Moistening Dry Food?

otto · Dec 13, 2012

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. What I am trying to say, albeit poorly, is adding water to kibble, for a cat who is fed only kibble, is not going to get more water into the cat, because the cat will drink less, because of the water s/he is getting with the kibble.

So the dehydration issue remains.

We agree that cats do not experience the thirst that would drive them to drink more the way other mammals do. If you put water into their kibble, that will satisfy their minimal thirst, and so they will not drink even as much as they were drinking before.

You cannot add enough water to kibble, to make an all kibble diet match a wet diet. Most cats don't need more than half a cup of kibble a day to maintain a healthy weight. Two thirds at the most. How will you add enough water to that amount of food, to get sufficient moisture into the cat? So an all kibble diet is still going to dehydrate the cat, even if you add water to it.

Now, feeding canned and kibble as DuckDodgers is doing, you can get some benefit to adding water...to the canned portions. Most canned is about 78% moisture. So, you could add water to that, increasing the moisture the canned food provides, which will eliminate the yuckiness of adding water to the kibble, and get more water into the cat (canned and water combined) to at least partly make up the deficit. ANY canned is better than none, but since it will reduce the cat's thirst drive, adding water to the canned portions will help.

Adding water to an all dry diet will not help, because the cat will drink less water on his own. Adding water to canned food, the cat is already getting sufficient moisture from the canned, (most canned fed cats drink very little if at all because they are getting an average of 78% moisture from their diet), so it will help offset the dehydrating of the kibble portion of the diet.

I hope this makes it a little clearer, what I am trying to say. I probably should have waited until tomorrow, when rested, to try to explain myself better.

mschauer · Dec 13, 2012

otto said:
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. What I am trying to say, albeit poorly, is adding water to kibble, for a cat who is fed only kibble, is not going to get more water into the cat, because the cat will drink less, because of the water s/he is getting with the kibble.

So the dehydration issue remains.

We agree that cats do not experience the thirst that would drive them to drink more the way other mammals do. If you put water into their kibble, that will satisfy their minimal thirst, and so they will not drink even as much as they were drinking before.

You cannot add enough water to kibble, to make an all kibble diet match a wet diet. Most cats don't need more than half a cup of kibble a day to maintain a healthy weight. Two thirds at the most. How will you add enough water to that amount of food, to get sufficient moisture into the cat? So an all kibble diet is still going to dehydrate the cat, even if you add water to it.

Now, feeding canned and kibble as DuckDodgers is doing, you can get some benefit to adding water...to the canned portions. Most canned is about 78% moisture. So, you could add water to that, increasing the moisture the canned food provides, which will eliminate the yuckiness of adding water to the kibble, and get more water into the cat (canned and water combined) to at least partly make up the deficit. ANY canned is better than none, but since it will reduce the cat's thirst drive, adding water to the canned portions will help.

Adding water to an all dry diet will not help, because the cat will drink less water on his own. Adding water to canned food, the cat is already getting sufficient moisture from the canned, (most canned fed cats drink very little if at all because they are getting an average of 78% moisture from their diet), so it will help offset the dehydrating of the kibble portion of the diet.

Otto, I have no idea why you believe this but it is simply wrong. Adding water to dry food absolutely does make it the equivalent moisture wise to a canned food. I do it every night. I take 1.5 oz of a freeze dried product with 5% moisture and add 4.5 oz of water to make a wet food with 76% moisture. And there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that a cat eating that food is going to drink less additional water than a cat eating a canned food that is also 76% moisture. There is nothing magical about the water portion of a canned product that somehow satisfies a cats thirst better than water added to a dry product. Moisture is moisture. It doesn't matter if it comes out of a can or out of a faucet and it doesn't matter whether it is added during processing or after.

wilson · Dec 13, 2012

How about doing a test tonight? Take a 1/4 cup of kibble and add water to the top just above the kibble. Let it sit overnight. Now come back here with what you find

thank you

duckdodgers · Dec 13, 2012

Wilson said:
How about doing a test tonight? Take a 1/4 cup of kibble and add water to the top just above the kibble. Let it sit overnight. Now come back here with what you find

thank you

I don't know exactly what you'd be expecting to find- missing kibble?

I've left some watered down kibble for Stella before and she ate it no problem. Whether or not she will eat it is not the question, but rather what the pros/ cons are.

