morning beautiful girl!" and she lets the full greeting meow go and walks right up into the place beside me, waiting to be snuggled, petted, and praised. She follows me around, rubbing up against my legs and purring, brings me her toys as offerings wherever I sit, and only tried to go outside once. She seems content to look out the windows. (There is one upstairs where she can sit in the fresh air and peer through the screen at the birds and squirrels.) Once she ran out the front door and I panicked as there is a busy street there, and as soon as I yelled "Cheeky, NO!" and ran after her, she passed me as I went out the door, only she was coming in! She hasn't tried that again--maybe because of the way I burst into tears as soon as I knew she was safe. <G> And this was a cat who was rescued pregnant and feral at eight months old at a trailer park, so she surely does know what it is like to be outside. I adopted her at age 2, and she is the light of my life, in part no doubt because of the way the volunteers at the shelter took pains to socilize their animals. She had been in the shelter for five months, packed into a very clean but way too crowded room. I wonder if others have found shelter animals to be so amazingly sweet, and I wonder if it has something to do with getting out of the shelter? > See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe > Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html > http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html > Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > I wonder if others have > found shelter animals to be so amazingly sweet, and I wonder if it has > something to do with getting out of the shelter? My rescued boy is the sweetest thing ever! He came from a cat collector with over 70 cats. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- >From: "Mary" rosefan@email.com >And it it so hard to see that my rescue is being deprived by living inside. >This cat sleeps on her own pillow on our bed, wakes me every morning with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and she lets the full greeting meow go and walks right up into the place >beside me, waiting to be snuggled, petted, and praised. Awww, Cheeky sounds adorable! >She follows me >around, rubbing up against my legs and purring, brings me her toys as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >again--maybe because of the way I burst into tears as soon as I knew she >was safe. <G> LOL! My cats seem pretty happy being indoors too. I have a couple cat trees set up in front of windows. One day I hope to get a cat enclosure built for them. The area I live in has a lot of wildlife and I just don't feel comfortable letting them out. >And this was a cat who was rescued pregnant and feral at >eight months old at a trailer park, so she surely does know what it is like >to be outside. I adopted her at age 2, and she is the light of my life, in >part no doubt because of the way the volunteers at the shelter took pains >to socilize their animals. She had been in the shelter for five months, >packed into a very clean but way too crowded room. I'm sure Cheeky loves having the good life now. Five months in a shelter is a long time. >I wonder if others have >found shelter animals to be so amazingly sweet, and I wonder if it has >something to do with getting out of the shelter? I got Mickey and Meesha from a shelter/rescue facility. I have to say they are exceptionally sweet cats :) Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > In article <f3edd2d2.0309231753.5885e897@posting.google.com>, > > But alas not for very long. Modern commercially prepared foods, good > > veterinary care and routine vaccinations have vastly extended the life > > of domestic pets. > > Cite source or retract!!!!!!!!!! As to the first... http://www.purina.com/institute/news.asp?article=421 Not to mention the fact that people didn't know (or care) about dog nutrition. They gave them scraps from the table or killing room, not a healthy, balanced BARF diet. The people didn't live as long, either. A healthy diet, commercial or otherwise, extends life. Since people usually won't prepare (time, money, etc) a well balanced raw diet, commercially prepared foods are the healthiest option. Logically: Healthy diet extends life. BARF (prepared correctly) is healthy. Commercial dog foods are healthy. Scraps are not healthy. Conclusion: If people won't prepare a BARF diet and there is no commercial food, dogs don't live as long. The second two are common sense and need no source. Good health care extends life. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > Conclusion: If people won't prepare a BARF diet and there is no > commercial food, dogs don't live as long. > > The second two are common sense and need no source. Good health care > extends life. I kept using "dog", but the same goes for cats, especially with a cat's specific nutritional needs which can be harder to meet than dogs (taurine, protein, etc). ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > > In article <f3edd2d2.0309231753.5885e897@posting.google.com>, > > > But alas not for very long. Modern commercially prepared foods, good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As to the first... > http://www.purina.com/institute/news.asp?article=421 This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's statement that commercial food extends life. This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine vaccination have, in fact, caused many of the disturbing and devastating problems we see in our pets today--which modern veterinary care is thankfully prepared to treat. I'm serious about asking for a source from Steve because I am seriously interested. If there is such a controlled study out there, or even a retrospective analysis, I would truly love to see it. -Alison in OH > > As to the first... > > http://www.purina.com/institute/news.asp?article=421 > > This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer > than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's > statement that commercial food extends life. It's about how diet affects life. Quality and quantity of food are important. > If there is such a controlled > study out there, or even a retrospective analysis, I would truly love to > see it. Now, that's a much nicer way to ask. :) Honestly, like all things, I think it's a combo. Pets and people live longer because we know more and care more. