Cat Forum / General Topics / May 2006
Cats and grains
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Kiran - 17 May 2006 07:53 GMT http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/grains.php
Grains have been a major mainstay for humans, and the agriculture as well as use of grain in our diet, providing us with bread - a dense source of energy and nutrients - have propelled human civilization forward in its evolution. But what about grains in the meal plan of the cat? Cats are domesticated animals, heavily influenced by human society. They share our lives, our house, and - yes - our food. Nonetheless, the cat is a cat. In a very distant past we may indeed share a common ancestor as mammals, but otherwise the cat's physiology is as much an extreme when compared to ours, as day is to night. If we want to understand the dietary needs of cats, we must look at cats as they live in the wild, and not at how they live as part of human civilization, and thusly the foods they adapted to eat.
Grain is man made - grass seeds, enhanced in size through selective breeding. Before humans discontinued their nomadic lifestyle and settled as farmers, there was no grain. There where only seeds - available to wildlife for the take merely seasonal. Advocates of the use of grain in cat foods argue, that these foods would naturally be part of the cat's diet as the stomach content of their prey - rodents and birds. Yet, these species too, where first introduced to grain merely ten thousand years ago, and that only in the presence of far apart human settlements. A truly natural diet for rodents and birds is not based on grains, but on insects and fruits, as well as greens for rodents. Merely seasonal do these animals fed on seeds, and a large proportion of those would be made up of oily seeds and nuts, rather then carbohydrate based grass seeds. The relation of the stomach content, for example of a mouse, is only 5% - 9% of the total weight of the animal, therefore not supplying the cat, at any time, with more then that as grain in her diet.
Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for humans either, but we have perfectly adapted to it as a mainstay. Could the cat adapt? Yes and no. Simple differences between people as omnivores and cats as true carnivores make it impossible for the cat to break down nearly any type of plant matter. Digestion of carbohydrate and cellulose containing plant matter begins in the mouth. The substances are ground up by our chewing motion and fortified with enzymes, in order to break them down manually as well as chemically. The cat, in turn, possesses no molars, nor the ability to chew or grind foods. Also, the cat's body does not produce the enzymes necessary for the break down of plant cellulose. The cat's digestive tract is, in relation to that of a human, much shorter and designed to deal with highly digestible foods of animal source; any ingested plant matter is normally passed "unharmed". The cat's digestive juices may be potent, but it is digestion time that breaks down plant matter. The cat passes food much too quickly from stomach to the small intestine and then to the colon, for any digestion of plant matter to happen.
The cat is a very intelligent being, and she has emotionally adapted to a live among humans. Despite her extreme physical restrictions as true carnivore, the cat has learned to eat other, more human like foods besides her usual all prey regiment. In fact, this widened palate enables cats to live in colonies with their own kind - something never observed among their ancestors: the African Wild Cat. Because the domestic cat has adapted to eat other things, such as fatty or protein based human discards, and is not solely dependant on prey availability, territorial stress is greatly reduced - opening channels for communication.
The adaptation to a greater variety of food sources did not leave the cat's physiology completely unchanged. In the cats native North African range, the now wide spread domesticated cat is a threat to the existence of her wild cat ancestor. Domestic stock frequently hybridizes with wild cats, leading to a rapit vanishing of pure wild cats. Scientists hope to preserve the species through population control of the domestic stock, but how does one distinguish between these two very similar looking species in order to catalogue any data or observations? As it turns out, the domestic cat's intestines are a few centimeters longer then those of a true wild cat, a feature which is passed on to hybrid offspring, clearly distinguishing true wild cats from those influenced by human civilisation.
If the cat lacks the ability to digest plant matter, could grains be cooked as a means of "pre digesting" them? Yes, that does work indeed. The cat's food can thusly be fortified with carbohydrates which is converted by the cat's liver to glucose as a source of energy. The problem is, that the cat converts a large portion of dietary protein (glycogenic amino acids) to glucose for energy, and any excess of glucose from carbohydrate source is stored as body fat! The question should not be: if or if not the cat can digest grains, but rather if there is any benefit for the cat, or if in fact, it could be harmful.