Plus Stella does not generally eat during the night. She sleeps with me. In the morning she will become active and eat, but I don't want the kibble soaking all night until she does.

ldg · Dec 14, 2012

Wilson said:
How about doing a test tonight? Take a 1/4 cup of kibble and add water to the top just above the kibble. Let it sit overnight. Now come back here with what you find
thank you

Wilson, you might have missed the point about not adding water to kibble and leaving it out? If you're going to add water to kibble, the cat needs to eat it within a short period of time, or it becomes bacteria soup.

Here is an interview with Donald Strombeck conducted by BARK magazine in 2010, discussing the issue of pet food recalls (esp as re the major recall of 2008) and issues of problems within the pet food industry. Donald Srombeck is a small animal vet specialist in nutrition and gastroenterology that practiced and taught at UC Davis for 20 years. http://www.thebark.com/content/donald-r-strombeck-talks-dog-nutrition-and-pet-food-recalls

DS:...if you use carbohydrates, you have to cook them. This is one example of what can happen with commercial pet foods. They contain a lot of cereals; there have been examples where a dry food containing barley, oats and rye wasn’t cooked completely, like it should have been. Because the carbohydrate source wasn’t cooked, animals who ate it had diarrhea. You see this in vet practice—people come in with sick animals and they have been using the same brand of kibble, but then one batch isn’t well-cooked. It doesn’t make national headlines, but when you see this, you know that there is a problem with that particular batch of food.

B: Even some of the kibble in this recall was contaminated.

DS: Did you read the information in my book about kibble being contaminated with bacteria? Veterinarians know this. I got money to research this, and gave it to Jim Cullor, a good researcher; I asked him to do a study to determine the numbers and kinds of bacteria that could be cultured from kibble. And he did it, but I don’t know if it was ever published. [Editor’s note: We are checking on this.] The guy who was in charge of public programs at Davis was adamantly opposed to having this published, because he wanted to protect the industry. Also, I remember when the pet food industry would say on the bag of puppy food, “moisten this food” and put it down for them. But bacteria multiply rapidly on moistened dry food. You know that puppies, a lot of times, eat a little bite and wander off, then come back to it, so the food could be there all day long. It is a good way for them to get diarrhea.

This is why it is recommended to not moisten dry food. The caveat is that if you must feed kibble, it will most likely not harm your cat IF the kibble is moistened and eaten within a very short period of time, so the bacteria doesn't have time to multiply.

This also emphasizes why it's best to try to find a grain-free food (whether kibble or canned), even better, something low carb (though grain free, low carb kibble is expensive, and there are only a couple of them). (Grain free, unfortunately, is not synonymous with low carb).

wilson · Dec 14, 2012

LOL you guys are funny, I just wanted you to do a test, I did not say for you to feed it to your cat. I just wanted you to see what happens to the kibble.

I am very aware of bacteria, and kibble.

What we need to look at is the compsotion of kibble. What is it made up of? Starch.

Another thing you will notice, after a cat has consumed kibble, if the cat throws this food up, you will still see moistened still in its form kibble.

The adding of water, while yes you are moistening it, but..... all that starch in the food is like a sponge.

One cannot feed enough water to a cat on kibble, as they are not natural water drinkers. Kibble is very dehydrating.

The bacteria is another issue.

Just my two cents on this subject

mschauer · Dec 14, 2012

Wilson said:
LOL you guys are funny, I just wanted you to do a test, I did not say for you to feed it to your cat. I just wanted you to see what happens to the kibble.

I am very aware of bacteria, and kibble.

What we need to look at is the compsotion of kibble. What is it made up of? Starch.

Another thing you will notice, after a cat has consumed kibble, if the cat throws this food up, you will still see moistened still in its form kibble.

The adding of water, while yes you are moistening it, but..... all that starch in the food is like a sponge.

One cannot feed enough water to a cat on kibble, as they are not natural water drinkers. Kibble is very dehydrating.

The bacteria is another issue.

Just my two cents on this subject

Just so I understand, you believe that the water added to and absorbed by kibble is somehow unavailable to the cat and so doesn't contribute to meeting the water needs of the cat?

ldg · Dec 14, 2012

Since mschauer addressed the point...

Wilson said:
LOL you guys are funny, I just wanted you to do a test, I did not say for you to feed it to your cat. I just wanted you to see what happens to the kibble.

