canned, dry, raw? I'm confused!

I have read many forums in this amazing community and so many of you feed canned food to your cats. I only feed it when I have a kitten. Once my youngest was about 6 months I stopped giving it. They just eat dry, Purina One. Is feeding wet really going to make a difference in my cat's health? Are there downsides to just feeding dry? 

I've also read about raw diets some are giving to their cats. Why? What difference does it make? I don't think my cats would know what to do with a mouse other than play with it!

In a word yes, feeding wet can make a big difference.   You probably have already looked at this link http://www.catinfo.org/  it has a lot of good general info.  Wet foods particularly the pate canned foods are generally lower in carbs which is better for cats for many reasons.  Too many carbs lead to obesity and diabetes.  They can also cause urinary tract problems because they make the urine to alkaline which makes the cat susceptible to crystals.

Wet food also supplies moisture.  Cats being descended from a desert animal don't have a high thirst drive they naturally get their moisture from their food.  A cat on just dry food will often be chronically dehydrated.

Of course genetics play a part to, I am sure you have had or know of cats that ate only kibble and lived long healthy lives.  Eating wet food greatly increases the chances of a cat having a long healthy life.

The main reason many people feed raw is having more control over the quality and type of ingredients.  It can also actually be cheaper than feeding the top quality canned foods.

For a while cats do play with the mice... That's why you don't feed them living mice. Its been... I think a month? since I started feeding Soren mice, and he still has to play with them before he eats it. Though his play time is decreasing each time.

Denice is right - canned or raw is much healthier due to the moisture content and lack of carbohydrates.  Carbs are basically cheap filler, your cat doesn't need any kind of wheat / corn / soy crap.  They need protein.

I feed primarily raw because I have the most control over what they eat and giving them chunks of meat or small bones helps keep teeth and gums healthy.  Not all cats will eat mice but if they eat wet they can likely switch to ground raw over time.

Lots of cats have lived for many years on dry food but it is linked to a lot of health problems - obesity, diabtes, urinary tract issues etc are becoming more and more common and it is partially due to an inappropriate diet (same with the obesity / daibetes seen in humans).  There are lots of great resources out there, especially the catinfo one linked in the last thread.  Good luck with your research!

Here's the article that started me on the journey into feline nutrition. It was startling in that it tracked the emergence and growth of many common diseases, against the advent of cat food (once it didn't exist!)...basically, our feeding of special 'cat food' is feeding disease.  I now feed 1 meal canned, 3 meals Frankenprey raw each day (small serves frequently is better for blood sugar, and my guys are active Korats - so they eat a LOT!)

 http://www.rawmeatybones.com/articles-others/Malik_feedingcats_Aug2007.pdf.

The permitted ingredients in commercial cat food is also shocking - this motivates many of us to feed raw as we know what our cat is eating:

Because of the nondescript nature of the mush and nuggets in pet food cans and bags, pet owners must extend a lot of trust to manufacturers. But the balm of blind trust and faith never turns out to be a solution for anything. For example, consider the following approved ingredients from the official AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulatory publications:

dehydrated garbage (you read that right)
polyethylene roughage (plastic)
hydrolyzed poultry feathers
hydrolyzed hair
hydrolyzed leather meal
some 36 chemical preservatives
peanut skins and hulls
corn cob fractions
ground corn cob
ground clam shells
poultry, cow and pig feces and litter
hundreds of chemicals
a host of antibiotic and chemotherapeutic pharmaceuticals
a variety of synthetic flavorings
adjuvants
sequestrates
stabilizers
anticaking agents

This is not to say these ingredients are commonly used, just to point out that they can be.(Wysong.  The Myth of “100% Complete and Balanced” Processed Pet foods.  http://www.wysong.net/pet-health-and-nutrition/?article=36&cat=cat6)

Owners feed raw because raw food has greater bioavailability of nutrients. Cooking alters food, usually by reducing the amount of vitamins and minerals available for absorption. The cat digestive system is much shorter than with humans, so it is safer to feed raw food since it does not sit in the intestinal tract for long periods of time spawning bacteria.