Commercial pet food manufactures rely heavily on the use of grains to manufacture their products. However, the grains are not added because they hold much nutritional value, but because they lower the cost of the product.
The Cornell Book of Cats: "Although carbohydrates make up about 40% of commercial dry cat foods, they are not a dietary necessity for the cat. In fact, cats can be maintained on carbohydrate free diets in which energy is derived exclusively from non carbohydrate sources. Carbohydrates are included as a source of energy and to provide structure for dry cat food."
The Merk Veterinary Manual: "Carbohydrates are a less expensive source of energy than fat or protein.(...) In cats, carbohydrates are apparently not essential in the diet when ample protein and fats supply glycogenic amino acids and glycerol.(...) In both dogs and cats, if starches are not cooked, they will be poorly digested and may result in flatulence or diarrhoea."
The Well Cat Book: "Carbohydrates (sugars, starches, and cellulose) are not required by cats in their diet. The digestible carbohydrates (sugar and starch), however, can be used as energy source, providing 3.5 calories for each gram consumed. Cooking and/or fine grinding of carbohydrate sources (e.g. cereal grains, potatoes, vegetables) greatly improves their utilization and allows pet food manufacturers to formulate dry and semimoist foods based on these plant products that are not a major part of any cat's natural diet."
Carbohydrates are not necessary in the cat's diet. If large amounts of grains are included in the diet, more essential nutrients are displaced by this cheap source of unnecessary calories. Intake of carbohydrates is the number one cause of obesity in cats. It causes indigestion, regurgitation, or diarrhoea, and Feline Future has traced grains and vegetables in cat foods as an overlooked cause of self induced bilateral alopecia (hair loss) in cats. Large amounts of sugars (and any amount of sugar is above the norm for cats) causes the endorcine system to overwork and malfunction, predisposing cats to the risk of pancreatitis and diabetes.
(END
stan beck - 17 May 2006 13:02 GMT I think this all can be boiled down to a simple principle -- and that is this: Think about what the animal would eat in the wild and try not to stray from it. It's best not to disturb what God set in motion.
Stan
www.Kitten-Pictures.com The most adorable Kitten Pictures on the net!
Upscale - 17 May 2006 13:36 GMT "stan beck" <stan@stanbeck.com> wrote in message
> I think this all can be boiled down to a simple principle -- and that > is this: Think about what the animal would eat in the wild and try not > to stray from it. It's best not to disturb what God set in motion. Sorry, can't agree with that sentiment at all. There's been all sorts of advances in health science that have improved upon what god originally set in motion. Even something as simple as antibiotics which keeps people alive today who would have died less than 100 years ago. The same goes for the growing of food and the ability to grow it in much larger quantities than a few years back. In the wild, animals would eat dirty rotten flesh and be exposed to all sorts of contagions (like rabies) that we presently immunize against.
So no, wild animal type of diet is definitely *not* a preferred choice for your pet. Not if you want your pets to live longer, healthier lives.
Toni - 17 May 2006 14:57 GMT "Upscale" <upscale@teksavvy.com> wrote in message news:c52f2$446b18ce$cef88bc5$
> Sorry, can't agree with that sentiment at all. There's been all sorts of > advances in health science that have improved upon what god originally set [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > immunize > against. I think you are nitpicking and missing the point.
Cats have evolved as obligate carnivores- animals who prey upon and eat other animals. Prey animals consisting of meat, bone, organs, and predigested vegetable matter in the stomach. So, to me, feeding a cat a diet consisting of rice, corn, or wheat is in direct opposition to what their preferred and necessary diet is.
No one is suggesting that you feed your cats rotten meat or disease riddled animals.
> So no, wild animal type of diet is definitely *not* a preferred choice for > your pet. Not if you want your pets to live longer, healthier lives. There are many, many of us feeding a clean raw diet that would beg to differ. Raw fed cats are some of the healthiest animals out there with naturally strong immune systems, naturally clean teeth, and a gleaming non shedding coat.
It is of course up to you how to nourish the animals in your care, but to suggest that we not try and cleanly duplicate a cats natural diet is, to me anyway, absurd.
