Cat food debate?

fluffee · Apr 19, 2008

As I was reading this, I was wondering has anyone ever went to the "human" tuna cans for wet with oil?

With money getting tighter here, we are thinking of going back to either the cheaper 9-lives or even tuna with oil in it. We are keeping to the dry Nutro as they all seem to have less throw up afterwards. The organic I have been feeding them for a wet is getting to be too much in pockets that is getting tight.

Any thoughts?

thanks

ping · Apr 19, 2008

Please do not put them on a diet mainly of canned tuna (in oil or not). Feeding them things like canned tuna can give them a disease called steatitis aka yellow fat disease.
http://www.cat-world.com.au/FeedingFish.htm

Originally Posted by Fluffee

As I was reading this, I was wondering has anyone ever went to the "human" tuna cans for wet with oil?

With money getting tighter here, we are thinking of going back to either the cheaper 9-lives or even tuna with oil in it. We are keeping to the dry Nutro as they all seem to have less throw up afterwards. The organic I have been feeding them for a wet is getting to be too much in pockets that is getting tight.

Any thoughts?

thanks

arlyn · Apr 19, 2008

I'm chiming in here simply because of those who feed Science Diet because "My vet recommends it".
Please, do keep in mind that vets who recommend Science Diet have a vested interest, they sell the stuff, they get freebies from their Hill's reps, etc.
It's like a Ford car salesperson is always going to recommend you buy a Ford, they won't make a profit if they tell you to go to a Chevy dealer.

And as for the question of eating less:

Cheaper food has more fillers, more fillers mean the animal has to eat more just to meet nutritional needs.
Eating more, means you buy more, it also means they poop more, which also means you buy more litter.

So yes, it can actually be cheaper in the long run to feed higher quality foods.

Remember the saying: Garbage in, garbage out.

Not saying the food itself is garbage, but as far as nutrition is concerned, the fillers are.

clumsy kitty · Apr 19, 2008

Strikes me it's not possible to know what's 'the best'. There's always someone to disagree. Sure, vets might have a vested interest in certain brands BUT I asked my vet what would be best for a particular purpose, and it has fulfilled that purpose. How can that be bad?
My parents have fed 5 cats for years with a supermarket own brand with biscuit from time to time. My parents' cats have always lived upto AT LEAST 17 (and even then they've been put to sleep for conditions such as skin cancer on a white cat), so I figure there can't be much wrong. Surely a vet food is better quality than a supermarket's own brand?

urbantigers · Apr 19, 2008

Originally Posted by clumsy kitty

Surely a vet food is better quality than a supermarket's own brand?

Not necessarily. It depends what you mean by a vet food. 'Recommended by vets' just means that they got a vet somewhere at some point to endorse it. For a fee no doubt. I go by the ingredients, not the name of the brand and buy what I think is the best food I can get that I can afford and that my cats will eat and do well on.

It's impossible to define a particular food as the best food as it does vary with individual cats, and most cats will do ok on most commercial foods available, provided they are complete. I'm convinced, however, that if you fed 1000 cats a supermarket brand food all their life and another 1000 cats a good quality food, there would be fewer chronic health problems in the latter group. No such test has been carried out, as far as I'm aware, and I doubt it ever will be. But from what I've learnt about feline biology and about pet food ingredients, I'm convinced that it's worth choosing the food with the best ingredients that I can afford (and that my cats will eat) in order to give them the best chance of a long and healthy life.

No-one should feel bad about feeding what is considered a poorer quality food, and you can drive yourself mad analysing it all, but I think learning a bit about nutrition is a good idea so that you know what you're buying and can make educated choices.

pussy_cat · Apr 19, 2008

I didn't read through this thread but thought I would off my opinion.

I have had MANY cats throughout my life (from the day I was born until now). Through out this time lots of things had changed (including our financial situation). We were unable to even buy ourselves groceries and so to buy our pets GREAT food was definately out of the question. We had many strays that people seemed to think was okay to drop off in boxes at our front door and of course, we couldn't turn them away or bring them to the humane society to be euthanized so we tried to care for them all. They were fed Walmart brand of cat food and they did wonders on it.

My cats now (as I live on my own) eat a better quality food and I'll be honest... they look about the same and are just as healthy as my cats who ate the walmart brand.

Good luck

arlyn · Apr 19, 2008

Originally Posted by clumsy kitty

BUT I asked my vet what would be best for a particular purpose, and it has fulfilled that purpose. How can that be bad?

See, now if it's for a particular purpose, it's an Rx food.
If a vet prescribes an Rx food, stick with it, or find an Rx brand that does the same thing in a brand you prefer.

I do not feed what would be considered a premium food (even though labeled as such) and it certainly isn't costly, but my cat, with her food allergies, does very well on it, so it works for me, and is something I can afford.

When my chronic urine crystals kitty was still alive, he was prescribed an Rx food (for life!), Science Diet was prescribed, but he wouldn't eat it, thus, it did him no good.
His vet switched him to the same Rx in the Purina brand, which he would eat, voila!

Cost and quality are but part of the overall picture, if a cat won't eat what you feed, or does not thrive on it, no matter how high the quality, your cat gets no benefit.