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > > If there is such a controlled > > study out there, or even a retrospective analysis, I would truly love to > > see it. > > Now, that's a much nicer way to ask. :) Hmmm...I suppose if you don't have the context my request to "cite source or retract" probably did come off poorly. I did anticipate that which is why I put the smilie-emoticon in... For context, then, see: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=post+retract As you can see, "Post Proof or Retract" is a ubiquitous phrase, and in my case was meant tongue-in-cheek. Obviously that went over like a lead balloon. ;) -Alison in OH > As you can see, "Post Proof or Retract" is a ubiquitous phrase, and in > my case was meant tongue-in-cheek. Obviously that went over like a lead > balloon. ;) Oh, oops. :) My apologies. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > Hmmm...I suppose if you don't have the context my request to "cite > source or retract" probably did come off poorly. I did anticipate that > which is why I put the smilie-emoticon in... For some reason, maybe the colon at the beginning of the line, my newsreader marked that as quoted (green text), so I didn't realize it was from you. Again, sorry. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer > than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's > statement that commercial food extends life. I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet. Both sets of dogs were fed the same food. The difference was one set of dogs was fed 25% LESS food. The purpose of the study was to prove that keeping dogs slightly underweight would lengthen thier lives. To draw the conclusion you have above is totally and completely illogical and foolish, or perhaps it was a deliberate deception? > This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just > say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -Alison in OH I know this is the common myth and everybody likes to fall into this trap but it simply isn't even close to the truth. Vaccines have SAVED millions of dogs. It's always hard to go back in time, when you never lived there. In 1978 Parvo hit the streets and dogs died by the thousands. Parvo vaccine stopped that epidemic. You have to seperate *possibilities* from *probabilities*. It is possible that some digs and cats died from a given vaccine or set of vaccines. At the same many millions of cats and dogs were saved by them. To deny this is utter nonsense and unsupported anywhere in the literature. If you took a couple million unvaccinated cats and vaccinated half of them. Some very small percentage <1% might die of some vaccine related complication. At the same time 20% of the other million that were not vaccinated would die of some disease. You only get by with not vaccinating, because the pool of disease is stopped in it's progression by your neighbors who do vaccinate. Small pox is a great example. We vaccinated small pox into oblivion in this country. We declared the disease *dead* in North America and quit vaccinating. Guess what we've had a couple dozen confrimed cases because we now have a huge pool of unvaccinated targets for the disease. eliminate the carriers and the targets and any disease can be brought to heel. > > This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer > > than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > draw the conclusion you have above is totally and completely illogical > and foolish, or perhaps it was a deliberate deception? Steve, the food in the study was a commercially manufactured, kibbled diet was it not? That's all I meant. The study doesn't do squat to prove the point that the *existence* and *consumption* of commercially manufactured, kibbled diets increases life expectancy as a cause-and-effect relationship. It certainly doesn't disprove said point either. It's simply tangential to the topic at hand. > > This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just > > say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine > > vaccination have, in fact, caused many of the disturbing and devastating > > problems we see in our pets today > I know this is the common myth and everybody likes to fall into this > trap but it simply isn't even close to the truth. Vaccines have SAVED > millions of dogs. It's always hard to go back in time, when you never > lived there. In 1978 Parvo hit the streets and dogs died by the > thousands. Parvo vaccine stopped that epidemic. You have to seperate > *possibilities* from *probabilities*. You have misread me. I don't think that vaccination is bad, in fact I think it's a marvelous boon of modern veterinary medicine. Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused. It is my *opinion* (based on the evidence available to me, of course) that *routine* vaccination--by which I mean frequent and not individually tailored--is harmful. Given the peer-reviewed studies in the literature today with regard to duration of immunity, I can confidently state that my dog, who received a full puppy course of vaccinations and demonstrated a positive antibody titer for parvovirus and distemper a year or so ago, is not putting anybody else's dog at risk by virtue of not having had an unecessary cocktail of antigen and adjuvant injected into her annually for the last four years. On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to my dog increases with every vaccination given. I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact presents with various symptoms of immune dysfunction). Does that make sense? -Alison in OH > > I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That > > study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the *existence* and *consumption* of commercially manufactured, kibbled > diets increases life expectancy as a cause-and-effect relationship. Alison, you inferred that the study proved dogs eating commercial foods were at risk. There is simply no other way to take the meaning of your comments. That was not in any way to objective nor the outcome of that 14 year study. > Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cocktail of antigen and adjuvant injected into her annually for the last > four years. I would disagree. If your pet's immune titers fall below that level which is protective then your pet becaomes a possible vector in the disease. > On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to > my dog increases with every vaccination given. The probablilities that the average pet will succumb to a disease for which is was *not* vaccinated far exceed the probablility of any negative effects of the vaccine itself. > I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is > of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact > presents with various symptoms of immune dysfunction). > > Does that make sense? Yes, it makes sense if you are getting titers pulled annually to insure that the animal is still protected against any given disease. Otherwise the risks to most pets, (I cannot comment on your individual pet) is geometrically higher of succumbing to the disease than succumbing to any effects of the vaccine. > > > I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That > > > study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of your comments. That was not in any way to objective nor the outcome > of that 14 year study. Yeah, I'll admit to wording my *accurate* statement in such a way as to emphasize the study's complete failure to prove the point at hand. :) > > Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > which is protective then your pet becaomes a possible vector in the > disease. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to...go ahead and disagree with you there. There are two facets to the immunity conferred by vaccination (IF it confers any immunity at all). Cell-based and humoral. Antibodies are the frontline of the humoral defense mechanism. Titer tests show the presence of antibodies; ie they demonstrate that seroconversion has, indeed, occurred as a result of the inoculation. Antibody levels will decrease if there is no further challenge; yet the animal's level of protection will stay high for the life of the memory cells. The literature indicating duration of immunity to distemper against challenge for over 7 years shows us that these memory cells live for at least 7 years. Therefore, titer or no titer, there's no reason to vaccinate against distemper more frequently than every 7 years. The authors of that study even postulated that the immunity could last for the life of the animal. > > On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to > > my dog increases with every vaccination given. > > The probablilities that the average pet will succumb to a disease for > which is was *not* vaccinated far exceed the probablility of any > negative effects of the vaccine itself. We're not talking about unvaccinated pets. We're talking about pets that are vaccinated on an immunologically sound basis. Example. Find me ONE--ONE cat that has succumbed to rabies having received ONE vaccine after the age of four months. I'm pretty sure you won't find one. Now compare that rate--zero--to the rate of VAS. > > I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is > > of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pet) is geometrically higher of succumbing to the disease than > succumbing to any effects of the vaccine. You understood my argument but you don't seem to understand the action of the immune system or the utility of an antibody titer test. It just don't work that way, positive titer != immunity and negative titer != complete susceptibility. -Alison in OH > I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is > of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Alison in OH I always vaccinated my dogs twice during their lives, first when they were puppies and second at their eighth or nineth year. None of them developed any disease and they all died 15+ and were all big dogs. But recently I read an article stating that once is enough and this article had studies to back it up. >From: kaeli infinite.possibilities@NOSPAMatt.net >Not to mention the fact that people didn't know (or care) about dog >nutrition. They gave them scraps from the table or killing room, not a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Conclusion: If people won't prepare a BARF diet and there is no >commercial food, dogs don't live as long. I agree, table scraps cannot compare to a well balance properly prepared home diet. I do know someone who has been feeding a raw diet for over 30 years. But I don't think it was very common back then. ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > > > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > > > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Cite source or retract!!!!!!!!!! Unfortunately I cannot cite a demographic source. No such records were maintained anywhere. What I can do is remember back to when I first started spending my days in veterinary clinics around the country. In the late 70's if I walked into a vet clinic and they had a 15 year old cat the vet would drag me back to see this miracle of geriatrics. Today, it takes a 30 year old cat to elicit the same response. Even more credible is the concentration on geriatric medicine which was totally non-existant in the late 70's. I know there is this great myth out there about wild cats living longer but it is nothing but a fanciful wish. When you look back at the proceedings of veterinary science conferences there zero sessions on geriatric feline medicine until the late 80's. Now you can't go to a vet conference without finding half a dozen or more feline geriatric medicine sessions. The sheer number of cats reaching 20 and 25 years old today belies all the fringe lunatic cries to the opposite. Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) what were they feeding their cat? Is there such a thing like a traditional "home made" cat food? If you were living with a cat/cats back in those days, what did you usually end up feeding them? ............................................................................ ...... "Back in those days" (before commercial pet foods were manufactured) were the 1860s! (Steve probably remembers those days). Before then, diets for cats and dogs consisted of mostly table scraps and leftovers from the dinner table, although some people prepared actual meals for their pets. The first canned food was Ken-L-Ration, produced in the early 1900s by the Chappel brothers in Rockford, Illinois. The "meal" was introduced in the 1930s by Paul Gaines. It was called a "meal" (Gaines-Meal) because it consisted of several dried, ground ingredients that were mixed together and sold in big (100 lbs) bags. In the early days of pet food manufacturing, very little was known about feline nutrition so the same food was marketed for both species - the cans and bags were merely labeled differently. Here's a little trivia: Pet foods weren't sold in grocery stores until 1957 because store owners and customers didn't like the idea of pet foods being sold next to human foods, but the convenience and economy of buying pet foods at the grocery store while shopping for the family's food quickly won-out. Before 1957, pet foods had to be purchased at feed stores and farm animal feed outlets. The metal shortage of World War II gave a boost to the dry food market, but dry food didn't really become popular until the extrusion process was developed. Before then, canned food was more popular. Phil. Back 60 years ago, when I was a kid, our three cats lived on raw pork kidney and pork liver. As a treat they got pink salmon mixed with bread. There was always a saucer of milk and occasional table scraps. They lived a long time and were healthy. Just my thoughts. Bill > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you were living with a cat/cats back in those days, what did you > usually end up feeding them? ............................................................................ > ...... > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Phil. > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Back in those days" (before commercial pet foods were manufactured) were > the 1860s! (Steve probably remembers those days). Hey watch those cheap shots. :-) I may be old but I ain't quite senile yet. I do however remember when grocery stores did not sell pet foods. I also remember the late 50's and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved literally millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats. What was once the most common cause of death and admission to veterinary clinics was wiped out in a little less than a year. > > Please help my research for cat food. Before lots of people started > > feeding their cat commercial cat food, (crunchy type or canned food) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If you were living with a cat/cats back in those days, what did you > > usually end up feeding them? ............................................................................ > > ...... > > > > "Back in those days" (before commercial pet foods were manufactured) were > > the 1860s! (Steve probably remembers those days). > > Hey watch those cheap shots. :-) I owed you one. ;) > I may be old but I ain't quite senile yet. The good thing about senility is that when you beome senile, you won't know it! ;) I do however remember when > grocery stores did not sell pet foods. The first pet food sold in grocery stores were Milk Bone dog biscuits. I also remember the late 50's > and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many > cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved literally > millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats. Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because it conflicts with their agenda... What was once > the most common cause of death and admission to veterinary clinics was > wiped out in a little less than a year. That just proves how ignorant fanatics can turn a god-send into a "poison" with scare tactics and rumors, and how gullible the general population is... Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity, but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess. > Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the > stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and > turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity, > but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess. Hello. Ok, I'll bite (so to speak). Inquiring minds want to know - or at least I do - what was it that saved the cats, and what were they dying from? rrb > > Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the > > stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hello. Ok, I'll bite (so to speak). Inquiring minds want to know - or at > least I do - what was it that saved the cats, Synthetic antioxidants in pet foods. Ethoxyquin, in particular > and what were they dying from? The toxins produced by oxidation. Phil > Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the > stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and > turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity, > but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess. I think we all know the answer, why bother to ask and give you two more ammo to spout off again and start yet another round and round argument? >From: "Karen M." mskitty@easystreetNOSPAM.com >> Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the >> stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I think we all know the answer, why bother to ask and give you two more >ammo to spout off again and start yet another round and round argument? The problem w/ your statement is that it ISN'T a "round and round argument". Synthetic antioxidants