Best diet for cats? - Page 3

I'll repeat Dr. Hodgkins statement (the bold is mine),

"I have never seen a single case of serious obesity, diabetes, urinary tract disease, or IBD in a cat fed meat instead of commercial dry foods. Many other people have seen the same results. Further, I do not see nutritional deficiencies in cats fed properly balanced raw-meat diets. I want to emphasize a point here.

The incidence of these problems has not just declined on a raw-meat diet, they have entirely disappeared. These results are too dramatic to ignore."
No serious obesity, no diabetes, no urinary tract diseases, no IBD, no nutritional deficiencies in cats fed a properly balanced raw-meat diet. That is a mind-blowing statement that no other diet can make claim to. When cats are fed what nature intended for them to eat, what their obligatorily carnivorous nature requires, they thrive in healthy, amazingly beautiful ways.

And I'll repeat my own observance: in all the research I've done over the years and all the folks I've spoken with who have researched this issue more deeply and for longer than I have - I've never come across a single documented instance of either a cat or it's owner becoming ill from feeding raw food products. Not one.

AC

Interesting article, discussing the commercial pet food recalls due to salmonella. Also mentions that 45% of commercial raw meat diets fed to greyhounds tested positive for salmonella in a June report by the AVMA. As reported in the NY Times, Aug 11 (this year): http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...pet-foods-too/

Sorry to quote myself LOL, but just wanted to add, for those who don't click on the link or know, septicemic salmonellosis means the cats died, and it was determined it was from the meat.

Just food for thought. "The Problems Associated with Raw Meat Consumption in Cats and Dogs," John W. Hilton Ph.D. Research and Development Veterinary Medical Diets 2003 http://blackburnanimalhospital.com/O...l2010_Meat.pdf

Rather simplistic article, IMO, but an interesting point.

"The belief that a raw meat diet is better than a cooked meat diet cannot be supported by any scientific study. The nutrient quality and quantity of cooked and raw meat are
virtually identical. However, raw meat can contain a number of pathogenic bacteria and
parasites that would be hazardous to the health and well being of the family cat or dog."

I meant to address this. As cats play with their prey, and cats are playful animals even when they're not hungry, this has been well studied. The prey/play response is completely separate from the "hunt because I'm hungry" instinct in cats. One of the earlier studies on it is Adamec, 1976.

Thank you for posting these, Laurie. I had forgotten about that first study (which the second article indicates is the only published report of salmonellosis occurring in cats as a result of exposure to raw food diets).

The first study states, "This report provides evidence that the practice of feeding raw meat-based diets to domestic cats may result in clinical salmonellosis." and, in truth, that's all it proved - that salmonella in a cat's food might be found in the body of the cat.

The first cat was 14, had died after being ill for a week, and was brought in for a necropsy. Several bacteria were present in its body, including a strain of Salmonella, but not the strain of Salmonella found in any of the three batches of ground and trimmed beef brought in for testing. Additionally, the cat had pneumonia and signs of possible Salmonella food poisoning.

There were nine months between the deaths of the two cats.

The second cat was a 10 week old kitten that had recently been vaccinated for distemper, come down with a respiratory illness, was euthanized and then submitted for a necropsy which revealed the kitten had severe pneumonia and was infected with the Bordella virus. One strain of Salmonella was also cultured from the kitten, different from the first cat's and matching the strain of Salmonella found in the second two samples of ground and trimmed beef submitted. (It's mildly worth noting that none of the food samples tested were of any food actually fed to these two cats and that the first submitted sample contained a form of Salmonella not found in either cat.)

The study also states, "Healthy adult cats appear to have high immunological resistance to the development of clinical salmonellosis. In one study, experimental infection of healthy cats required inoculation of infectious organisms in numbers far exceeding those likely encountered in natural infection."

And goes on to say, "Both of these cases originated in the same multicat household, and the affected animals were either very young (10 weeks) or very old (14.7 years), suggesting possible environmental stress, altered immune status, or both. Additionally, case no. 2 had concurrent respiratory infection with Bordetella bronchiseptica, incurring additional immunological and physiological stress with compromise to local pulmonary defense mechanisms."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The raw feeding community does not consider this a case against raw feeding. A case for keeping catteries in clean and well-run conditions, certainly, but not against raw feeding.

Antagonists, however, naturally disagree.