Of course Wysong has a stake in painting the competition in a certain way as they are a manufacturer of pet food. To me it is helpful to apply some critical thinking to any information you get about which food is best, including the advice I would give you or anyone would give you.

I absolutely do not believe that pet food manufacturers are in the habit of tossing plastic into their manufacturing process. I've seen reference to this once before Wysong's quote above. One article cited here on the forum, contends that meat includes spoiled grocery store meat tossed into the vat with various disgusting ingredients which include the plastic wrap and Styrofoam tray and all.  Of course, this sort of possibility would give anyone the hibbie jibbies.

I don't think the information has ever been verified or any attempt has been made to verify it. We are simply asked to believe it. So you can transfer blind faith from the "evil" dry food manufacturers to the seemingly benign source stating without references that their claims of garbage being put in the pet food is the truth.

The proprietary nature of kibble and canned food recipes make it possible to believe the horrific claims because no one except those who work in that aspect of pet food manufacturing will ever see what goes into the vats of food for pets--wet or dry. Until I see citations or footnotes from independent research that indicates that the list of ingredients allegedly allowed are in fact in cat food I have to assume that the worst thing about kibble is that it is "nutritionally complete" in the same way corn chex every day at every meal would meat my nutritional needs as a human being. 

For me, because cats who don't get a balanced diet can quickly show ill effects from disease and conditions that arise from not getting enough of required nutrients or overloaded on some typed of nutrients, I am uneasy in providing an entirely homemade diet. On the other hand, pet food manufacturers are also at the mercy of their suppliers for key nutrients or ingredients who may supply inconsistent or dangerous ingredients labeled as something else. This affects even the most conscientious manufacturers.

My vets might be old school in regard to raw, but they have seen pets come in who have become ill from eating foods with bacteria or parasites in it.  They do, however, recommend wet food over dry because of the effect that dry has on kidneys and bladders.

I've tried just about every brand of premium canned food with the cats and only a few will pass the cat taste test. 

You probably want to limit fish ingredients because of the serious issues that can develop for cats.

lauraG said:

I don't think the information has ever been verified or any attempt has been made to verify it. We are simply asked to believe it. So you can transfer blind faith from the "evil" dry food manufacturers to the seemingly benign source stating without references that their claims of garbage being put in the pet food is the truth.

Click to expand...

Check out a book called Foods Pet Die For, by Dr. Ann Martin. She does her own research and studies and provides references to those claims. Nothing "blind faith" about her findings.

Fhi09 said:

Check out a book called Foods Pet Die For, by Dr. Ann Martin. She does her own research and studies and provides references to those claims. Nothing "blind faith" about her findings.

Click to expand...

This, and many other sources.

It isn't the rotting meat/carcasses on the side of the road picked up for rendering that bothers me. It's the styrofoam, euthanized cats/dogs, euthanized horses/cattle, etc. The phenobarbital, the worming we put show horses/livestock through, the hormones...it's scary enough to look at what is "allowed" for human consumption. What we "allow" as pet quality is atrocious.

This information is what made me switch to better pet food. It sickens me.

While those things are technically allowed, do people really believe every pet food company does it?

lauraG said:

 
While those things are technically allowed, do people really believe every pet food company does it?

Click to expand...

Only the cheap, crap grocery store ones. Wellness, Evo, and most of the premium ones don't have questionable stuffs in them. 

lauraG said:

While those things are technically allowed, do people really believe every pet food company does it?

Click to expand...

Most, yes. It keeps costs down. And you have to do something with animals in an area that doesn't allow burial of livestock (due to water contamination) and overfull landfills. So they get rendered.

I've fed my Maine coon both of those brand, as well as blue buffalo grain free. Even the high end brands still come with unnecessary ingredients. Garden veggies, flax, peas, fruits, the list goes on. There's a marketing element at play. Switching to raw turned my cat's digestive around right away and costs $1.15 per day, less than a high end canned diet. Stools from wellness core stank so bad they used to wake me up at night...

 I absolutely do not believe that pet food manufacturers are in the habit of tossing plastic into their manufacturing process.