in cat foods is a GOOD thing, period, end of story. Sigh, according to you, not to some so it just keeps going round and round and neither side is going to change their mind. Get it now? >>From: "Karen M." mskitty@easystreetNOSPAM.com > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The problem w/ your statement is that it ISN'T a "round and round argument". > Synthetic antioxidants in cat foods is a GOOD thing, period, end of story. >>>I think we all know the answer, why bother to ask and give you two more >>>ammo to spout off again and start yet another round and round argument? >> >> The problem w/ your statement is that it ISN'T a "round and round >argument". >> Synthetic antioxidants in cat foods is a GOOD thing, period, end of story. >Sigh, according to you, not to some so it just keeps going round and >round and neither side is going to change their mind. Get it now? Yeah, I get it--the facts are on my side and the accusations w/ absolutely NOTHING to back them up are on your side. Get it now? I'm not even talking about myself, I'm talking about the group as a whole. GET IT?? >>>>I think we all know the answer, why bother to ask and give you two more >>>>ammo to spout off again and start yet another round and round argument? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, I get it--the facts are on my side and the accusations w/ absolutely > NOTHING to back them up are on your side. Get it now? > I also remember the late 50's > > and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because it conflicts > with their agenda... From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve, *rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. This thread is talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD different from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same. > > I also remember the late 50's > > > and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD > different from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same. Do you recall that Garfield cartoon where Garfield is caught in the kitchen late at night swapping the labels on his cans of Cat Food with the labels on his owner's (can't recall the fellow's name) cans of people grade tuna? The dialog line read: So THAT's the reason for the zesty new taste of my tuna casseroles!! -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" >From: "Philip ®" 1chip-state1@earthlink.net.invalid >Do you recall that Garfield cartoon where Garfield is caught in the >kitchen late at night swapping the labels on his cans of Cat Food [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The dialog line read: So THAT's the reason for the zesty new taste >of my tuna casseroles!! Ha! Wonder what the owner thought about his "new" food! LOL Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > > I also remember the late 50's > > > and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve, > *rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. Congratulations! At least you got that part right! LOL! This thread is > talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you > relate one to the other? ROTFL! I wasn't relating one to the other! Nowhere in Steve's or my posts was any relation made between table scraps and fresh food and pet foods... How did you conjure up the absurd notion that I was? LOL! I was *clearly* commenting on Steve's statement pertaining to *pet food*.... which *you* even quoted! ROTFL! <nonsense snipped > I was *clearly* commenting on Steve's statement pertaining to *pet > food*.... which *you* even quoted! ROTFL! I don´t know why Steve even bothered to share that since this thread is *not* about pet food. And I don´t know why you even bothered to comment on it. Perhaps to get people confused thinking that the rancid fat came from table scraps and fresh meats? Perhaps to get people confused thinking that the rancid > fat came from table scraps and fresh meats? A little more au naturel fanatic innuendo, eh? LOL! You really can't control yourself, can you? Do you conjure up these utterly asinine delusions all by yourself, or do you have help from your cult? LOL! Steve said: "I also remember the late 50's and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many cats." Nothing confusing or ambiguous about that statement:.. at least not for rational people... "Rancid pet food" is a pretty clear indicator that Steve was obviously referring to..... *pet food*.... ROTFL! > A little more au naturel fanatic innuendo, eh? LOL! You really can't > control yourself, can you? Do you conjure up these utterly asinine [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rational people... "Rancid pet food" is a pretty clear indicator that Steve > was obviously referring to..... *pet food*.... ROTFL! You really have a reading problem. I asked what was the *point* of stating that in this topic. Gosh. But Karen figured it out. Just to start another one about eq. >You really have a reading problem. I asked what was the *point* of >stating that in this topic. Gosh. But Karen figured it out. Just to >start another one about eq. Not to "start" anything...only to properly educate people about the safety and efficacy of a certain thing. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>You really have a reading problem. I asked what was the *point* of >>stating that in this topic. Gosh. But Karen figured it out. Just to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and >efficacy of a certain thing. I know you want to believe that chemical preservatives are totally harmless. However, just because a product has been approved by the FDA doesn't necessarily mean that it is safe in the long term being fed every day over the pet's lifetime. I think we've had some examples of that. Call me cynical, but I feel I have been mislead as a consumer too often. To my knowledge, there have been no long term tests of feeding ethoxyquin or BHT/BHA over the long term, and to my knowledge, there have been no studies whatsoever on feeding ethoxyquin to cats specifically. http://www.hua.org/food.html Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >and > >efficacy of a certain thing. > I feel I have been mislead as a consumer too often. You sure have... especially by the au naturel fanatical cults! LOL! To my knowledge, there > have been no long term tests of feeding ethoxyquin or BHT/BHA over the long > term, and to my knowledge, there have been no studies whatsoever on feeding > ethoxyquin to cats specifically. Why should there be? There hasn't been a *single* documented case of ethoxyquin-related illness in a cat in all the *hundreds of millions* of cats that have eaten dry cat food preserved with ethoxyquin for *generations*! ROTFL!!! Phil wrote: >There hasn't been a *single* documented >case of ethoxyquin-related illness in a cat >in all the *hundreds of millions* of cats >that have eaten dry cat food preserved >with ethoxyquin for *generations*! Here is a typical example of how you mislead people. How many vets that treated those "hundreds of millions" of cats thought to even look at long term use of ethoxyquin as a cause for the problems presented? My guess is none. And why is that? Maybe because there are NO studies that address the effects of long term feeding of ethoxyquin, and therefore it isn't brought up as a possibility. Until there are you can't claim it is harmless when there are already studies that show it is a carcinogen and the fact that it is banned in human foods with few exceptions (paprika) should raise a red flag to an intelligent person. 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 > Phil wrote: > >There hasn't been a *single* documented [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Here is a typical example of how you mislead people. I hardly "mislead people"... I simply stated a *fact*.... that you don't like! LOL! How many vets that > treated those "hundreds of millions" of cats thought to even look at > long term use of ethoxyquin as a cause for the problems presented? My > guess is none. > And why is that? Maybe because there are NO studies that address the effects of long term feeding of ethoxyquin, Gee, and why is that? Probably because in all the tens of thousands of necropsies performed at the 26 veterinary research and teaching hospitals in North America during the last 40 years *no* evidence of ethoxyquin-related illness or toxicity was ever found to warrant or even suggest a need for such a study.... Phil wrote: >I hardly "mislead people"... I simply >stated a *fact*.... that you don't >like! LOL! No, you mislead by omission. >>How many vets that >>treated those "hundreds of millions" of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>address the effects of long term feeding of >>ethoxyquin, >Gee, and why is that? Probably because >in all the tens of thousands of necropsies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ever found to warrant or even suggest a >need for such a study.... If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up what you are saying, right? Let's see them. And how would the necropsies show ethoxyquin related deaths if they don't know what they are looking for WRT that as a cause? And how would they know what to look for since there is no available information as to the long term effects of ethoxyquin? Inquiring minds want to know. 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 Phil wrote: >>I hardly "mislead people"... I simply >>stated a *fact*.... that you don't >>like! LOL! >No, you mislead by omission. I stated a *fact*. You mislead people with scare tactics and innuendoes. >>How many vets that >>treated those "hundreds of millions" of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>address the effects of long term feeding of >>ethoxyquin, >>Gee, and why is that? Probably because >>in all the tens of thousands of necropsies [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>ever found to warrant or even suggest a >>need for such a study.... >If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up what you >are saying, right? Let's see them. ROTFL! It doesn't work that way... I stated the *fact* that there isn't a single documented case of .ethoxyquin-related illness or death in a cat in the > 20 years ethoxyquin has been used in cat foods. *You're* stating ethoxyquin is so dangerous to cats, therefore, the burden of proof is on *you* to produce proof that ethoxyquin is toxic *at the recommended levels* used in cat foods. If ethoxyquin was so dangerous to cats as you claim, then you should have plenty of cites to back up what you are saying, right? Let's see them... . >And how would the necropsies show ethoxyquin related deaths if they >don't know what they are looking for WRT that as a cause? >And how >would they know what to look for since there is no available >information as > to the long term effects of ethoxyquin? Inquiring minds >want to know. Researchers didn't know they were looking for propylene glycol in semimoist cat foods as a cause of hemolytic amemia, or taurine deficiency as a cause of dilated cardiomyopathy and feline central retinal degeneration... until they made the *discoveries* and connections... No previous studies existed for either of those substances in cats either.... If ethoxyquin was 1/1000 as dangerous or as toxic as you purport, hundreds if not thousands of cats who eat dry cat food preserved with ethoxyquin would be dying daily from unknown causes... which would have prompted a ethoxyquin toxcity study in cats just as unexplained deaths and illnesses led to the discoveries of propylene glycol toxcity and taurine deficiency as causes of death and illnesses... Researchers didn't know what they were looking for in those studies either... You can conjure up all half-baked theories and scare tactics you want to support your position but the fact *still* remains that in all the hundreds of millions of cats that have been eating dry cat food preserved with ethoxyquin for generations (>20 years), not a *single* case of ethoxyquin-related illness or death has ever been reported in a cat And that's a *fact*! I'd change my mind in a New York minute if someone