The cats came from a breeding facility. Two different Salmonella strains were cultured from them, and the first cat showed possible signs of food poisoning. Both cats had pneumonia and one was very old, one very young and sick with Bordella.

You have to make your own judgement as to how much weight on the risk/reward raw-feeding scale you're going to give this study. If this is the only published case of Salmonella poisoning in raw-fed cats, as Laurie's second citation states, then it only lends weight in my mind that cats have a natural ability to deal with Salmonella and have to be both physically comprised (age) and already ill before that ability wavers.

AC

If we're weighing the opinion of doctors with biblical credit, then I'd submit that the American, Canadian, and British Veterinary Associations oppose raw. One doctor < three national associations of doctors.
Wesley and Buttercup are not fed raw. Are you explaining to me that they suffer from obesity, diabetes, UTIs, IBD, or other nutritional deficiencies? Their doctor disagrees. And if I can find a thread where a raw fed cat had one of those issues, then what?

My cats are healthy and active. My cats do not eat raw. Somehow this should register that cats can be healthy on diets other than raw, which is the main point here. If you want to feed raw, great! But there are advantages and disadvantages, and by no means is it the only healthy diet available and "best" is subjective.

As an example, cats can be healthy on an all dry diet, but you Duncman wouldn't recommend it as the best, because as you know, an all dry diet is water deficient.

I don't think you're reading Auntie Crazy's posts very carefully then, or you forgot what I'm feeding Wesley and Buttercup.

Hopefully, we can all at least agree that not all dry, nor all wet, nor all raw is created equally, and the quality will vary with the ingredients in any given recipe. As such, it can't be said that raw, wet, or dry in such broad terms are "best", and what is "best" is subjective based on the weight one gives various criteria. After all, the raw recipe that resulted in the death of cats due to the nutritional deficiency clearly wasn't very good, but that doesn't mean that all raw recipes are poor. Likewise, it'd be silly to pretend that there is no difference between a commercial can of Friskies Chicken Delight and Wellness Core.

IMO, all balanced raw diets are better than wet or dry diets, and that most wet diets are better than all dry diets.

Honestly if I had to pick between feeding Friskies wet, and Wellness dry, that would be a very hard situation for me.

You have no idea how fervently I wish such a "scientific" study existed. However, studies are expensive and there's no profit in proving that people can feed their cats a diet on their own that could be healthier than the canned and kibble products manufactured by the pet food industry.

We do, however, have Pottenger’s 10-year raw-feeding study that conclusively illustrates the benefits of raw meat over cooked meat in a cat's diet, as well as the ground rabbit study. As ill-fated as that second study was, it showed a marked improvement in the health of the raw-fed cats before the taurine deficiency was noticed - and a taurine deficiency is easily remedied with a simple supplement.

We can look forward to additional studies in the future, as the Feline Nutrition Education Society is intent on gathering the resources necessary to make them happen.

Ug. It's a known fact that many nutrients are destroyed when meat is cooked, including that critical amino acid taurine, so this is a most unfortunate statement for this person to have made.

For anyone interested, there's a chart of some of the known nutrients (other than taurine) and their sensitivities (some nutrients are even affected by light and air) on page 12 of this USDA guide, "Handling Frozen/ Thawed Meat and Prey Items Fed to Captive Exotic Animals". And just 'cause I have them, here are two studies on taurine "Taurine concentrations in animal feed ingredients; cooking influences taurine content" and "Effect of Processing on Fate of Dietary Taurine in Cats". The first of these two provides a chart of the taurine content of quite a long list of products on pages 253 through 259.

AC

And certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I will take the superior protein source with higher quality ingredients and less empty calorie fillers any day of the week.

It's hard to evaluate that paper. As you said it is rather "simplistic". Also, who is John Hilton, who does he work for and why does he not provide citations for his claims. Given that I don't really see how that paper offers anything new.

None the less, I believe this to be true:

But then there is no study that disproves it either.

If we are going to say that the best diet is the one that has the most published studies supporting it, then yes, cooked processed commercial foods win hands down. But if we are going to accept that as the definitive criteria why are we even having this discussion?

Researchers scoff at anecdotal data for good reason, it is unreliable. But in the absence of any other data what can we use in discussing alternative diets but anecdotal evidence and speculation?