Feed what works for you and your cat.

laureen227 · Apr 19, 2008

Originally Posted by Arlyn

Cost and quality are but part of the overall picture, if a cat won't eat what you feed, or does not thrive on it, no matter how high the quality, your cat gets no benefit.

Feed what works for you and your cat.

exactly! i tried all of the grain-free drys - no one in my household liked them. i read labels, then buy the one w/the best ingredients that's w/in my budget. sometimes that means 'supermarket' food - but if you read labels, some there are better than others. for example - altho i prefer to feed a food w/o by-products, a food w/chicken by-product meal as the 1st ingredient is better [IMO] than one w/corn as the 1st ingredient. at least then, a meat protein meal is the number one ingredient, instead of a grain - even if grain is 2nd.
sharky often recommends Sportmix as an entry-level food - it's quite inexpensive [again, usually found in feed stores] but comparable to something like Meow Mix, ingredient-wise - except no by-products.
Sportmix: $17 for 35 pounds
Ingredients:
Ground Yellow Corn, Chicken Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Soybean Meal, Fish Meal, Ground Wheat, Dried Whey Products, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of natural Vitamin E), Chicken & Liver Digest, Yeast Culture, Wheat Germ Meal, Taurine, Salt, Choline Chloride, Vitamin A Acetate Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Niacin Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate, Calcium d-Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Folic Acid, Manganous Oxide, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Ethylenediamine Dihydriodide, Magnesium Oxide.
Meow Mix: $17 for 21 pounds
Ingredients:
Ground Yellow Corn, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Meal, Beef Tallow Preserved with Mixed-Tocopherols (Source of Vitamin E), Turkey By-Product Meal, Salmon Meal, Oceanfish Meal, Brewers Dried Yeast, Phosphoric Acid, Animal Digest, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, Tetra Sodium Pyrophosphate, Calcium Chloride, Choline Chloride, Added Color (Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 2 and other Color), Salt, Taurine, Zinc Sulfate, Ferrous Sulfate, L-alanine, Niacin, Vitamin Supplements (E, A, B-12, D-3), Calcium Pantothenate, Manganese Sulfate, Riboflavin Supplement, Biotin, Folic Acid, Copper Sulfate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Thiamine Mononitrate, Citric Acid, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite Complex (Source of Vitamin K Activity), Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite.

fluffee · Apr 19, 2008

Thanks Ping for the link

I'm think, and this is more my husband's point of view. We free feed the dry Nutro brand all day. They get wet only at night and it is half a can between 5 cats each night. So how would one think this is bad diet with using tuna in oil?
My idea of constantly giving cats tuna, would be feeding them morning, noon and night a can full.

I am going back to the 9 lives and mix and match. At least I know what I am getting there. The "good" kind is nice, but sometimes I think it cost way too much.

thanks again!!

laureen227 · Apr 19, 2008

Originally Posted by Fluffee

I am going back to the 9 lives and mix and match. At least I know what I am getting there. The "good" kind is nice, but sometimes I think it cost way too much.

i get where you're coming from - i feed a 'medium grade' wet & a higher quality dry. this is because i have 2 that refuse to eat wet - so i want to make sure they get good nutrition. i don't know what canned tuna costs [i'm allergic] but Petsmart's authority canned food costs $.61 for a 5.5 ounce can, usually - sometimes it's on sale. at the feed store, the chicken soup brand canned is $.71 for a 5.5 ounce can [they give a slight discount if i buy the whole 24 cans in the shrink-wrapped package, tho].
if it were me, i'd feed 9 Lives or Friskies or Meow Mix wet before i'd do human tuna - you know that, even if they're not the best possible, your cats won't get any major health problems from them unless it's personal to the cat [allergies, etc.]

clumsy kitty · Apr 20, 2008

'Cost and quality are but part of the overall picture, if a cat won't eat what you feed, or does not thrive on it, no matter how high the quality, your cat gets no benefit'

Phew, I feel better now some people have put in their 2p's worth.

yiplong · Apr 20, 2008

Originally Posted by Arlyn

And as for the question of eating less:

Cheaper food has more fillers, more fillers mean the animal has to eat more just to meet nutritional needs.
Eating more, means you buy more, it also means they poop more, which also means you buy more litter.

So yes, it can actually be cheaper in the long run to feed higher quality foods.

That depends on a lot of things. I think it is generally more expensive in the long term to feed expensive food and cheaper to feed cheaper food.

sharky · Apr 20, 2008

Originally Posted by yiplong

That depends on a lot of things. I think it is generally more expensive in the long term to feed expensive food and cheaper to feed cheaper food.

there are many who will disagree... unless you pick the most expensive food that is like most grocerys

... I pay 22$ a month for 12 lbs of a premium dog food which last two dogs about a month .... If I went to grocery I would pay 15$ for a 37 lb every two weeks ..

cats it is more a vet savings ... ie Zoey has only had a yrly and some what I call semi feral episodes ... no illnesses

yosemite · Apr 20, 2008

Originally Posted by yiplong

That depends on a lot of things. I think it is generally more expensive in the long term to feed expensive food and cheaper to feed cheaper food.