To me it is helpful to apply some critical thinking to any information you get about which food is best

While those things are technically allowed, do people really believe every pet food company does it?

Click to expand...

LauraG,  why would we believe otherwise?  AAFCO came about to make up nutrient requirements, not as a scientific body, but as the body who could 'best' translate nutrient requirements to the pet food manufacturers.  That means, they create the profiles (and they are not up to date), and the 'permitted ingredients', to best aid the pet food manufacturers create a streamlined, easy process, that gives maximum profit.  It is MUCH easier to dump in a container of meat and not unwrap it (and how much wrapping is involved in our groceries these days?!).  On a purely human point of view, why bother thinking up such an inclusion if it was not prompted by something?  So yes, I understand big business, and how they influence politics, rules and laws - of course I believe they will take any easier avenue permitted to them, and agitate for rule changes to make things still easier.  As to whether EVERY pet food company does so, well, how many are there when you strip away all the labels and find the parent company?  One giant frequently owns MANY brands, but their policies, processing plants etc, are the same/similar.  I believe a few of the smaller independent companies to be far safer, but again, you have to track down where the processing plant is.  Often one processing plant will make pet food for several companies, but they don't change the way they operate for each company...so even if one company says 'do this, don't do that', the plant won't actually accommodate it - or clean their entire lot of equipment so that such a request is really actualised.

By the way, on the flip side of your contention, why not require independent literature on the ABSENCE of such substances to help your reasoning?  You won't find any of that either.  But as Peaches 08 says, there are enough scientific findings to show that the euthanasia drug is often present in pet food...so they've tested for one nasty at least and it's positive, that doesn't give me any 'faith' to believe they wouldn't include other nasties.

But as you said, even if we don't believe there are poisons and rubbish in pet food (on a regular basis - food recalls and pet deaths show there definitely are at least on an intermittent basis), there are a bunch of other reasons we would choose not to feed commercial pet food, or perhaps to be judicious in our selection of commercial pet food.   Which is a nice segway to comment  on Fhi09's thought:

 Only the cheap, crap grocery store ones. Wellness, Evo, and most of the premium ones don't have questionable stuffs in them. 

Click to expand...

Even if we believe that Wellness and Evo don't have rubbish and poisons in them, we still have to read ingredient lists.  I don't get Wellness over here, but do have access to Evo - and choose not to buy it.  Too many grains and/or vegetables, which don't fit an obligate carnivore's dietary requirements, and have been linked to common diseases.  The title 'premium' also cannot give us an idea of dietary fitness.  Expense is often used as a marketing tool to make us believe it is better.  Once again, read ingredient lists.  Unfortunately here in Australia, there is a compounding problem in that pet food does not have to list all ingredients...so I came across the evils of 'disacharides' via feline ill health and a helpful vet -  I could not find 'disacharides' on the label or as any food source on the label.  Then there is carageenan - often generically labelled as 'thickener', and I have to write to manufacturers to get the answers.  Anyway, the best info on feline diet and the problems of commercial cat food on a dietary front has already been listed: http://www.catinfo.org/.  It is very helpful.  If you would like to know more about how I assess canned food, I have a checklist/flowchart on my blog:  http://catstuff4aussies.weebly.com/4/category/choosing canned food/1.html

Vegetables and other ingredients that appeal to humans is quite different than ghastly ingredients.

Listen, I'm fully aware of big business and the ways that they seek to lower costs at the expense of the "little people." As I originally stated, I'm not defending big pet food nor do I have blind faith in their practices. However I am saying that it is also problematic to assume that all pet food companies engage in these practices and that commercially produced foods are as a matter of course, full of rendered euthanized pets, etc. 
 

My suggestion is that sources you read pro or against should be regarded critically.  How old are the citations and information? Who is providing it? What might be their motivation in their particular view point?  Just because something might make sense in the scheme of things doesn't make it necessarily so. This is true whether it is about believing in the safety of pet food or that it is evil incarnate.

