 |
 | 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 / General Topics / March 2006Good canned foods: what to look for?
I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would volunteer to put it together in one post. Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood? Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not? Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %? Anything else? Which of this information is not available on cans themselves and must be obtained some other way? To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a separate thread about dry food if there is interest. >I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post > that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a > separate thread about dry food if there is interest. I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post the actual nutritional analysis by brand and variety, so you may simply be duplicating work that has already been done. Here are some examples (including both canned and dry food, although I realize that your request was for canned food only): KatKarma nutritional analysis of canned cat food (ordered by phosphorus content): http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm KatKarma nutritional analysis of dry cat food (ordered by phosphorus content): http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dryfood.htm Janet & Binky's Canned Cat Food Nutritional Information (includes calories): http://www.sugarcats.net/sites/jmpeerson/canfood.html Janet & Binky's Dry Cat Food Nutritional Information (includes calories): http://www.sugarcats.net/sites/jmpeerson/dryfood.html MaryL I wonder if anyone's tried Newman's Own Organics. I'm trying a couple of cans (my feline will eat anything). See http://www.newmansownorganics.com/pet/products/ingredients.php#cat_canned .  SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.blogspot.com/ : I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum : nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post the : actual nutritional analysis by brand and variety, so you may simply be : duplicating work that has already been done. Here are some examples : (including both canned and dry food, although I realize that your request : was for canned food only): The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is good and where it begins to get bad. Also the page is 3 yrs old (some formulas could have changed?) and the updated page has many fewer entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to interoret the % numbers. > : I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum > : nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to interoret > the % numbers. Yes, I would like to see the pages updated. The % refers to each nutrient as a percent age of calories (kcal). MaryL : "AlexZ" <alexz@no.spam> wrote in message : > The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : Yes, I would like to see the pages updated. The % refers to each nutrient : as a percent age of calories (kcal). Sorry, by not being able to interpret, I meant I don't know if 0.067% of something is good, bad, acceptable, dangerous, etc. Just lack of education on my part, but I thought it would be nice if after years and years of discussions and debates a group like this could evolve a concrete list people could refer to. > : "AlexZ" <alexz@no.spam> wrote in message > : > The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > years of discussions and debates a group like this could evolve a > concrete list people could refer to. Oh, sorry. I agree...there have been some discussions, and I failed to bookmark them. I hope someone can direct us to a good source for this information (although there is a lot of disagreement, of course!). MaryL > I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post > that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) > Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood? I only buy canned cat food in which the first ingredient reads "beef, chicken, fish, turkey," etc., in other words, not by-products. I have found that this is true only of premium foods and a few cheaper brands. When I last looked into the nutrition in canned food, I found that if the first ingredient is real meat, the other nutrition is usually good. One exception might be if your cat is allergic to wheat gluten. Some of the FF brands that have meat as a first ingredient have wheat gluten. > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products. > Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood? Some fish may contain high ammounts of heavy metals. > Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not? In my experience, tubers are better than grains. > Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %? Not sure about that, but I don't worry about it if I'm feeding a good quality food. SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com > > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) > > Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products. Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? As I understand it, thanks to pages like http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004 the problem is not with "byproducts" in a natural setting but with what gets called "buproducts" in industrial food production. Even good quality pet food is basically a byproduct of human foods, and what gets labeled as "byproduct" could be very poor quality in terms of chemical impurities, diseased meat, etc. Or so I understand thus far. So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely inerpret the words used by our industries? >As I understand it, thanks to pages like > http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004 But the author only lists the lower quality byproducts such as heads, feet, etc. She makes no mention that some companies use higher quality byproducts. Very one sided article. : >As I understand it, thanks to pages like : > http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004 : : But the author only lists the lower quality byproducts such as heads, feet, : etc. She makes no mention that some companies use higher quality byproducts. That is in the nature of warnings and precaution. If rules allow diseased meat to be sold under the name "byproduct", then everything so labeled becomes suspect. As I see it, these "good" manufacturers that you mention, it is up to them to label their products so they stand apart from the rest. My original question was just that. How do I tell good food from bad? Knowing that some things are good and some not is hardly helpful, how do I tell which is which? How do all of you, the more experienced ones, tell? >As I see it, these "good" manufacturers that you mention, it is up to >them to label their products so they stand apart from the rest. I agree. You would think the "good" manufacturers would have figured this out by now and would show on their labeling how the products don't contain the lousy ingredients some people say they do. It's so simple. AlexZ <alexz@no.spam> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav: >: Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the >: implication linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely > inerpret the words used by our industries? You can find a web site dedicated to practically anything or any side of any argument. I can give you a slew of links to sites that decry LASIK vision correction and have some absolute horror stories. Enough to make even the most adventuresome person never do it. It's all opinion unless it comes from a known and reputable company, as the status of by-products. Depends on who is using them to determine what's in them. Science Diet "by-products" are pretty high quality compared to the actual cat food from some sources, I've heard. SignatureMargarita Salt "...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or entirely good... motives are often more important than actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt > : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication > : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely > inerpret the words used by our industries? Interesting, I just looked at some of Hill's Science Diet products and see they list "meat by-product" and "pork by-product" for example. In my mind, those by-products could be anything. I would want to know exactly what they are, not loose terms from AAFCO, as Hill's will claim they follow. I see they're still using powdered cellulose and also liver "flavor". Like I said before, it's too bad they can't list what's exactly in the can or bag. This is for example only and I'm not endorsing either of these foods. I just wanted to show how one food lists "by-products" and how the other food will list what it is, "chicken liver." Hills: Ingredients Water, Beef, Beef By-Product, Pork By-Products, Pork Liver, Wheat Flour, Corn Starch, Rice Flour, Powdered Cellulose, Chicken Liver Flavor, Soybean Oil, Corn Gluten Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Guar Gum, Locust Bean Gum, Carrageenan, Brewers Dried Yeast, Dicalcium Phosphate, Iron Oxide, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, DL-Methionine, Taurine, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Potassium Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Niacin, Manganous Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Calcium Pantothenate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Riboflavin, Biotin, Calcium Iodate, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite. Eagle Pack: Chicken & Lamb Formula Ingredient Listing: Chicken, Chicken Broth, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Rolled Oats, Dried Egg Product, Carrots, Peas, Potatoes, Guar Gum, Brewers Dried Yeast, Cranberry Powder, Flaxseed, Dried Kelp, Choline Chloride, Potassium Chloride, Carrageenan, Taurine, Salt, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Vitamins & Minerals "PawsForThought" <mickey4paws@gmail.com> wrote in message > This is for example only and I'm not endorsing either of these foods. > I just wanted to show how one food lists "by-products" and how the > other food will list what it is, "chicken liver." I've always taken by-product to mean some other part of the animal. For instance, if you're talking about beef, by-product might be some heart, liver, kidney, ground ligament, or other bits of the animal. > "PawsForThought" <mickey4paws@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > instance, if you're talking about beef, by-product might be some heart, > liver, kidney, ground ligament, or other bits of the animal. I used to think that too, but it seems if the ingredient were actually liver for instance, it would be listed as liver, and not as a by-product, as in this example: "By-product: An ingredient produced in the course of making a primary food ingredient; a secondary or incidental product. Feathers are a by-product of poultry meat processing. Feathers which are removed from a carcass during production of poultry meat are then hydrolyzed (pressure cooked with steam until they are an edible gel) which makes them an acceptable feed grade ingredient. Hydrolyzed feathers have been assigned the (IFN) International Feed Number 5-03-795 and can appear on a label as "Poultry By-products." On page 158 in the AAFCO book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated, they show: Hydrolyzed Poultry By-Products Aggregate is the product resulting from heat treatment, or a combination thereof, of all by-products of slaughter poultry, clean and undecomposed, including such parts as heads, feet, underdeveloped eggs, intestines, feathers