 Signature Toni http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
Upscale - 17 May 2006 15:33 GMT > I think you are nitpicking and missing the point. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, to me, feeding a cat a diet consisting of rice, corn, or wheat is in > direct opposition to what their preferred and necessary diet is. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed food that is superior for our pets than what they'd get from a pure meat diet that you're suggesting. Stan said to feed a pet what it would get in the wild. In the wild, an animal will eat most any type of food that might provide sustenance.
In addition, the "by-products" you *might* see on a can of pet food consist of those meat, bone and other matter that you've listed above. Man used to be a carnivore, now he's not for the most part. People live longer than they ever did before. Pets like cats and dogs are similarly living longer than they ever did before. You can thank present day science for that. It's your option what you feed your pet, that's your business. I prefer to side with scientific study that tells me what is good for my cat. Sorry, but that's not a purely natural diet as far as I'm concerned.
Unless Stan is talking about how man has evolved and what he has invented from the evolvement of his intellect, then to say leave things as God set them in motion is completely unrealistic.
Toni - 17 May 2006 16:25 GMT > You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and > corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed > food > that is superior for our pets than what they'd get from a pure meat diet > that you're suggesting. I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the last 60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real whole food. Also grains typically represent far too high a percentage of processed foods manufactured for cats, the major exception being the recently introduced Innova EVO.
> In addition, the "by-products" you *might* see on a can of pet food > consist > of those meat, bone and other matter that you've listed above. Man used to > be a carnivore, now he's not for the most part. Please- when was man ever a carnivore? We have been omnivores for as long as we have existed. A simple look at any species teeth and digestive system will tell you what they need to eat. Man has molars for grinding grains and vegetables, and a longer intestinal tract to digest them. Cats have canines for ripping and tearing meat and a shorter intestinal tract and more concentrated stomach acids as well. It is basic evolution.
>People live longer than they > ever did before. Pets like cats and dogs are similarly living longer than > they ever did before. You can thank present day science for that. No, you can thak modern medicine and the fact that domesticated animals are far removed from the predators, disease, and accidental deaths prevalent in wild populations. Processed foods over the last several decades are have contributed to the loss of health of all of us due to immune disorders, allergies, diabetes, heart disease, etc., etc., etc.
> It's your > option what you feed your pet, that's your business. I prefer to side with > scientific study that tells me what is good for my cat. Sorry, but that's > not a purely natural diet as far as I'm concerned. Those scientific studies you are so high on were funded by pet food manufacturers.
> Unless Stan is talking about how man has evolved and what he has invented > from the evolvement of his intellect, then to say leave things as God set > them in motion is completely unrealistic. IMO nature always knows best, and will always win.
 Signature Toni http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
Upscale - 17 May 2006 16:42 GMT "Toni" <Toni@nada.noway> wrote in message
> wild populations. Processed foods over the last several decades are have > contributed to the loss of health of all of us due to immune disorders, > allergies, diabetes, heart disease, etc., etc., etc. Not wanting to make this a protracted discussion, I agree that many processed foods have not been the best option for humans. However, I disagree on what causes the conditions that you've listed above. The biggest reason for them being caused is man's sedentary lifestyle. The lack of exercise and the little effort needed to obtain food and shelter has by far and away been the major cause for those conditions.
If everybody who subsisted solely on Big Macs balanced those processed foods with adequate exercise, most of those diseases and medical problems you've listed wouldn't exist. It's not that the processed foods exist, it's that man fails to regulate his intake of them.
That's all I've got to say. :)
CatNipped - 17 May 2006 17:35 GMT >> You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and >> corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real > whole food. Also This is just not true. Pets used to live only 5 or 6 years when I was a child. The manufactured food available then was nutritionally unsound and basically contained only food scraps and "left-overs" (thinks pig hooves and gristle) from processed human food. Other than that pets were given table scraps (which, while good for humans was not good for pets' nutritional needs)
*MILLIONS* of dollars have been spent over the years by pet food manufacturers to improve the quality of pet food and as a result pets are living much longer, healthier lives.
People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as good as today!