When discussing anecdotal evidence though we need to include *all* available evidence. I have seen a fair number of accounts from pet owners who have achieved much the same results with a cooked homemade diet as what has been reported by pet owners feeding a raw diet. This is one reason why in my earlier post I say I been wondering whether the benefits seen with a raw diet might be more from it being fresh rather raw.

Actually, the scientists who published the report came to a different conclusion than AC: "Subtyping of the bacterial isolates yielded Salmonella newport from one cat and from the diet it had been fed."

For those who don't know, septicemia is the presence of bacteria in the blood, and is indicative of severe infections. And necropsy results were "septicemic salmonellosis," not "septicemic pneumococcus."

What's your point? Raw shouldn't be fed to older cats? Raw shouldn't be fed to kittens? Raw shouldn't be fed to sick cats?

2nd study: Health as measured by stool firmness and coat quality.

AC, you really want to trot out the Pottenger study? Really?

For those not familiar or who are not going to take time to read it, the study was conducted from 1932-1942. The critical role of taurine in cat nutrition was not discovered until 1975. The cats in the study were fed 1/3 raw milk and cod liver oil and the rest was either cooked meat scraps or raw meat scraps. Taurine is added to cat food because, as you point out, cooking meat degrades the ability of a cat to utilize the taurine (Hickmann et al 1990, 1992; Kim et al. 1996a, 1996b).

Pottenger's study proves the importance of taurine in a cat's diet, because all of the problems observed in the cooked-meat group of cats can be accounted for via taurine deficiency.

I'd just like to add... after all the reading and research I've done for this thread, I've decided the risks and benefits of a raw diet simply are not worth it for my cats.

Bacterial infections are a potential problem with any diet. But given that the commercial pet foods sell 7 million tonnes annually in the US, even when a company like Diamond recalls 1 million pounds of pet food, that is 0.01% of the pet food sold. Compare that to 20% of our chicken being infected with (at least just) salmonella...

Yes, less processed is better. Organic is better. Non-GMO is better. Naturally fed meat is better. It's better for our pets, it's better for us.

But the shorter digestive tracts of our cats merely indicate that they are carnivores, not that they're built to handle higher bacterial loads. As Ducman pointed out, people in India drink the water, many without problem. I went to India and drank non-bottled water and had suffered horrible dysentery for five days. The bacterial loads we/our animals can sustain are related to exposure and immune system function. The fact of the matter is the pH of a human's stomach is generally around 2, and the pH of a cat's stomach is generally around 2.5 based on the link AC provided. So from that perspective, humans should be able to kill more bacteria via the digestive process.

I could raise my own meat, then maybe raw would be better for them. But IMO, commercially produced, processed, packaged raw meat in the U.S., in this day and age, is not something I want to risk. Further, comparing a raw diet today to one in 1932-1942 is not a comparison I want to make.

Just to touch on this, I don't really see this being an issue, my cat eats raw and canned both, often on the same days and up until recently if I was really busy or ill she would get a meal of kibble. I've never seen any issue switching back and forth nonstop other than on kibble she has a tendency to puke it back up, why I switched to wet in the first place. You could also use a freeze dried diet for vacation, or feed canned or whatever, nothing wrong with some variety!

As far as bacteria, I've fed the cat meat that's sat out all night that the ferrets didn't, I've fed meat that's gotten forgotten in my sink for hours, if my cat doesn't finish whatever I give, I leave it there and she comes back to it later. And this is a 15+ year old cat who ate kibble the first dozen years of her life. The ferrets often have larger whole prey sitting out for days while they work on it and they drag it everywhere. My iguana, snake and mice are all known carriers of salmonella as well. I guess it's a miracle we've all survived so many years around here.

Let me understand this, you wouldn't't want to feed raw, let's say chicken, because it's commercially produced, processed whatever but you would feed a dry or canned food which is produced, processed commercially, yet you don't really know if the meat the food contains is meat or the stuff left over after the parts which humans eat are taken out and also contains corn or other grains and fruits and veggies that may or may not be genetically modified? So a person who feeds raw to an animal who historically does not cook their food and can it, is doing a disservice to their cat? This reminds me of something one of the vets at the clinic where I work said. She said that the meat I'm feeding my dog is not the same meat she'd hunt in the wild because in the slaughterhouse, they sh*t all over each other. She said if I want to feed natural, feed canned. First of all, the animals are cleaned after having their skins removed (after all, as per fda, chicken is cleaned), and I clean.the.meat and I know I am feeding my dog a thigh or a wing and I know the meat I am feeding is for human consumption because I get it from a grocery store where humans buy their meat. Second of all, I have never seen a wild animal nor my cute kitties hunt down a can.