and blood." The IFN assigned to this mix is 5-14-508. Today's regulations allow the entire mix or any part of it to appear on a label as "Poultry By-products." A "Fish By-product" can contain heads, tails, intestines and blood. This fish process residue has been assigned the IFN 5-07-977. A "Meat By-product" could be viscera and blood soaked sawdust from the floors of a packing house where meat is being processed. The meat being processed can be lamb, beef, horse, or any other source. Each one has its own IFN. Some of the animal feed IFN's that contain wood shavings from the floor of a processing facility include "Dried Ruminant Waste" #1-07-526, and "Undried Processed Animal Waste Products" #5-02-790. It is important to note that the amount of wood shavings in either of these two "Meat By-products" is limited and should not be more than 35% in one and 40% in the other. When a pet food label's list of ingredients shows the word By-product you can be assured that there is NO measurable amount of meat in the ingredient. If the ingredient contained enough meat that it could be measured the pet food company would proudly list the MEAT, not just the By-product of that meat's production." >in the other. When a pet food label's list of ingredients shows the >word By-product you can be assured that there is NO measurable amount >of meat in the ingredient. If the ingredient contained enough meat that >it could be measured the pet food company would proudly list the MEAT, >not just the By-product of that meat's production." On the contrary, when I called Hill's, they said their "chicken byproduct meal" consists of *both* chicken meat (white and dark) and chicken byproducts (viscera). I think what it comes down to is choosing a pet company that uses the higher quality byproducts and the only way to find out is to contact them instead of just assuming that all byproducts are the same. Kelcey I looked at "natural" foods a few years ago wondering if they might be better. I was surprised that even the holistic company Wysong said that byproducts are nutritious for animals and they put to rest a lot of the hype about "human grade", roadkill, 4D animals, etc. (unfortunately my male got a blocked bladder eating their brand so I'm back to conventional food (Hill's) for good!). http://www.wysong.net/dontbefooled.shtml Click on The Pet Food Ingredient Game Anna On page 158 in the AAFCO book, > Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control > Officials Incorporated, 1994?? you have to be joking right? There have been literally dozens upons dozens of changes since 1994. > they show: Hydrolyzed Poultry By-Products Aggregate Nonsense - just let me know what pet food contains that ingredient - I'd love to see it. Remember that ingredients definitions are hard and fast, you cannot substitute "hydrolyzed poultry by product aggregate" for "poultry by products" - they are two separate and distinct ingredients. Any manufacturer that used "hydrolyzed poultry by products" would have to use that exact term on the label. > Today's regulations allow the entire mix or any part of it to > appear on a label as "Poultry By-products." You mean your 12 year old AAFCO regulations - but not "todays" regulations - 2005 AFFCO Poultry By products is defined as: " Poultry by-products must consist of non-rendered clean parts of carcasses of slaughtered poultry such as heads, feet, viscera, free from fecal content and foreign matter except in such trace mounts as might unavoidably ocurr in good factory practice. If the product bears a name descriptive of its kind, the name must correspond thereto" It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry, venison, salmon etc. You can buy high quality low ash meals or cheap high ash meals. The cheaper high ash meals derive that additional ash from the ground up bones in the meat meal. This can show up in the finished product in elevated levels of calcium and phosphorus. Remember that pure muscle meats - regardless of specie - contains about 0.01% calcium, and there is very little calcium in grains, fats, oils, etc used in commercial foods. The vast majority of calcium in any food comes from the meat meals. So how does a finished food end up with 2% calcium - or 200 times the level of calcium intrinsic to the muscle tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat meals. > A "Meat By-product" could be > viscera and blood soaked sawdust False - there is no provision within the AAFCO definition for generic meat meal which permits the addition of "sawdust" - that is just silly internet mythology. The 2005 AAFCO definition of meat By-products is as follows: "Meat By-products is the nonrendered, clen parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered animals. It includes, but is not limited to lungs spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of theri contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth, and hoofsd. It shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears a name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto. (Proposed 1973, Adopted 1974, Amended 1978)" Since this particular definition has not changed since your antiquated 1994 book was printed, I must assume you suffered a temporary typo problem and came up with sawdust just for hell of it? Or were you are being deliberately false in representing that sawdust could be included in "meat by-products"? Remember the ingredient "must be DERIVED FROM the slaughtered..." The last time I heard sawdust was derived from trees, not cows. > Some of the > animal feed IFN's that contain wood shavings from the floor of a > processing facility include "Dried Ruminant Waste" #1-07-526, and > "Undried Processed Animal Waste Products" #5-02-790. What nonsense - let me know when you see either of those ingredient descriptions on any pet food, not even Ol Roy