You mean to see that it swells up from the absorption of the water? But... that would be the point of adding water... :scratch:

And anything they eat that they regurgitate is still in its original form. I feed raw, and if a cat throws it up immediately upon eating it, it's still in the form it went down. Not sure what your point is on that one. :scratch:

socksy · Dec 14, 2012

There are two conflicting arguments happening here against the kibble. One is that the kibble isn't capable of effectively absorbing the water you soak it in and the other is that the kibble is SO absorbent that it will suck the insides of the cat dry. Well... which is it? Either its absorbent or its not. If you soak it in water until it's not soaking up any more water, it's saturated and will stop absorbing moisture. Yeah, starches are like sponges. Now, I want you to go soak a sponge until it's sopping wet and then throw it at someone. If they complain that you got them wet, just say, "It's okay! Sponges are dry!"

Or are we just having a hard time understanding that water makes things wet? Wet is not dry. Add water to kibble, and it is now wet, not dry.

Unless, of course, one of the ingredients in kibble is dark matter and it can absorb an infinite amount of moisture without ever getting saturated. I should tell my Environmental Contaminant Management professor that I have the ultimate solution for every oil spill or chemical leak: Cat kibble! Infinitely absorbent. Yay!

Okay, seriously though... to sum up: water = wet.

wilson · Dec 14, 2012

Sorry have a hard time explaining what I mean sometimes. Yes kibble is like a sponge, soaking it is dangerous for a few reason, bacteria, and bloat.

and yes this applies to cats aswell.

http://www.naturalcaninediet.com/home/announcements/whykibbleisarecipeforbloatgastrictorsion

and to LDG's point if they throw the food up right away, of course if is going to be still in its form, but back when i used to feed kibble, my cat threw it up after several hours and it was still in its form, just swelled up, yikes!!

mschauer · Dec 14, 2012

Wilson said:
Sorry have a hard time explaining what I mean sometimes. Yes kibble is like a sponge, soaking it is dangerous for a few reason, bacteria, and bloat.

and yes this applies to cats aswell.

http://www.naturalcaninediet.com/home/announcements/whykibbleisarecipeforbloatgastrictorsion

and to LDG's point if they throw the food up right away, of course if is going to be still in its form, but back when i used to feed kibble, my cat threw it up after several hours and it was still in its form, just swelled up, yikes!!

OK, so now you are saying that potential bacteria growth and dangerous bloating are reasons for not adding water to kibble? Who is this James Cass person whose comments you provided a link to and why do you consider him an authority on the subject? I can't find his credentials anywhere on his site. It appears to be just another blogger site.

Kibble certainly swells as it absorbs water but I know of no reason to believe that causes any problem with digestion.

stealthkitty · Dec 14, 2012

otto said:
Now, feeding canned and kibble as DuckDodgers is doing, you can get some benefit to adding water...to the canned portions. Most canned is about 78% moisture. So, you could add water to that, increasing the moisture the canned food provides, which will eliminate the yuckiness of adding water to the kibble, and get more water into the cat (canned and water combined) to at least partly make up the deficit.

wilson · Dec 14, 2012

mschauer said:
OK, so now you are saying that potential bacteria growth and dangerous bloating are reasons for not adding water to kibble? Who is this James Cass person whose comments you provided a link to and why do you consider him an authority on the subject? I can't find his credentials anywhere on his site. It appears to be just another blogger site.

Kibble certainly swells as it absorbs water but I know of no reason to believe that causes any problem with digestion.

This thread is sounding way to arguementative and attacking now. I just gave the first link I found about bloat.

If you would like the actual science on it, please google it you will find it.

I think we should want to investigate this deeply, not point fingers as to who is right and wrong.

Research and Education, are we not in this all together wanting the best for our kitties?

mschauer · Dec 14, 2012

Originally Posted by Wilson

This thread is sounding way to arguementative and attacking now. I just gave the first link I found about bloat.

If you would like the actual science on it, please google it you will find it.

I think we should want to investigate this deeply, not point fingers as to who is right and wrong.

Research and Education, are we not in this all together wanting the best for our kitties?