The human food industry is not great and the pet food industry is worse. I consider myself to have a good immune system both to genetics and also to my mom always feeding us fresh food, never canned or processed. Of course, we'd probably be even better if or food was organic but fresh is best. Canned is the next best thing but certainly not natural.

Speaking of a raw diet. I was out cleaning the bobcat enclosure this morning, when I found a cicada (those insects you hear in the late summer buzzing in the trees) near the enclosure. Must have been knocked out of the tree by the severe storms we had last night. Natasha was in the enclosure with me, so I thought I would let her have some fun. I was able to catch the cicada before it flew away. Threw it in the enclosure and Natasha and her expert bobcat hunting skills jumped and got it in mid air and had a late morning snack lol. A small snack for a bob, but she enjoyed it
I have no idea how they can make claims, that cooking meat does NOT destroy the nutrients in meat. People with wildcats, that feed cooked meat instead of raw, have issues with their cats health. As soon as they switch to raw, their cats health improves.
I think this vet is nuts. Hmmm, I see natural whole prey living in cans all the time!! I must be doing a major disservice to my wildcats by feeding them raw. I guess if I fed them canned food, which they will NOT eat by the way, they will look much better than they are now. I mean true, you can not just give muscle meat and nothing else to your cat. It has to be a balanced diet. That is why, if I do not give whole prey to my cats, I add a vitamin supplement to the meat. This supplement is made for an all raw meat diet with bone. Commercial canned and dry cat/dog food has supplements added to it as well, since it is cooked and not whole prey.

Hmm, I started my post with this same conclusion... One of the cats was found to have the same Salmonella strain in it's body as did two of the beef samples.

I read the study again and I stand corrected, in part. Both cats were diagnosed with Salmonella gastroenteritis and septicemia.

As previously stated, both cats were also diagnosed with pneumonia. In addition, the second poor kitty - like he needed more to deal with - had Bordetella.

Here's part of the necropsy finding on the first cat: "Mild, multifocal, interstitial pneumonia with mild, multifocal, interstitial aggregates of neutrophils, macrophages, and lesser numbers of lymphocytes was present in the lung."

And on the kitten, nine months later: "Histopathological examination revealed severe, acute, suppurative pneumonia with severe, multifocal, coalescing alveolar and bronchiolar infiltrates of viable and degenerate neutrophils and macrophages; moderate, multifocal, alveolar edema and fibrin deposits were also present." As well as, "Additionally, Bordetella bronchiseptica was isolated from the lung."

The report itself uses the term "may" in it's findings: "This report provides evidence that the practice of feeding raw meat-based diets to domestic cats may result in clinical salmonellosis."

And goes on further to state: "Healthy adult cats appear to have high immunological resistance to the development of clinical salmonellosis. In one study, experimental infection of healthy cats required inoculation of infectious organisms in numbers far exceeding those likely encountered in natural infection."

And, "Both of these cases originated in the same multicat household, and the affected animals were either very young (10 weeks) or very old (14.7 years), suggesting possible environmental stress, altered immune status, or both. Additionally, case no. 2 had concurrent respiratory infection with Bordetella bronchiseptica, incurring additional immunological and physiological stress with compromise to local pulmonary defense mechanisms."

I'm putting information out there to show why I and thousands of other raw feeders believe raw feeding is not only incredibly healthy, but also as safe as commercial feeding. Salmonella concerns are one of the most common worries of everyone new to the thought of raw feeding, so spending time discussing this study makes sense.

Yes, the cats were diagnosed with Salmonella poisoning, and that's important to know. However, the cats came from a breeding facility whose raw feeding practices weren't examined: "Additional information regarding the storage and preparation of the home-prepared diet would be of interest in these cases. Unfortunately, this information was unavailable." Both of them had pneumonia and one was old, one very young and also sick with Bordella.

It doesn't make sense to take this single study, which proves only a "may", and dismiss out of hand all the thousands of healthy raw fed cats that have existed for generations all over the world.