uses that stuff. Is this just a trip down scaremongering lane and you're hoping everyone will simply ignore the false claims? You can buy a new book for $50 - but you would still have to learn to be honest and not add words into ingredient definitions that do no texist - like "sawdust". When my 2006 book gets back from the binders - I'll be happy to check and see if there have been any additional changes. > It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or > more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat > meals. Not necessarily. A manufacturer can add calcium to balance the amount of phosphorous contained in the food. I know you'll say Hill's foods has less phos but that's because more of their protein comes from plant/grain sources. Now might be a good time once again to ask you to remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be disingenuous of course. > > It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or > > more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be > disingenuous of course. So tell us why a particular manufacturer would add excessively high levels of calcium to balance out excessively high levels of phosphorus? Are you advocating such a position? At least Steve comments from a position of authority on the matter. You, on the other hand, have no knowledge or background on the matter. Which could explain why your previous posts in this thread are so misinformed. Oh, and another question, Lauren. Just how much protein or phosphorus do you think is contained in "plant/grain" sources? > Now might be a good time once again to ask you to > remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be > disingenuous of course. I thought about that a couple weeks ago, but since you've taken it upon yourself to follow me around to various NG's and make this proclamation yourself, there really isn't much need for me to do so anymore is there. It's like having my own personal secretary. Neat! Thanks for the help. > > It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or > > more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be > disingenuous of course. Nice try - but that puppy simply doesn't hunt. Bones consist of high levels of calcium and phosphorus. Typically the phos level is slightly *lower* than the calcium level. 65 to 70 percent of the bone is composed of inorganic substances. Almost all of this inorganic substance is a compound called hydroxyapatite. "The chemical composition of hydroxyapatite is (10 Calcium atoms, 6 Phosphorus atoms, 26 Oxygen atoms, and 2 Hydrogen atoms). Therefore, 65 to 70 percent of bone is a mineral compound called hydroxyapatite that is composed of nothing more than Calcium, Phosphorus, Oxygen and Hydrogen. There are no Vitamins, Fatty Acids, enzymes, proteins or carbohydrates in this, the largest component of raw bone. 30 to 35% of bone is composed of organic material (on a dry weight basis). Of this amount nearly 95 % is a substance called collagen. Collagen is a fibrous protein. It is poorly digested by the dog and cat. The other one-twentieth of the 30% organic substances are Chondroitin Sulfate, Keratin sulfate, and Phospholipids. Therefore, 30 to 35% of bone is collagen with a tiny fraction of other compounds." http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html The origin of the phos in any finished food is almost entirely from the ground up bones. A cheap meat meal may contain 20% "ash" of which that ash is composed primarily of calcium and phosphorus. An expensive low ash meat meal commonly runs about 7-8% ash. From a cost perspective the low ash meat meal will be 15-25% cheaper than the high ash meat meal. <snipped the bs> Lauren, where exactly did you get this "definition" for by-product? Hmm? Perhaps you'd care to use a source that is a) more objective and b) not more than 12 years old? As for your "hmm, this is interesting" remark, why don't you let everybody know that you are a Hill's Hater? You act as if you've just discovered the ingredient list of a Hill's diet. For someone who hates Hill's so much, you sure have quick access to a pair of ingredient lists. You also didn't identify which list went with which product. That's disingenuous on your part....which isn't anything new. :( >Interesting, I just looked at some of Hill's Science Diet products and >see they list "meat by-product" and "pork by-product" for example. In [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >liver "flavor". Like I said before, it's too bad they can't list >what's exactly in the can or bag. All you have to do is call Hill's and they'll tell you what the byproducts consist of. I was told it was viscera - kidneys, intestines, etc. The Hill's ingredient list you posted has pork liver on it, not just flavor; it's higher up on the ingredient list so there is more actual liver in the food than liver flavor. From what I've heard about cellulose, it's just a plant fibre, doesn't sound horrible to me. >This is for example only and I'm not endorsing either of these foods. >I just wanted to show how one food lists "by-products" and how the >other food will list what it is, "chicken liver." The only difference I see from these two lists is that Hill's has byproducts in it and Eagle Pack doesn't - although EP does have liver in it and liver is a byproduct. I prefer for my cats to have viscera in their diet as I think it's good for them so I use Hill's. > : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication > : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely > inerpret the words used by our industries? It's a bit more basic than that. You can buy meat meals of any specie in a dozen different grades. It is easily possible to buy a chicken meal that contains 20% ash for less money than a chicken by-product meal that contains 5% ash. That chicken meal may have a