You probably won't find many here who would agree with you due to our own experiences.

mrblanche · Apr 20, 2008

The problem is that we're talking theoretical and anecdotal evidence. It's very hard for a manufacturer to accurately test their food to see if it is, ultimately, "healthier" for a cat. A test would have to last 20 years or more to see for sure, unless you're going to advocate actual destructive animal testing, which I don't think any of us would favor.

I have mentioned here that I have seen cats (my brother's, for example) live to very ripe old age with little or no health problems eating nothing better than Purina Cat Chow and sometimes eating even cheaper than that when he was low on money. Anyone who dismisses that evidence as "anecdotal" (and it surely is) must understand that others will reject the testimonials that (insert your favorite food name here) "made my cat feel better, look better, and live longer."

sharky · Apr 20, 2008

Originally Posted by mrblanche

The problem is that we're talking theoretical and anecdotal evidence. It's very hard for a manufacturer to accurately test their food to see if it is, ultimately, "healthier" for a cat. A test would have to last 20 years or more to see for sure, unless you're going to advocate actual destructive animal testing, which I don't think any of us would favor.

I have mentioned here that I have seen cats (my brother's, for example) live to very ripe old age with little or no health problems eating nothing better than Purina Cat Chow and sometimes eating even cheaper than that when he was low on money. Anyone who dismisses that evidence as "anecdotal" (and it surely is) must understand that others will reject the testimonials that (insert your favorite food name here) "made my cat feel better, look better, and live longer."

I agree ... but seeing is beleiving .... Yes many do fine on grocery but many of us have done both with the SAME animals and have seen the difference...

I would love to see on going long term tests .... Purina supposedly did one which make s me think others have .... the living longer is the only real issue no one can say but looking is something a lay person can see

yiplong · Apr 20, 2008

Take Evo and Friskie for example. A 15.4 lb bag of Evo cost about $40-$45 here (assume the lower, at $40), whereas a 18 lb bag of Friskie goes for $10 at Wal-Mart. Now assume there are 5 cups to each pound of food, and the cat eats 1 cup per day of Friskie, but only needs 0.75 cup of Evo. Under these assumptions, feeding Friskie costs $3.33 a month, and feeding Evo costs $11.77 a month. Assume the cat lives 13 years, feeding Evo has a lifetime cost of $1300 more than Friskie.

Now here comes the speculative part. Assume a cat on Friskie have a 15% higher chance of having various health problems than a cat fed Evo, (ie: if a cat fed Evo has 30% chance of getting decease X, a cat fed Friskie would have 45% chance of getting the same illness), Evo is cheaper if expected food-induced vet cost is more than $8700. Note that this is completely speculative. Maybe Friskie poses no additional health risk, or maybe it increase health risk by 50%.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is, any saving from premium food is speculative, while saving from buying cheap food is immediate and readily observable. While some cat might do better on one food versus another, or some owner might feel better or observe real improvement feeding better food, on average an owner will likely do better economically with cheaper food.

arlyn · Apr 20, 2008

Actually, we fed our Siamese Purina Cat Chow when I was living at home, now, I can't quote prices because my parents paid for everything.

Food isn't the only thing in the cost equation as I said, lower quality means they need more food, but it also means more poop.

I was in charge of the litterbox when I lived at home, and I can tell you from experience, on cheaper foods, cats use up to twice as much litter.

You've got to figure litter costs into the overall budget for a cat, so yes, in the long run, better quality is less expensive overall.

As far as health, the old Siamese was 19 when she went to Rainbow Bridge, and was never sick in her life.

yiplong · Apr 20, 2008

Originally Posted by Arlyn

Food isn't the only thing in the cost equation as I said, lower quality means they need more food, but it also means more poop.

I was in charge of the litterbox when I lived at home, and I can tell you from experience, on cheaper foods, cats use up to twice as much litter.

This is wrong because litters don't get used up. When we change litter, 90% of what we put in were still there, but they just don't smell as fresh. Even a house with 2 cats will not use twice as much litter as a house with 1 cat, having one more cat will just use up a little more litter, this is obvious from economic of scale and personal experience. Higher quality food result in litter saving not b/c the cat poop less, but because cat excrements usually don't smell as bad.

It is understandable that loving pet owner would like to feed high quality food to their cats, and people often make up reasons to rationalize their decision. IMH, if you want to feed more expensive food b/c you think it is better for the cat, then that alone is a totally good reason. Wishful thinking that more expensive food is cheaper in the long run is obviously false, because if this is true, everyone would be buying the more expensive brands. Increased demand would push up their price until any advantage is gone.

It is actually inherent in a free market that cheaper product is almost always economically cheaper, but more expensive ones might have other benefits. So when everything is considered, on average, there is no difference between expensive and cheaper food.

arlyn · Apr 20, 2008

4 bowel movements a day from the Siamese versus 1 BM a day from current cat, that means more poop.
Litter not smelling fresh means bacterial growth, which means litter gets replaced, IE: Used up.

Cat food debate?

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

Darksome Duo!

TCS Member

Darksome Duo!

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member