So as I was doing some more reading on FLUTD, I came across this. http://www.halopets.com/pet-education/pet-articles/feline-urinary-problems.html
Yes, it's the halopets site, but the article is written by a DVM and has this to say:
"Recent research on iFLUTD and urinary crystals
A one-year controlled clinical study of cats with these urinary problems was recently conducted. The only treatment that resulted in significant improvement in urinary signs was increasing daily water intake. Urinary signs occurred less often and were much less severe in cats that ate exclusively canned food. This study revealed no change in signs based on varying the magnesium or "ash" content of the food. Many veterinarians used to focus on the ash content of food for the prevention of crystal development, however, all leaders in this field now agree that diets intended to minimize the production of urinary crystals have no scientific rationale in the management of this condition. Simply put, ash is just not important."
What I am particularly interested in is the clinical study itself. I can't seem to find it, and it's not referenced. I sent in a request for that info, but I was wondering if anyone here knew which study was being referenced?
Yes, it's the halopets site, but the article is written by a DVM and has this to say:
"Recent research on iFLUTD and urinary crystals
A one-year controlled clinical study of cats with these urinary problems was recently conducted. The only treatment that resulted in significant improvement in urinary signs was increasing daily water intake. Urinary signs occurred less often and were much less severe in cats that ate exclusively canned food. This study revealed no change in signs based on varying the magnesium or "ash" content of the food. Many veterinarians used to focus on the ash content of food for the prevention of crystal development, however, all leaders in this field now agree that diets intended to minimize the production of urinary crystals have no scientific rationale in the management of this condition. Simply put, ash is just not important."
What I am particularly interested in is the clinical study itself. I can't seem to find it, and it's not referenced. I sent in a request for that info, but I was wondering if anyone here knew which study was being referenced?