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
Toni - 17 May 2006 19:11 GMT >> Toni" <Toni@nada.noway> wrote in message >> news:SfHag.19207$qd2.10863@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the >> last 60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the >> manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real >> whole food. Also
> This is just not true. Pets used to live only 5 or 6 years when I was a > child. The manufactured food available then was nutritionally unsound and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > manufacturers to improve the quality of pet food and as a result pets are > living much longer, healthier lives. Is todays processed food better than that initially introduced after WWll? Of course it is.
Now ask me if I think that todays processed food is better than a diet of fresh whole foods? No. If it was we'd all be eating Total cereal exclusively.
Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods?
> People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us > geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as > good as today! I'll see your 'geezer' and raise you 10 years. <g>
 Signature Toni (older than dirt myself) http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
CatNipped - 17 May 2006 19:21 GMT >>> Toni" <Toni@nada.noway> wrote in message >>> news:SfHag.19207$qd2.10863@bignews6.bellsouth.net... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > No. > If it was we'd all be eating Total cereal exclusively. The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In order to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things they eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as they would eat in nature. And you know what - cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me. The research done on pets' nutritionaly needs is almost as extensive (in the US) as for humans' nutritional needs. I would still trust that the millions of dollars spent on that research has found out more about this subject than what I can guess at, so I'll stick to manufactured foods for my cats (who are 16, 8, 7, and 2 and are and have always been healthy and active).
> Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal > exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods? There are both nutritionally sound foods and junk foods, both fresh and packaged, available for all species! ;> It's all a matter of educating yourself in reading labels.
>> People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us >> geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as >> good as today! > > I'll see your 'geezer' and raise you 10 years. > <g> OK, do you remember when "cell phones" where bigger than your head???! ;> When I was a child we didn't even have cell phones - our land lines came with rotary dials, telephone numbers where only 7 digits, and telephone number prefixes where things like "Edgewood 1".
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
cybercat - 17 May 2006 19:36 GMT > The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the > same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In order > to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them > exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things they > eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as they > would eat in nature. Precisely.
[...]
> > Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal > > exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods? > > There are both nutritionally sound foods and junk foods, both fresh and > packaged, available for all species! ;> It's all a matter of educating > yourself in reading labels. Yep. It is mostly chemistry. However--there is fairly recent evidence (for humans, anyway--or is that lab rats?) that there are protective properties in whole foods that make them worth more than the sum of their parts, if that makes sense. Meaning that health benefits in whole foods are seen that cannot be explained by the chemicals they know are in the foods. (Here I am using "whole foods" as in, the whole pear instead of just the stuff we know is in the pear, taken in a vitamin tablet.) It suggests to me that there are still substances in some whole foods that have not been identified and are destroyed with processing/preserving.
This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh" thing, but I think it is a component.
CatNipped - 17 May 2006 19:46 GMT >> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* >> the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh" > thing, but I think it is a component. True, but always remember that when humans first determined what they could live on, and before farming much less manufactured food, the average life span was 15 - 20 years! Again, those "let's get back to the good times, let's do like our forebears did" proponents don't really realize how bad things were back then - disease was rampant and the average human lived a short, brutal life. We're living longer, healthier lives (either despite or because of our current eating habits) than ever before in history.
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita > http://www.x-privat.org/join.php cybercat - 17 May 2006 20:20 GMT "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote> >
> > This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh" > > thing, but I think it is a component. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > short, brutal life. We're living longer, healthier lives (either despite or > because of our current eating habits) than ever before in history. You bet--and my comment was definitely not in favor of the "good old days" or "back to nature" argument. You are right, we are better off than ever. Even with regard to things like air quality--exhaust fumes from cars and the hole in the ozone layer are nothing to "sneeze at" so to speak. But many people do not seem to think about how awful it was when people used coal and/or wood fires for heat, especially before advances in filtration.
CatNipped - 17 May 2006 20:30 GMT > "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote> > >> > This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > was when people used coal and/or wood fires for heat, > especially before advances in filtration. I do have to agree with you and Toni, however, in saying that whole, natural foods are better than most processed foods. A lot of our longevity is due to a safer environment and the advances in health care more than due to diet. I think we still have a long way to go in improving our diets (*ESPECIALLY* here in the US - the fattest nation on earth).