digestibility level of only 50%, while the chciken by product meal may be 80%. Anytime you attempt to review a pet food based on ingredients alone, you are doomed to failure. Why? Becasue reading an ingredinet label alone will not tell you what quality that ingredient is. For example suppose a pet food contains "chicken". Nothing on the lable tells you if the "chicken" is highly digestible, contains abroad spectrum of amino acids, or instead is very low digestibility and contains 20% ash or ground up bones. For those reasons you need to look a bit deeper. Review the nutrients and not the ingredients. No animal uses an "ingredient", they use the nutrients that the ingredients are suppposed to bring to the table. Take the time to look at nutrient levels, digestibility, antioxidant vitamin levels, etc. > : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication > : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? > > As I understand it, thanks to pages like > http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004 The link you provided is coming from a particular point of view and is not unbiased. > the problem is not with "byproducts" in a natural setting but with what > gets called "buproducts" in industrial food production. Even good > quality pet food is basically a byproduct of human foods, and what gets > labeled as "byproduct" could be very poor quality in terms of chemical > impurities, diseased meat, etc. Or so I understand thus far. You'd have to call each individual company to ask them. Some are good and some are bad. You cannot accurately judge a food based off of its ingredient label. Almost all companies use a least-cost formulation anyway and so the ingredient label may not reflect what is actually in the bag. You've got to look at nutrient levels, not individual ingredients to determine the proper nutrition for your particular cat. > So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely > inerpret the words used by our industries? > > : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication > > : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The link you provided is coming from a particular point of view and is > not unbiased. How is Dr. Hofve's article biased? She doesn't sell petfood, unlike yourself. > > The link you provided is coming from a particular point of view and is > > not unbiased. > > How is Dr. Hofve's article biased? She doesn't sell petfood, unlike > yourself. Easy. She is coming from a particular point of view which is not objective. She perpeuates the myth that plastic wrap goes in to pet foods? 4D animals? One of those "D"s is in EVERY food. All animals (chicken, beef, turkey, etc.) are dead when they are put in the food. She only presents one aspect of "by-products". She uses emotive words that show exactly where she is coming from. She references "holistic" veternarians as if they are somehow more knowledgeable or "better" than regular vets. Do I need to go on or could you not see this? >>>Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) >> >>Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products. > > Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication > linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at? Actually, cats tend not to eat feathers or beaks. :) I have no idea what "by-products" actually contains, anything from beaks to diseased animals. There was no linking anything. If you read the original sentence, there were two questions asked. Which I answered. SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com > >>>Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > animals. There was no linking anything. If you read the original > sentence, there were two questions asked. Which I answered. No, that's not necessarily what "by-product" is. Since by your own admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats eat "by-product" all the time. > admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you > automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats > eat "by-product" all the time. Whatever. You feed your cats by-products and I'll feed them good food. :) SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com > > admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you > > automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats > > eat "by-product" all the time. > > Whatever. You feed your cats by-products and I'll feed them good food. :) LOL! Well since Gaubster works for Hill's, I'd imagine he's pretty hard-pressed to feed them Science Diet. Personally, I would rather feed a food that lists "chicken liver" instead of "by-products" since I will then know exactly what by-product is in the food. > > > admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you > > > automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > feed a food that lists "chicken liver" instead of "by-products" since I > will then know exactly what by-product is in the food. "LOL"? It doesn't take much to amuse you does it? So you're saying you'd rather feed a food that has by-products in it than a food that has by-products in it? <rolling my eyes> You forget (or have never grasped the concept) about fixed formulas. You "think" you're feeding one thing and you probably are feeding something else (if you're talking about commercial foods). Since you don't even feed commercial foods (you feed raw ingredients), I don't know why you care? As for Victor, I see that you couldn't rebut the point I made. <shrug> : No, that's not necessarily what "by-product" is. Since by your own : admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you : automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats : eat "by-product" all the time. Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever reason. A cat in wild is free to leave behind the parts she doesn't like, not so when everything is presented as one paste with tasty fat and salt. > Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial > processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever > reason. > > A cat in wild is free to leave behind the parts she doesn't like, not > so when everything is presented as one paste with tasty fat and salt. Maybe it would help to know what the term "by-product" officially means under AAFCO rules. Any product which is the result of the manufacturing of some other product is called a "by-product". Chicken liver, beef hearts etc are "by-products". All internal organs in chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, etc. not commonly used in human foods are "by-products" under AAFCO law. A cat in the wild eats the internal organs or "by-products" first in all kills. Beef liver is commonly eatne by humans and thus is not termed a "by-product", Chicken liver, turkey liver, pig liver are not commonly eaten by humans and are thus termed by-products. Vitamin E is a "by-product" of soy bean manufacturing process. Lamb meal is a "by-product" under the AAFCO law because it is made as part of the process of slaughtering lambs for human consumption. Thus you incorrect when you state that no part of a prey in the wild is a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules. This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they listed cicken liver and lamb meal on the ingredient panel both of which are a "by-product". They now operate under a court injunction prohibiting any further such claims. > > Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial > > processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed > "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules. If the food has enough of chicken liver in it, it will list "chicken liver" and not "by-products". Chicken liver is good, but not knowing exactly what is in that particular food's listing of "by-product" doesn't let you know if chicken liver is even in it, or instead, by-products can serve as a very low quality protein source. By-products that contain high levels of beaks and feet will also contain high levels of poorly digestible, poor quality protein. That's why a food that lists "chicken liver" or "chicken heart" is better. > This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They > used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they > listed cicken liver and lamb meal on the ingredient panel both of which > are a "by-product". They now operate under a court injunction > prohibiting any further such claims. Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food, now could you? LOL! > > This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They > > used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food, > now could you? LOL! And what brand did I denigrate???? The court records are public records, anyone can access them if they choose - Is it your opinion that consumers should NOT know when a company has been caught lying? Do you think it better that consumers continue to be purposefully mislead and deceived? Do you think it's better that consumers not be aware that legal action is taken against pet food companies? > > > Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial > > > processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > levels of poorly digestible, poor quality protein. That's why a food > that lists "chicken liver" or "chicken heart" is better. You can repeat your talking points all you want, Lauren---that doesn't make it true. Go ahead and cling to your antiquated beliefs, you really don't KNOW what you're talking about. > > This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They > > used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food, > now could you? LOL! ...and which brand of food did Steve "denigrate"? >Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food, >now could you? LOL! I've noticed when you post in a food thread, that you always put down Hill's. You posted their food label against Eagle Pack here too. You never use Iams, Purina, etc. as examples. Why the hate-on just for Hill's? Anna >Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food, >now could you? LOL! The irony. -mhd : Any product which is the result of the manufacturing of some : other product is called a "by-product". Good so far, but it also tells me that all rejected meat not deemed fit for primary purpose (human consumption) is included in by-product. : Chicken liver, beef hearts etc are "by-products". If that was all, they could just have been called "internal organs" or some such. By-product tells me there are things they don't want to name. What is it? An and everything rejected for the original purpose? : A cat in the wild eats the internal organs or "by-products" first in : all kills. I think you are being careless in equating internal organs and by-products. The former may be included in the latter, but something else must also be there to warrant a different name. I suspect it is impurities, non-eatables, rejected batches, etc. If that is prohibited by law, please clarify. : Thus you incorrect when you state that no part of a prey in the wild is : a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed : "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules. But all by-products are not internal organs, right? Once again, this going back and forth between internal organs and by-products is a bit too slick for my taste. However, I'll wait for you to state your reasons for equating them. > > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) > > Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products. What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver. > I wish petfood companies would list > by-products for what they really are. Yes, and that goes for