And one would have to set this study against the multiple studies highlighting the cat's natural ability to deal with Salmonella, two alone of which were cited by this study: Citation 3 "Timoney JF, Niebert HC, Scott FW. Feline salmonellosis. A nosocomial outbreak and experimental studies. Cornell Vet 1978;68:211-219." and 4 "Shimi A, Barin A. Salmonella in cats. J Comp Path 1977;87:315-318."

Each of us has to make our own decisions on what's best for our cats. If one wishes to use this study, context and the complete findings must be taken into account.

I need to point out that the issues and illnesses the cooked-meat group of cats suffered from exceeded just taurine deficiency, although, of course, many died as a direct result of the lack of taurine. Most had health problems ranging from allergies to infections of the kidney, liver, bones and reproductive organs and many died from those infections.

In contrast, the cats fed the raw meat diet were considerably healthier, resistant to infection and parasites and had no allergies. (And, over the course of the 10 year study involving hundreds of cats over several generations, none died of Salmonella poisoning.)

AC

John, with all due respect, I don't think one can equate what you would feed your exotic (wild) cats with what one would feed a 15-20 lb domestic cat.

If I had a lion or tiger I'm pretty sure I would be feeding raw meat (and large quantities of such). I cannot imagine feeding a large wild cat a diet of canned food or kibble.

Cooking meat does destroy some heat-sensitive nutrients, such as taurine or vitamin C but they are added back in after cooking to at least minimum levels to ensure a complete and balanced diet per the AAFCO nutrient profile guidelines, enforced through the FDA, and recalled if lacking in any way. In fact, the raw diets fed to lions at zoos are typically supplemented as well to ensure the big wild cats are getting all their required nutrients, since merely processing the meat even raw and exposing it to the air oxidizes some nutrients and the diet isn't always as varied as it would otherwise be. Considering that the supplemented lions in captivity are often living over twice as long as they do in the wild, that diet is working well for them and that is what matters.

It would certainly be cheaper not to have to cook the food for domestic animals, but its done as the only reasonable effective way of killing the bacteria. Superfreezing can accomplish the same, but is expensive and I believe the FDA says has to be frozen 7 days to be considered safe. One thing is for certain though, is that Wesley is not a bobcat, a leopard, or a lion... although I'm pretty sure he thinks he is.

Most importantly, they are a proper weight through calorie control, with healthy teeth and gums, a shiny coat, properly formed stools, and are quite active on their convenient, cost effective, and safe feeding regimen that they seem to enjoy and look forward to every day. Results are what matter, and this is clearly working well for us so is a viable healthy option. Not THE option, but certainly one of many successful strategies, with pros and cons like anything else. It is merely a lack of acceptance of some of the known cons of the raw diet by impassioned advocates that I believe has created such a lengthy discussion.

A cat is a cat, whether they are a tiger or 15-20 lb domestic. Both designed to eat meat. They do make canned food for wildcats too, but I prefer to give them a raw diet. But with the larger wildcats, it is much easier to feed them the raw diet, because you would need a lot of cans to feed lets say, a tiger. My friends tiger gets 10-15 pounds of meat per day.

Yes, I stated this in my posts, because I do the same for my big cats

That is very very true. A cat is a cat is a cat. Especially nutritionally speaking .

That is not necessary with whole prey correct? Like a whole deer for your cougar or a whole rabbit for one of the bobcats.

If I feed whole prey, organs and all, no supplements are needed.

And I suppose a great ape is a great ape, and a chimpanzee can be fed a glass of milk and spaghetti just like us? And Lance Armstrong is a big lover of pasta, so please don't be one of those "humans are only meant to eat raw veggies" people like my ex, or I'm bailing ASAP heh. Results are results, and dogs are not wolves anymore than domesticated cats are lions. I certainly wouldn't have two fasting days in a row for Wesley and Buttercup, as is common practice in zoos for big cats. They are a completely different species.

Yes, in fact, they can. There were several studies done (as well as just random irresponsible people who thought chimps were cute) where chimps were raised just like a human child to see what would happen. That included being fed human food.

That may well be but was is the "best diet for the chimp"? This thread is about the best diet for a domesticated small cat. How it got derailed to large exotic cats, wolves, dogs and chimps is mind-boggling.

Just wait for it... Godwin's Law will kick in soon enough.