It is not educational to make claims that cannot be supported by fact and it is not argumentative to point out when someone has made claims that cannot be supported by fact.

ldg · Dec 14, 2012

Wilson said:
This thread is sounding way to arguementative and attacking now. I just gave the first link I found about bloat.
If you would like the actual science on it, please google it you will find it.
I think we should want to investigate this deeply, not point fingers as to who is right and wrong.
Research and Education, are we not in this all together wanting the best for our kitties?

mschauer said:
It is not educational to make claims that cannot be supported by fact and it is not argumentative to point out when someone has made claims that cannot be supported by fact.

I agree - it's something worth investigating, which is why I also agree with mschauer.

The closest I've ever come to finding (fact-based, not opinion based) information about bacteria and mold in kibble are studies that identify bacteria and mold in kibble, but not quantities. Recalls, of course, document the problems. But it's the risk amounts that aren't subject to recall that we're discussing. I did find a study while searching this evening: the research investigated kibble as a medium for bacterial growth when DRY, but that's not helpful to this discussion.

The most qualified opinion-based information came from Dr. Strombeck, and I already posted that in this thread.

mschauer · Dec 14, 2012

LDG said:
Wilson said:

This thread is sounding way to arguementative and attacking now. I just gave the first link I found about bloat.
If you would like the actual science on it, please google it you will find it.
I think we should want to investigate this deeply, not point fingers as to who is right and wrong.
Research and Education, are we not in this all together wanting the best for our kitties?

Click to expand...

mschauer said:

It is not educational to make claims that cannot be supported by fact and it is not argumentative to point out when someone has made claims that cannot be supported by fact.

Click to expand...

I agree - it's something worth investigating, which is why I also agree with mschauer.

The closest I've ever come to finding (fact-based, not opinion based) information about bacteria and mold in kibble are studies that identify bacteria and mold in kibble, but not quantities. Recalls, of course, document the problems. But it's the risk amounts that aren't subject to recall that we're discussing. I did find a study while searching this evening: the research investigated kibble as a medium for bacterial growth when DRY, but that's not helpful to this discussion.

The most qualified opinion-based information came from Dr. Strombeck, and I already posted that in this thread.

I think you misunderstood. The claim not supported by fact that I was referring to is the one in the link Wilson refers to and is a claim made about bloating, not any claim made about bacteria.

socksy · Dec 14, 2012

Science has very rigorous standards and I think people often mistake the scientific process of scrutiny as being attacking or confrontational. Just to get one single journal article published requires countless, ruthless reviews. Not sure if you've ever seen someone defend their thesis for a Master's or PhD, but that can be pretty brutal. That's the process, though. It's absolutely necessary to question what people say and point out logic flaws. Even knowledgeable, well-respected people with loads of credentials and years of research under their belt will get things wrong or come to erroneous conclusions. On any given topic there are usually a great number of these experts who disagree with each other. With this in mind, it makes no sense to trust someone simply because they know or write a lot about cats, or because you like them. In fact, if you can only find it in yourself to disagree with people you don't like, then you're not capable of making logical decisions.

As for bloat - expanding kibble is a non-issue if it's been soaked in water. It will have expanded as far as it's going to go. There have been multiple tangents on this thread that have to do with the quality of dry kibble over-all, when the topic of this thread is water-soaked kibble.

socksy · Dec 14, 2012

LDG said:
I did find a study while searching this evening: the research investigated kibble as a medium for bacterial growth when DRY, but that's not helpful to this discussion.

Well, then, let's break out the petri dishes and agar and collect some data! Haha, just kidding... sort of. Someone could do it. I've done similar tests as a lab technician.

You could also look for data on how quickly bacteria multiply. Do we know which bacteria specifically are present on dry cat food?

ldg · Dec 14, 2012

mschauer said:
I think you misunderstood. The claim not supported by fact that I was referring to is the one in the link Wilson refers to and is a claim made about bloating, not any claim made about bacteria.

????

No one in this thread has provided any definitive source of information - about bacteria or bloat. :lol3:

I think Dr. Strombeck is a good source - but it's certainly not a reference piece. The comments I made after saying I agree with the fact vs opinion weren't directed at you per se, just commentary of relevance to the topic.
.

socksy said:
Well, then, let's break out the petri dishes and agar and collect some data! Haha, just kidding... sort of. Someone could do it. I've done similar tests as a lab technician.

You could also look for data on how quickly bacteria multiply. Do we know which bacteria specifically are present on dry cat food?