I checked out Ann Martin's book on Amazon. First thing I noticed is that many of her footnotes are from the 1990s. The book itself had a more acceptably recent run in 2008. However the bibliography in the back of the book are about recipes for homemade diets, personal discussions she's had with like-minded folks, web article references and so forth and not a whole lot that appears to be recent. Perhaps I'm wrong though and that pet foods have changed not one bit since then.

I don't know what the motivation was for the FDA to test for barbiturates in pet food nor have rendered meat listed as things other than "rendered meat" in pet foods. I also don't know why verbage changed on labels from "Made In the USA" to "Manufactured..." and other such misspeak. So far it looks like a slight of hand.

lauraG said:

However I am saying that it is also problematic to assume that all pet food companies engage in these practices and that commercially produced foods are as a matter of course, full of rendered euthanized pets, etc. 

Click to expand...

No one said that. 

There are good commercial brands out there. These are brands I will have no hesitation in feeding Jed if I didn't know about raw. They have good factory practices and do not use shoe leather, sawdust, dead animals, etc in their food.

lauraG said:

However the bibliography in the back of the book are about recipes for homemade diets, personal discussions she's had with like-minded folks, web article references and so forth and not a whole lot that appears to be recent. Perhaps I'm wrong though and that pet foods have changed not one bit since then.

Click to expand...

To put it bluntly, you have not read the book at all. She can't "reference" original research since it's, you know, original. Sure they aren't recent, like 2012 recent, but if that's your case for saying it's inaccurate because surely pet foods have changed by now.... I guess we have to agree to disagree.

lauraG said:

I checked out Ann Martin's book on Amazon. First thing I noticed is that many of her footnotes are from the 1990s. 

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the book right now, and of the 198 footnotes, 22 are from before 2000. That makes 11% of her footnotes being from the 1990s.

I'd be interested to see what sources you have that pet food horror stories are exaggerated. If you're disputing the research and studies into questionable practices in pet food manufacturers, it's only fair you provide your sources.

Fhi09 said:

 
No one said that. 

There are good commercial brands out there. These are brands I will have no hesitation in feeding Jed if I didn't know about raw. They have good factory practices and do not use shoe leather, sawdust, dead animals, etc in their food.

To put it bluntly, you have not read the book at all. She can't "reference" original research since it's, you know, original. Sure they aren't recent, like 2012 recent, but if that's your case for saying it's inaccurate because surely pet foods have changed by now.... I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I'm looking at the book right now, and of the 198 footnotes, 22 are from before 2000. That makes 11% of her footnotes being from the 1990s.

I'd be interested to see what sources you have that pet food horror stories are exaggerated. If you're disputing the research and studies into questionable practices in pet food manufacturers, it's only fair you provide your sources.

Click to expand...

Well one poster did say that "most" pet food manufactures engage in these practices and another indicated that it was the reason she fed no commercial pet food.

I think I made it absolutely clear that I did not read the book but skimmed the references and the few pages available on Amazon. To me what I did skim had that feel of other kinds of information you see, that make sweeping statements about specific issues that sound plausible but may be lacking information that might offer a more complete picture.

As for "the research" and the "studies" about questionable pet food practices (as in multiple studies) what I might look for are journal articles  in a particular field such as veterinary practice. Such studies and research are subjected to peer review and the information you read is more likely to be supported by research practices that follow certain standards. As such it has credibility that statements of fact are based on a process of research and not observational opinion.  It could very well be that her observational opinion is exactly correct and above reproach. That said, including anecdotal evidence that her own pets--spared commercial food and fed raw exclusively are extraordinarily long-lived and so are proof of her theories probably would raise some eyebrows about the rigor behind the rest of her information.

Finally, I'm not sure why your conclusion is that I am vested in proving that pet food horror stories are exaggerated or that I'm trying to prove that or dispute findings about questionable practices in the manufacturing of pet food.  I've just seen a lot of soft information out there about many things that sound plausible but may not be supportable by available evidence. That doesn't mean the soft stuff isn't true, but when it is touted like it should be considered just as good as researched fact...it makes me leery of the good information they may have also provided.

I did say "most" because of the size of Mars, Nestle, etc compared to Wellness and others. My "observations" are reports from the FDA.