could produce a *single* documented case of ethoxyquin-related illness or death in a cat when ethoxyquin is used at the recommended levels. But so far all I've seen are scare tactics, rumors, innuendoes and unsupported and half-baked theories. These ethoxyquin debates always end the same way... with your side always coming up empty...as you have. Come back when you have some documented *facts* of ethoxyquin-related illness or death in a cat > If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up > what you are saying, right? Let's see them. It seems that studies such as those are too expensive and will lead to completely wiping out dry pet food if there is no other way to preserve it. I don't need a study, personally. Look up the terms "ethoxyquin illness death in a cat" on google and you get 400+ hits. My cats[1] are down to very little dry food and while this isn't the sole reason for it, it reinforces that it's a better way to feed them. [1] except the picky Miss Bonnie but working on it! If I can get Shadow on mostly canned food, I can get her on it too....eventually. >> If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up >> what you are saying, right? Let's see them. > >It seems that studies such as those are too expensive and will lead to >completely wiping out dry pet food if there is no other way to >preserve it. No, it doesn't "seem" that way at all. >I don't need a study, personally. Look up the terms >"ethoxyquin illness death in a cat" on google and you get 400+ hits. Megan was accusing Phil of misleading by omission and here you go and do the same thing. Cheryl, what are the hits specifically saying? Do those sites give someone's opinion? That's not a valid way of backing up your argument. Again, there is more to life than the internet. Try referencing peer-reviewed, published studies as a start. Cheryl, what are the hits specifically > saying? Do those sites give someone's opinion? That's not a valid > way of backing up your argument. I'm not arguing. I have my mind set on it and there will be no changing it. I'm not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other. <shrug > Cheryl, what are the hits specifically > > saying? Do those sites give someone's opinion? That's not a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > changing it. I'm not trying to persuade anyone one way or the > other. <shrug> You mind is like concrete .... thoroughly mixed and permanently set. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" >I'm not arguing. I have my mind set on it and there will be no >changing it. I'm not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other. ><shrug> How open-minded of you. :( I guess there is no persuading you with facts and logic, then? That's too bad. > > > If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up > > > what you are saying, right? Let's see them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > life than the internet. Try referencing peer-reviewed, published > studies as a start. Is it still true that because a thought is posted to the internet that it MUST be true? ;-) -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" "Philip ®" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message news:<W97eb.9676$NX3.7403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > Is it still true that because a thought is posted to the internet > that it MUST be true? ;-) Well of course, that's why I bought that space view piece of property on the edge of the earth - from the flat earth society of course. Are you telling me I've been flim flammed again? > > If this is true then you should have plenty of cites to back up > > what you are saying, right? Let's see them. Look up the terms > "ethoxyquin illness death in a cat" on google and you get 400+ hits. ROTFL! ...and how many of those "hits" were from a peer-reviewed veterinary medical journals that documented a confirmed ethoxyquin-related illness or death in a cat at the recommended levels...? Just goes to show you that if you repeat rumors and scare tactics enough, some people will swear they're true.... Try another search, this time omit the au naturel fanatic cult fodder... Watch how fast those "400+" hits becomes "0"! LOL! > Just goes to show you that if you repeat rumors and scare tactics > enough, some people will swear they're true.... I have cats with GI problems. Lost one already and will likely lose another. I'm not taking any chances with the new guys. >From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >Date: 9/29/03 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have cats with GI problems. Lost one already and will likely lose >another. I'm not taking any chances with the new guys. What are you feeding them? If you're associating your cat's problems now (and I'm sorry for their suffering and yours) w/ preservatives...you've got bigger problems. > What are you feeding them? Science Diet. Just kidding.. hehe.. Actually it's "what was I feeding them". I used to feed grocery store brand foods; both wet and dry. I came to these groups to learn the what to feed when my Marley got so ill. Believe it or not, I read a great deal about diet and nutrition and diseases that affect cats (now) because I don't intend to make those mistakes anymore. Who knew? Certainly their vets never said I was doing it all wrong until there was illness. > If you're associating your cat's problems now (and I'm sorry for > their suffering and yours) w/ preservatives...you've got bigger > problems. How so? Why are there so many "opinions" wrt ethoxyquin? And please drop the "scare tactic and inuendo" reply because I really am listening. You bring up those words and I'm closed again. >> If you're associating your cat's problems now (and I'm sorry for >> their suffering and yours) w/ preservatives...you've got bigger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >drop the "scare tactic and inuendo" reply because I really am >listening. You bring up those words and I'm closed again. Because there is NOTHING to substantiate the faulty notion that preservatives are bad for cats OR dogs. I have no idea why crap that is untrue gets spread around. Some people think that we never landed on the moon either....