 |
 | 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 / July 2005Pouches or cans?
What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not aas easily damaged. > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but > easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not > aas easily damaged. Oh wow. I was just waxing nostalgic for a food war. (big grin) I like cans better. Pouches are too messy to get the food out. They don't stack in pantry. Biskit doesn't like them because they don't make noise when you open them, and somebody might get fed without her getting in on it. Sherry On Sun 24 Jul 2005 10:34:45a, wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav (news:1122215685.628177.212500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com): >> What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, >> but easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they don't make noise when you open them, and somebody might get > fed without her getting in on it. What a piggy! LOL I've never tried the pouches at all. Of the better brands I've only seen Nutro, and my cats won't touch it in the can, so I figured it's the same thing.  SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields >What a piggy! LOL I've never tried the pouches at all. Of the >better brands I've only seen Nutro, and my cats won't touch it in >the can, so I figured it's the same thing. No, it's not the same thing. It's worse! Well, according to my cats anyway. ;-) Never liked pouches -- the containers can't be recycled and it's hard to store any leftovers (we have a plastic cover for cans.) Rhonda > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but > easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not > aas easily damaged. > Never liked pouches -- the containers can't be recycled and it's hard to > store any leftovers (we have a plastic cover for cans.) > > Rhonda Same! It's harder to get the food out too. Cans can be stored more easily (just stack 'em up in the pantry) and the cats all know the sound the can being opened makes. Although this means they come running for a can of peaches too :) -Kelly > Never liked pouches -- the containers can't be recycled and it's hard to > store any leftovers (we have a plastic cover for cans.) > > Rhonda Tell that to our cats. They will only eat food that comes in pouches. As for the leftovers - what leftovers? The pouches we get over here (South Africa) come in 85g portions - enough for one meal. I really wish they would eat the canned food - it would make life much easier. Cheers Cathy (who is fairly new to this group). > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but > easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not > aas easily damaged. Pouches are messy. Suddenly, without warning, Karen exclaimed (24-Jul-05 4:51 PM): >>What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but >>easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not >>aas easily damaged. > > Pouches are messy. Maybe Felix pouches are the exception, but I actually find pouches *less* messy. I can squeeze one into her bowl, and that's it. Throw the pouch away. No mess at all. I find cans more annoying, actually, since I only serve half a "tuna can" sized can, I have to store it in the fridge (taking up valuable space - these UK fridges aren't much bigger than a dorm fridge I had in college) then have to rinse it before I toss it in the recycle bin. jmc > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but > easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not > aas easily damaged. Pouches are a mess and end up in the landfill because they can't be recycled. Cans with pop-tops are the best and can be recycled. -L. > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, > but easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and > are not aas easily damaged. Cans. Pouches can't be recycled. My preference is small 3oz cans, though I know many don't agree because of economics. I still give my cats a variety at mealtime so they don't get bored, and this way we don't deal with leftovers. SignatureCheryl "The clever cat eats cheese and breathes down rat holes with baited breath." - W.C. Fields > Cans. Pouches can't be recycled. My preference is small 3oz cans, > though I know many don't agree because of economics. I still give my > cats a variety at mealtime so they don't get bored, and this way we > don't deal with leftovers. If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. -L. : If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I : am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. I too would prefer 3oz but refuse to get ripped off. Just a random memory from Petsmart yesterday: the 6 oz and 3 oz cans of one brand were 69 and 59 cents respectively. I would pay a little more for convenience but not that much. I too ended up buying Friskies. BTW Fancy Feast, which some tend to think of as non-premium, often works out to be more expensive per oz than most premium brands simply because it only comes in 3 oz cans. > : If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I > : am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > works out to be more expensive per oz than most premium brands simply > because it only comes in 3 oz cans. Well, it is considered non-premium because of content (quality), not cost. Supposedly they have improved their quality but IIRC they are still very high in fat which is one of the main problems with FF. -L. : > : If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I : > : am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : cost. Supposedly they have improved their quality but IIRC they are : still very high in fat which is one of the main problems with FF. Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. Haven't gotten to fat yet. :-) What are the % numbers you look for? > Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as > making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. > Haven't gotten to fat yet. :-) What are the % numbers you look for? If you have a day or two to kill, Google the past food threads on by-products. Personally, I prefer not to feed my cats by-products. (Food war people: Note I said "personally" as in this is my own personal opinion. I don't need all that "have you read the peer-reviewed studies?" crap.) Maybe I am basing this decision on emotion, whatever. I just don't want by-products in my food or in my cat's food. Anyway, I've found Petsmart's Authority brand to be a good middle ground between the super-premium expensive stuff like Wellness and the lower grade Friskies, 9 Lives, etc. Authority does not have any by-products and my cats seem to be doing well on it. Like others on here, I do rotate brands and flavors so that the cats don't get hooked on one particular type of food. I'm not sure what the fat content is off the top of my head, but it must have been acceptable for me to buy it. -Kelly > Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as > making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. > Haven't gotten to fat yet. :-) What are the % numbers you look for? Sometimes you have to call the manufactuer to see what they say about it. IIRC FF was around 30% fat, but I could be wrong - it has been a long time since I have read their cans! -L. > > Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as > > making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -L. You sound so familiar, don't I know you from somewhere? More important, can you take a hint? Or do you need extra prompting? archiving with headers From: "Lyn Wegrich Glover" <jonathansmom-no-s...@tualatinoregon.rg.invalid> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav Subject: Re: Pouches or cans? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <aHlwYXRpYQ==.fdd82a83a7ec3ef50ef447d090e88e56@1122362601.nulluser.com> References: <1122212951.456928.42220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns969DA67079803shads@216.196.97.136> <1122285320.608496.13110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <250720051045290631%newbie@no.spam> <1122309088.614525.58680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <250720051238508730%newbie@no.spam> <1122359452.077439.325170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> X-No-Archive: y es X-Abuse-To: a...@nulluser.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!newsreader.com!feed7.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!crash.newsreader.com!nulluser.com!news X-Trace: crash.newsreader.com ic6633u6F@+6lX3z@ZUM_s8_Tn77Ar5IQwrYAvReVPKl-hf_ Lines: 21 > > > Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as > > > making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > More important, can you take a hint? Or do you need > extra prompting? > Being new to reading cat food labels, I have only gotten as far as > making sure "byproducts" and grains aren't at or very near the top. > Haven't gotten to fat yet. :-) What are the % numbers you look for? If you follow the Key Nutritional Factors for Adult Cats as closely as possible, you can't go wrong: http://tinyurl.com/dpjb8 The nutrient values in the chart are expressed on a dry matter basis. For example, a canned food that contains 75 % moisture and 10% protein 'as fed' actually contains 40% protein on a dry matter basis. IOW, the dry matter (without the water) contains 40% protein. Go to http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm scroll down to " 5. "Dry Matter Basis" (DM)" for an explanation of how to calculate dry matter values. Btw, 'by-products' generally contain more nutrients than skeletal meat. When cats eat a mouse, they eat 'by-products'. Phil > > : If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I > > : am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cost. Supposedly they have improved their quality but IIRC they are > still very high in fat which is one of the main problems with FF. Is Friskies a premium food? Lyn Wegrich Glover <jonathansmom-no-spam@tualatinoregon.rg.invalid> wrote: : Is Friskies a premium food? Oh no, Friskies is mass market. However, some of their cans are decent quality. I think they are better than other mass marketers like Whiskas, Sophista Cat, 9 Lives, etc., but I am still learning and my opinion could change. Premiums are like Nutro, Iams, Science Diet, etc. They cost about twice as much. I buy them only if I encounter a sale. One peculiarity is Fancy Feast. It is non-premium but its cost works out like premium because it only comes in uneconomical 3 oz cans. archiving with headers From: "Lyn Wegrich Glover" <jonathansmom-no-s...