I just like to keep in mind that when people bemoan the lack of "natural" foods in our diets, that all those preservatives have provided more available "fresh" food to feed our millions, and have decreased rot and things like "natural" grain ergot that goes along with some "natural" food and would kill us a lot sooner than cancer later in life.
Those nasty preservatives are what hat has allowed us to feed the 6,516,475,399 people currently living on this planet.
Hugs,
CatNipped
> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita > http://www.x-privat.org/join.php D. - 21 May 2006 01:25 GMT > disease was rampant and the average human lived a > short, brutal life. The numbers are skewed by the numbers of women who died in childbirth or who were wasted by excessive numbers of births. Once that's accounted for, it's really not as short and brutal as we think.
 Signature Web site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.blogspot.com/
Upscale - 17 May 2006 22:31 GMT "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> OK, do you remember when "cell phones" where bigger than your head???! ;> > When I was a child we didn't even have cell phones - our land lines came > with rotary dials, telephone numbers where only 7 digits, and telephone > number prefixes where things like "Edgewood 1". I have a public coin telephone from that era as a conversation piece in my living room. Takes nickels dimes and quarters. Also have a parking meter from about that time. Takes pennies, nickels and dimes. It gives 6 minutes parking for one cent, an hour for a dime. Hell, I remember before there were cell phones. When I lived in Montreal, there were only four channels on TV, two French and two English and they were black and white stations. No one ever heard of a colour TV then. Bus tickets were 7 1/2 cents, a chocolate bar was 10 cents.
Now that I've severely dated myself, I think I'll go stick a processed dinner in the microwave while I look for the remote control for my 5.1 speaker stereo system pushing the automatic feeder for my cat along the way.
:) CatNipped - 17 May 2006 22:45 GMT > "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > way. > :) LOL, here we go...
Remember transistor radios that only got AM? Remember 8 track tape decks? Both too big to carry easily. Now I use an IPOD almost as small as the batteries those used to use that straps onto my arm and holds 500 songs of my choice, programmable to play in whatever order I choose.
Yeah, I remember my 10", 4 channel B&W TV - while I'm watching my 500 channel 68" color TV with DVR and attached stereo.
Remember "mainframes" whose processors took up an entire floor? I used to "keypunch" cards that had to be fed into them. Now I type this on my PC which has more processing power and view the results on my flat screen monitor.
And on and on.... ;>
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
Upscale - 17 May 2006 23:03 GMT "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> Remember transistor radios that only got AM? Remember 8 track tape decks? > Both too big to carry easily. 8 track tapes didn't exist when I was kid, but I do remember putting one in the second hand '67 T-Bird bought when I was 19. Beautiful car, only after putting $7000 into it in a span of two years, it rusted out from underneath me.
> Now I use an IPOD almost as small as the batteries those used to use Never was into them much. To me they're not much different than the person walking along and talking on their cell phone while they look for a particular item in a store and pass by it four times because they're distracted too much. I remember once watching one guy talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend as he came into a corner store to find a money machine. I knew right away what he was looking for. The machine was bigger than he was, yet he walked by it three times and then asked at the front couter if they had one. Absolutely ludicrous.
Nowadays, I'm so much into the electronic toys and power tools that I'm almost ashamed for reminiscing about what wasn't around more than 40 years ago.
annoyed@net.spammers - 18 May 2006 14:11 GMT <snip>
>LOL, here we go... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >And on and on.... ;> I remember when CB radios had vacuum tubes. Heathkit still existed and had real cool radio kits. My favorite radio receiver was a Hallicrafters S-38 general coverage receiver - AM broadcast band up through 30 MHz. A "calculator" was a slide rule. And a "raunchy" tv game show was Groucho's "You Bet Your Life". Life as a kid. Later on in high school, my electronics teacher was married to a woman that worked at Sony as an executive assistant. He got to borrow from her for "show & tell" a new device Sony was about to market. A compact cassette player (no recorder or radio) that had spectacular fidelity, and only played into these tiny headphones. He had prototype serial number 2 of this device that Sony was going to call the "Walkman". But who would spend 200 bucks for this little cassette player?