In checking my bookmarks, I find I have info on mycotoxins, but not bacteria. Here are the two primary pieces of relevance:

Here are the studies. The probability of what might be present is up to you.

http://www.biomin.net/index.php?id=62&type=123&L=0&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=721&cHash=731b270a25fc0d84273d81834d9d0224

Mycotoxins certainly represent a potential health threat to companion animals. According to a recently published mycotoxin survey, raw materials that are used in commercial pet foods are frequently contaminated with mycotoxins (Rodrigues, 2009). Dry pet food is of particular concern because of its high cereal content. Böhm et al. (2008) investigated 76 dry dog food samples from Austria for their mycotoxin contamination. The results of this survey showed that 97% of all tested samples were contaminated with deoxynivalenol with concentrations up to 1386 ppb. Zearalenone was found in 47% (concentrations up to 664 ppb) of the samples, and 42% (concentrations up to 568 ppb) of the dry dog food samples contained fumonisins.

....The most commonly known mycotoxins are aflatoxins due to the fact that they are potential carcinogens and can be toxic to the liver. Loss of appetite, jaundice, lack of energy, vomiting or death has been described in dogs and cats exposed to aflatoxins (Hussein et. al. 2001). In addition it was observed, that death generally occurs in 3 days with LD50 levels ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg in dogs and 0.3 to 0.6 mg/kg in cats depending on the age of the animal (Hussein et. al. 2001).

Recently, it was reported that hundreds of dogs were killed after aflatoxin ingestion in the period from November 2008 to January 2009. Samples of the dog foods consumed showed contamination levels of aflatoxins up to 150 ppb (Feedinfo 2009 and All about feed 2009). Additionally, Compas et al. (2009) investigated 180 dog food samples in Brazil for the presence of fungi which may produce mycotoxins. A. flavus and A. parasiticus were the prevalent species found and were considered a potential risk for production of AfB1 in feedstuffs where environmental storage conditions were not adequate.

....Other commonly found mycotoxins are ochratoxins (OTA). As with other animal species, the kidney is the primary target organ of ochratoxins in pets with dogs being particularly susceptible to ochratoxins. In one study, a daily dose of 0.2 mg OTA/kg BW for 2 weeks or a single dose of 7.8 mg OTA/kg BW was lethal to young male beagle dogs. Clinical signs of ochratoxins in dogs varied from anorexia, weight loss and vomiting to increased body temperature, dehydration, and prostration (Boermans and Leung 2007). Pühringer et al. (2007) investigated the ochratoxin A content of 101 feline kidneys and 55 cat food samples. The kidney samples (38 were contaminated with ochratoxins A) contained 0.31 - 5.18 μg of ochratoxin A/kg whereas the ochratoxin A content in the cat food was very low with 0.31 – 2.41 μg ochratoxin A/kg (14 samples were positive). The results of this study suggested an increased dietary ochratoxin exposure in the cats but did not correlate with the pathological findings in the different kidney samples.

Fusarium mycotoxins (trichothecenes, zearalenone and fumonisins) are of main concern to companion animals due to the fact that many feed ingredients are known to contain these toxins. For instance, zearalenone and fumonisin B1 were found in 84 and 100% of pet food samples,
with the highest levels being 299.5 and 1410 μg/ kg of feed respectively (Leung et. al. 2006).

...Other important Fusarium mycotoxins, the fumonisins, are found mainly in corn and the most abundant group is fumonisin B1, representing up to 70% of food-borne fumonisins. Fumonisins inhibit sphingolipid synthesis and metabolism and damage various organs in animals (Voss et al.
2007).

Here's a study from foods around the world - again, mycotoxins, not bacteria:

http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11021372.pdf

But it has tables that simplify what was found where, and at what levels...

ldg · Dec 14, 2012

Not any definitive source of info, but perhaps helpful? :dk:

Bacteria. Slaughtered animals, as well as those that have died because of disease, injury, or natural causes, are sources of meat, by-products, and rendered meals. An animal that died on the farm might not reach a rendering plant until days after its death. Therefore the carcass is often contaminated with bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli. Dangerous E. Coli bacteria are estimated to contaminate more than 50% of meat meals. While the cooking process may kill bacteria, it does not eliminate the endotoxins some bacteria produce during their growth. These toxins can survive processing, and can cause sickness and disease. Pet food manufacturers do not test their products for bacterial endotoxins.

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=359

Moistening Dry Food?

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

Thread starter

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member