human food, too. I wish manufacturers/producers were required to list ingredients *in plain English* (or the language of the nation where it is sole). One almost needs to be a detective to decipher some ingredients. MaryL > > > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?) > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver > flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver. Yes, I should have mentioned why I don't want byproducts as the first ingredient--precisely because they don't tell you what is really in there. I recognize that muscle meat isn't the only thing cats need. Good point. >What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list >by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things >like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition >for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver >flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver. Funny that they don't. Seems like a simple enough process, just write on the the bag or can exactly what the the ingredients are. May even increase sales since there are so many people who are afraid of the b word. > What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list > by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things > like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition > for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver > flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver. synthetic liver????? Now that's a new one. Is this new synthetic liver made out of plastic, ground up milk cartons maybe? Let us know. Thanks for the laugh tho...... > > What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list > > by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > liver made out of plastic, ground up milk cartons maybe? Let us know. > Thanks for the laugh tho...... Most likely rendered fat with artificial flavoring. If you can clarify, go right ahead. My thinking is that if it were indeed chicken liver, it would be listed as such, and not listed as "flavor". > I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post > that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a > separate thread about dry food if there is interest. I'm certainly no expert, but I tend towards the 'groovy, natural' stuff... Innova, Welness brand etc... I preffer to see ingredients like 'chicken' not 'chiken meal' & 'brown rice' not 'rice flour'... The less processed, the better in my book... SignatureMathew Butler to 3 cats: Chablis, Muscat & Sage En Vino Veritas "Mathew Kagis" <skipatrol@nospamnetscape.ca> wrote in message > I'm certainly no expert, but I tend towards the 'groovy, natural' stuff... > Innova, Welness brand etc... I preffer to see ingredients like 'chicken' not > 'chiken meal' & 'brown rice' not 'rice flour'... The less processed, the > better in my book... All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried yet), my cat will only eat Iams type hard cat chow. So far, I estimate that I've invested a good $100 on other brands of cat food, including various canned types and aside from a little bitty piece of processed cheese once in awhile, she won't eat anything else. This includes her not liking various types of people food like chicken, shrimp, tuna and cream. > All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the > cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried yet), I don't recommend starving your cat to force him/her to eat a certain brand of food. You can't outstubborn a cat. Which is why ours don't eat only Innova/Felidae/etc. They don't like it as much as they like Nutro. SignatureVictor M. Martinez Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM) Send your spam here: uce@ftc.gov Email me here: pistorLITTER@BOXaustin.rr.com > All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the > cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried yet), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > awhile, she won't eat anything else. This includes her not liking various > types of people food like chicken, shrimp, tuna and cream. Have you tried a gradual blending of new food into the Iams? Just a thought... Mine are not so particular & don't (so far) seem to object to variety when it comest to their dry kibble... When it comes to 'gooshy' food... If it comes from a can... It MUST be good! Mathew Butler to 3 cats: Chablis, Muscat & Sage En Vino Veritas "Mathew Kagis" <skipatrol@nospamnetscape.ca> wrote in message > Have you tried a gradual blending of new food into the Iams? Just a > thought... Mine are not so particular & don't (so far) seem to object to > variety when it comest to their dry kibble... When it comes to 'gooshy' > food... If it comes from a can... It MUST be good! Yes, I did try blending various new foods, but it's a little difficult to blend moist food with dry kibble. When I first brought my six month old Deetoo home from animal services, I had all this special cat food ready for her which she refused to touch. Fortunately, the shelter had included a few packages of Performatrim which is what they fed all their cats. The Iams was the closest I could find to that in the local stores and she went for it. I guess I shouldn't be complaining. Iams cat chow and water, it's a very simple and easy food regimen. Obviously, it's working because my little sweetie is big and strong like a bull. >I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post > that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a > separate thread about dry food if there is interest. In the UK I have found that my cat will eat (this is a big thing with my cat who would rather starve than eat something he doesn't like) Somerfields Premium Chicken in Supermeat. it has 14% chicken as opposed to 4% in most other brands. |
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.