 Signature annoyed@net.spammers Craig, Kathi & "Cat Five" the tabby girl
Upscale - 18 May 2006 14:45 GMT <annoyed@net.spammers> wrote in message
> I remember when CB radios had vacuum tubes. Heathkit still existed and > had real cool radio kits. My favorite radio receiver was a Hallicrafters > S-38 general coverage receiver Remember the "Hero" robot from Heathkit? For years, I dreamed about owning one of those. Haven't thought of Hero in years.
Nomen Nescio - 18 May 2006 05:40 GMT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: "CatNipped" <lcrews@houston.rr.com>
>OK, do you remember when "cell phones" where bigger than your head???! ;> >When I was a child we didn't even have cell phones - our land lines came >with rotary dials, telephone numbers where only 7 digits, and telephone >number prefixes where things like "Edgewood 1". No "party line"? You musta bin summa dem rich folks when you wuz yung. :)
CatNipped - 18 May 2006 13:45 GMT > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No "party line"? > You musta bin summa dem rich folks when you wuz yung. :) LOL! I forgot about those, but yes, we did!
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: N/A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > =lzLW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Toni - 18 May 2006 13:17 GMT > The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the > same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In > order to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them > exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things > they eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as > they would eat in nature. Exactly. What's so hard about that?
 Signature Toni http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
CatNipped - 18 May 2006 13:58 GMT >> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* >> the same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Exactly. > What's so hard about that? You left out my next statement...
"Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me."
Cats, like humans in pre-history, tend to lead short, brutal lives when left on their own in nature. They don't have the benefit of the millions of dollars of research on cat health and nutrition that pet food companies have conducted in the last 60 years, so they eat whatever they can catch (which is not always the best thing for them, but it's all they can catch and staves off starvation).
There are some people who have had success feeding their animals raw diets, but it's a *LOT* harder than it sounds, it takes a lot of research to get the right ingredients* in the right proportion - it's expensive - and you're still taking the chance that you've forgotten or don't know about some essential ingredient necessary to a cat's health.
* And people are still using ingredients (pork, beef) that cats wouldn't normally eat in nature.
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
Toni - 18 May 2006 17:11 GMT > "Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look > pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (which is not always the best thing for them, but it's all they can catch > and staves off starvation). IMO the shorter lives are more often caused by cars, infections/fights, kitten mortality, and other accidents than lack of proper food.
> There are some people who have had success feeding their animals raw > diets, but it's a *LOT* harder than it sounds, it takes a lot of research > to get the right ingredients* in the right proportion - it's expensive - > and you're still taking the chance that you've forgotten or don't know > about some essential ingredient necessary to a cat's health. Well- I can now walk into my pet shop and buy premade organic raw foods that are every bit as researched and properly put together as processed dry foods. I can buy lab raised frozen mice, lab raised crickets, cat grass, and can order online a whole host of farm raised chickies, duckies, rats, pheasant, etc. Yes- it is quite a bit more expensive, but I figure on saving later in their lives when they do not turn up with diabetes, hyperthyroidism, renal failure etc. nor need dentals every year.
> * And people are still using ingredients (pork, beef) that cats wouldn't > normally eat in nature. That is true- I just ask myself if a cat could bring down and kill whatever creature and if the answer is no my cats don't get it.
And I do have use for dry foods- Innova EVO is in my cupboard right now for those days when raw is just not happening for whatever reason. I just avoid those brands with what I consider to be excessive and unnecessary carbohydrates that a cat would not ingest in nature- the subject of this thread.
We're all just looking to do the best for our kitties in as reasonably a safe, economical, and non labor intensive way as possible. Certain of our own life beliefs influence the decisions we make for our animals, and as long as what you feed is well researched and considered then it's fine by me.
 Signature Toni http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
CatNipped - 18 May 2006 17:25 GMT >> "Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look >> pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me." [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > long as what you feed is well researched and considered then it's fine by > me. True! Peace out!!!!
 Signature Hugs,
CatNipped
See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/
PawsForThought - 17 May 2006 23:16 GMT > I think you are nitpicking and missing the point. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > naturally strong immune systems, naturally clean teeth, and a gleaming non > shedding coat. Well said, Toni, and I couldn't agree with you more. I've been feeding my cats a homemade raw diet for over 5 years now and I think they've really benefitted from it. I know a homemade diet is not for everyone, but in my case, it's been well worth it.