<shrug > How so? Why are there so many "opinions" wrt ethoxyquin? And please > drop the "scare tactic and inuendo" reply because I really am > listening. You bring up those words and I'm closed again. Let me see if I can explain it. There have been about 425 studies done on ethoxyquin, and another few hundred in BHA and BHT. Most proved the artificial antioxidant was benign (no effect). About 20 proved that at extremely elevated levels in certain species of rats. (Breeders of rats created a genetic line of rats specifically because they succumb to cancer very easily and thus enable the study of the disease more rapidly.) Another 10-15 studies showed ANTI cancer properties at the same highly elevated levels. The levels used in the majoirty of studies were 0.5%, 0.8%, and 1%. This equates to 5000, 8000, and 10000 parts per million (PPM) respectively. Pet food maximum permitted by law is 150 PPM. No manufacturer has used such levels in over a decade. Most are in the 20-40 PPM range. I haven't seen a food over 40 PPM in a decade. For example the last time I checked Nutro Natural Choice (Jan 2001) it was 24.4 PPM BHT. To understand what the difference is between 10,000 PPM and 25 PPM you need to think in terms of something you see or do commonly. Most people can take 2 aspirin and call the doctor in the morning. Nobody can take 400 aspirin and live to call the doctor in the morning. The difference between 10,000 PPM ans 25 PPM is exactly the same. Some less than honest manufacturers seized upon the publics fear of chemicals and words they cannot pronounce. It was a way to break into a very tought market. If you want to sell pet food you have to have a compelling reason for consumers to buy what you sell. By inducing fear into the public about artifical antioxidants that were "proven" to cause cancer - (never mind it was in cancer prone rats at 400 times the levels used in pet foods) it was possible for these manufacturers to carve out a hole in a very tight market. The biggest irony was that this started due to a letter to the editor at Cat Fancy magazine who proclaimed that she was having all kinds of problems until she swtiched to a food that didn't have theozyquin listed on the label. What was the irony - the food she changed to contained even higher levels of ethoxyquin in the food, it just wasn't on the label. In the early 1990's lots of small pet food companies figured out they could buy the meats and fats *pre*treated with ethoxyquin and not put that evil word on their ingredient label. Many continue with this practice today. In the end there has never been a single cat or dog with a single problem that couldbe traced to artifical antioxidants. > In the end there has never been a single cat or dog with a single > problem that couldbe traced to artifical antioxidants. Thank you Steve, for a very indepth answer. I'm going to reserve my comments for later. I will explore Wellness and their label marketing tactic saying "no ethoxyquin" on the label but I'm interested in why SD has come out with a food without the commonly used preservatives? I am also still interested in finding out why my own cats have had such bad luck on commercial food. And maybe the food had nothing to do with it but when you've been through what I've been through with these guys for the last two years, well you have to scrutinize everything. Shadow's latest vet even told me to take him OFF SD and Hill's foods for his IBD. FTR, I work for a contractor for the FDA and CDC and NIH (if they even do anything with animals) so I might be able to find out something hard to find for the average pet owner. Hey Cheryl, Found this article, go toward the bottom for a section on IBD and it's relation to diet. Thought you might be interested. :) http://home.earthlink.net/~jacm2/id1.html xoxo, K >>In the end there has never been a single cat or dog with a single >>problem that couldbe traced to artifical antioxidants. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > do anything with animals) so I might be able to find out something > hard to find for the average pet owner. > Hey Cheryl, > Found this article, go toward the bottom for a section on IBD and > it's relation to diet. Thought you might be interested. :) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~jacm2/id1.html Thanks Karen. I will check it out! Gosh I have so much reading to do. lol I have another discussion going on about violence in American youth and the articles I've found .. wow. One PDF is 50 pages. >>Hey Cheryl, >>Found this article, go toward the bottom for a section on IBD and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > American youth and the articles I've found .. wow. One PDF is 50 > pages. I can't discuss that topic for very long, it starts to freak me out and begin to start eyeing everyone over the age of 8 suspiciously, though I know there's mostly great kids out there. I couldn't even see that movie "Kids" that came out years ago. What I was going to add to my previous post is that I'm barely over 30, and I'm already becoming jaded! ;) >>Hey Cheryl, >>Found this article, go toward the bottom for a section on IBD and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > American youth and the articles I've found .. wow. One PDF is 50 > pages. > How so? Why are there so many "opinions" wrt ethoxyquin? And please > drop the "scare tactic and inuendo" reply because I really am > listening. You bring up those words and I'm closed again. There were a couple additional comments I wanted to make but had to quit last night to do something else. In the mid 1990's a food was first introduced that was completely free of any artificial antioxidants. That was possible because the only source of protein used was powdered egg. At that time it was impossible to buy any other meat meals that did not already contain one artificial antioxidant or another. This food |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message