@tualatinoregon.rg.invalid> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav Subject: Re: Pouches or cans? Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <aHlwYXRpYQ==.b7c46bbfd702dbbc4b7af226a675e2d2@1122349519.nulluser.com> References: <1122212951.456928.42220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns969DA67079803shads@216.196.97.136> <1122285320.608496.13110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <250720051045290631%newbie@no.spam> <1122309088.614525.58680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> X-No-Archive: y es X-Abuse-To: a...@nulluser.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!oscar.newsreader.com!nulluser.com!news X-Trace: oscar.newsreader.com QFAUmNaA-Gr=2r4U06,wXKERY_G-y0daUrw8h.iFo=NKO4Twl Lines: 25 > > > : If I could buy 3 oz cans for $0.13-$0.15 each, THAT would be ideal! I > > > : am getting the 6oz Friskies for a quarter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is Friskies a premium food? > Well, it is considered non-premium because of content (quality), not > cost. Actually, since the Purina take-over the Fancy Feast canned line certainly *is* a premium food. On the average, 4 of the first five ingredients are meat products- which is more than most cat foods- including other premium foods on the market. Most FF canned diets contain the highest protein levels on the market (12-13% as fed / 52-59% dry matter basis, and the meat ingredients are derived from USDA meat. Supposedly they have improved their quality but IIRC they are > still very high in fat which is one of the main problems with FF. On the average, Fancy Feast contains 2-3.5% fat (as fed). For comparison, Wellness and SD contains about 6.5% fat (as fed). > Actually, since the Purina take-over the Fancy Feast canned line certainly > *is* a premium food. Oh, that's good to know. When were they bought out? > On the average, 4 of the first five ingredients are > meat products- which is more than most cat foods- including other premium [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the average, Fancy Feast contains 2-3.5% fat (as fed). For comparison, > Wellness and SD contains about 6.5% fat (as fed). Ok, I was way off then - I'm not sure what I was remembering. (Maybe as a percent of daily diet...?) When you say "as fed" does that mean as compared to that which is added to the ingredients? For example, they could add 0.5% fat, but as fed the fat content is 3%? -L. > > Actually, since the Purina take-over the Fancy Feast canned line certainly > > *is* a premium food. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Ok, I was way off then - I'm not sure what I was remembering. (Maybe > as a percent of daily diet...?) Its easy to make a mistake-Pet food labels are more harmful than helpful. > When you say "as fed" does that mean as compared to that which is added > to the ingredients? For example, they could add 0.5% fat, but as fed > the fat content is 3%? "As fed" means fed straight out of the can. The Guaranteed Analysis could be "4.5% min", but the 'as fed' value could be 6.5% On a 'dry matter basis', 6.5% 'as fed' translates into about 30% fat DMB- but that's good for a feline diet. I wish the damn pet food manufactures would list nutrients on a *caloric basis* (g/100 kcals) right on the label since that's the most accurate method and easiest to understand. A lot of people don't buy canned food because the labels make it look like canned food contains less protein than dry food when actually, it usually contains more. Listing nutrients on a caloric basis would eliminate all the erroneous myths and confusion. Phil >What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but >easier to store and serve, cans are a bit less expensive and are not >aas easily damaged. Cans. -mhd > What is the preference here? Pouches are a bit more expensive, but > easier to store and serve, I don't think pouches are easier to serve or store. In fact, I think pouches take up more room because they don't stack neatly- unless you store them in cases. Pouches are also messier and more food is wasted. cans are a bit less expensive and are not > aas easily damaged. I would think pouches are less expensive to manufacture- but cost more for the consumer. > I would think pouches are less expensive to manufacture- but cost more for > the consumer. Why do you think he is asking, Phil, LOL... -L. Internal debate of course - I'm not convinced pouches are such a great deal - but then you know me, I don't like change for the sake of change - I want to see some good solid proof. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.