Lauren
See my cats: http://tinyurl.com/76tg8
Abe - 17 May 2006 13:39 GMT >It's best not to disturb what God set in motion. If God set evolution/natural selection in motion, then I agree.
Phil P. - 21 May 2006 05:00 GMT > http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/grains.php
> Grain is man made - Corn, rice, wheat are man-made? Okey dokey. See what I mean about Feline Future being extreme and fanatical?
> Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for humans > either, Bullishit. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)
<snip>
We had some good wars about "natural' fanaticism in this group a few years ago. You can find them all in Google. I'm sure you'll get a few good laughs from them. I did.
Phil
hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com - 21 May 2006 05:36 GMT >Bullishit. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we >still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points) Phil, the Paleo diet did not consist of grains which is why there is a strong following today advocating the Paleo diet.
-mhd
Phil P. - 21 May 2006 07:43 GMT > >Bullishit. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we > >still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points) > > Phil, the Paleo diet did not consist of grains which is why there is a > strong following today advocating the Paleo diet. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the early hominids were herbivores and ate primarily plant material.
hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com - 21 May 2006 17:31 GMT >> >Bullishit. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we >> >still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the early hominids were herbivores and >ate primarily plant material. Yes but not grains.
Just Google "Paleo diet".
PaleoDiet.com - The Paleolithic Diet Page What the Hunter/Gatherers Ate
-mhd
Kiran - 21 May 2006 06:16 GMT : "Kiran" <kiran@no.email> wrote in message I should have made it clearer that I was merely quoting an article by someone else...
: > Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for : > humans : > either, : Bullishit. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we : still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points) While people ate roots and fruits for a long time, agriculture and grains are more recent, under 15,000 yrs maybe.
This of cource has no bearing on whether *cats* should eat grains. What is your view/experience on that?
Phil P. - 21 May 2006 07:43 GMT > : "Kiran" <kiran@no.email> wrote in message > > I should have made it clearer that I was merely quoting an article by > someone else... Yes, I know. I was commenting on the irrelevancies in the site.
> : > Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for > : > humans [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While people ate roots and fruits for a long time, agriculture and > grains are more recent, under 15,000 yrs maybe. Hominids ate plant material long before they ate meat.
> This of cource has no bearing on whether *cats* should eat grains. Yep, I know. What humans ate has no bearing on what cats should eat. I have no idea why Feline Future even mentioned human diets. See what I mean about the site?
> What is your view/experience on that? Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular?
Kiran - 21 May 2006 08:50 GMT : [on whether *cats* should eat grains] : Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular? Whatever makes sense nutritionwise. I believe most of the controversy is about grains (wheat, corn, rice, etc).
As fruits and vegetables are expensive and cats can't taste sugar, I can't imagine too many manufacturers getting carried away with those. So probably grains are the heroes of our story!
Phil P. - 21 May 2006 15:09 GMT > : [on whether *cats* should eat grains] > : Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > As fruits and vegetables are expensive and cats can't taste sugar, I > can't imagine too many manufacturers getting carried away with those. Better take a look at Wellness! Its practically a fruit salad! lol
"Sweet Potatoes, Carrots, Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Flaxseed, Squash, Cranberries, Blueberries, Zucchini"
They've substituted fruits and vegetables- which have a higher glycemic index than most grains.
> So probably grains are the heroes of our story! A small amount of grain is ok. What Feline Future doesn't tell you is that carbs have a protein-sparing effect.
A lot of people misuse the term "obligate carnivore"- it means the cat *must* eat meat because some essential nutrients for cats are only found in meat. It doesn't mean the cat must eat *only* meat.
Phil
Kiran - 21 May 2006 18:14 GMT : A lot of people misuse the term "obligate carnivore"- it means the cat : *must* eat meat because some essential nutrients for cats are only found in : meat. It doesn't mean the cat must eat *only* meat. OK, I see that to understand these terms you not only should know Latin but also think like a lawyer. :)
In that case, (and I have in mind a chart like http://www.geocities.com/jmpeerson/canfood.html ),
what percentage of calories can safely be from carbs?
|
|
|