Is there empirical evidence that raw feeding is good for cats?

[bunnybee]

Thank you LDG for the reposting of the links/studies

  I hope you and your animals have a wonderful weekend!  xo

 

 

[tobykitten]

I appreciate the effort that many go through feeding their cats a well balanced raw diet.   Being a full time working cat mom, I certainly don't have time for the raw diet prep.   As well as I like to travel and have friend cat sitters take care of kitties and not have to stress about food details.   I respect the efforts everyone makes in taking the very best care of our cats that we can including nutrition. We all love our cats very much, that is why we are here!

Regarding bacteria, I feel that it is actually less risky to feed canned than raw or dry.    It seems that cleanliness for a raw diet requires meticulous prep.  And dry food keeps getting recalled for Salmonella etc.   Perhaps it is a false sense of security, but I feel "safe" feeding wet food.

I would like to see peer reviewed research in support of a raw diet if it is available.  Is there a pubMed type site for animal research?  I suppose studies will be biased also, as they would be primarily sponsered by corporate giants and big pet food companies.

I think we need to look outside of the U.S., too.
In many other countries, cats thrive on a homemade raw diet - prefeb pet foods (raw or otherwise) aren't readily available...

In my experience, handling raw for cats isn't any different than handling raw meat you would normally handle and prepare for your own meals (or my meals, anyway - I have an omnivorous diet).  The "common sense" approach works well here - being sure to keep counter surfaces clean and keep soiled hands away from your mouth!  Human grade meat in this country is parasite free (any bugs from wild meat can be killed by deep freezing) and I am not really that concerned for the bacteria content. As for handling raw fed pet waste, it's a non-issue, IMO - raw fed stools are much smaller and dry faster, in my experience, and as long as you're cleaning the litterpan as you normally would, it minimizes the spread of bacteria that would be present with any cat using a litterbox in a house anyway.

Intuitively, I find it bizarre that dry food -- which is commonly perceived as being "dead food" -- as being such a carrier for salmonella (which I perceive as being very "alive"), but I also think it says something about the overall quality of a virtually man-made product being produced for consumption by another species.   I strongly believe when you start messing with nature too much you can cause rifts, and I think that's what we're seeing here.   Aside from raw, canned is the next best choice, and I come by far fewer articles recalling high quality canned for salmonella contamination than I do for recalling dry, high quality or otherwise.

As an aside -- this site: http://www.catinfo.org/?link=makingcatfood#Raw vs Cooked  - written by a veterinarian - was my first look at raw diets for cats and provided tons of information.

Here is another site by a self-described "lay person" who has been feeding raw for years - http://www.catnutrition.org/

It is somewhat comical to me that others do not view these examples as empirical evidence of the benefits of a raw diet simply because they are more "grassroots" than a food trial done in a lab funded by large corporations. 

 

[tammyp]

This is the article that started my journey into raw; it is not 'empirical', but does provide the basis for anecdotes on the noted rise (numbers) of certain diseases in cats with the introduction of commercial food.  It also notes that such an increase in certain cat diseases is very recently happening in places like Thailand, who are more recently doing that same shift away from kitchen scrap feeding (raw), to a world of commercial 'better' food.

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

 

[my-boy-jasper]

In the second link provided in the original post it states, "No studies have examined differences in animals fed raw animal products to those fed any other type of diet (kibble, canned, or home cooked) with the exception of looking at the effects on digestibility". So the issue can be turned around to say that there is no evidence-base to recommend feeding canned, kibble or home cooked over a raw diet. It's interesting to me that people feeding their animals a balanced raw diet need to defend their position when commercial pet food is only a recent invention. I don't think that this is limited to pet food either (I'm thinking of baby formula and how it seems like breastfeeding mothers have to justify themselves - when there are probably advantages to both approaches).

The link also states that the policy "specifically addressed the public health risks associated with raw/undercooked animal-source protein that hasn’t been adequately treated to remove pathogens" and is not based on "nutritional comparisons, health benefits, or economic factors".  Personally, I think the public health argument is a pretty weak one. I know when I feed my cat, I'm thinking of my cat's health over his life span and not public health. But as Tobster pointed out, it is probably the most responsible position for AVMA to take (leaving aside other possible agendas). Especially when there is no empirical data to suggest any one diet is best in terms of animal health. I don't think we should completely discount anecdotal evidence either. Enough is known about animal health to look at probable causes of health issues, and when the anecdotal evidence is consistent with the science, I know I'd rather lean towards that rather that what pet food companies say - until there is evidence one way or the other.

If it were demonstrated that a raw diet is better for health, but the risk of food poisoning outweighs the benefits, the answer is not necessarily to stop feeding raw. I would think that the solution to that problem lies in improving food storage, handling, education, etc. I'm vegetarian and (wrongly or rightly) I believe I have less chance of getting sick from things such salmonella and parasites than people who eat meat (cooked or uncooked). But if I went around telling people that they shouldn't eat meat because of that, well I would be talking to myself pretty quickly. 

I'm feeding my kitten everything. He mostly eats a commercial raw, but he eats canned and dry too. I plan to keep giving him some canned because I know sometimes it is more convenient. I'm also not convinced that either commercial or home prepared raw is nutritionally complete. I don't know that it is exactly the same as what an animal gets by hunting it's own food. So I feel that by including canned food, he is probably getting some nutrients that may otherwise be missing or too low. However, my thoughts keep changing so I'm not fixed on anything. In any case, I would never hold it against someone for choosing to feed their cat canned or kibble because in all likelihood the cat is going to live a longer and healthier life than it would as a feral. I'm just fortunate that I have so many choices as to what I can feed my cat.

 

[ldg]

It's interesting to me that people feeding their animals a balanced raw diet need to defend their position when commercial pet food is only a recent invention.

You know, this is a really interesting point from a number of angles.

1) Diet and Health. It is a relatively recent situation that approximately 60% of pet cats in the U.S. now live indoor-only. This means that they are now completely dependent on us to provide their nutritional needs. What this also means is that the health problems associated with their food are becoming ever more apparent. http://www.stateofpethealth.com/Content/pdf/Banfield-State-of-Pet-Health-Report_2013.pdf

- 90% of cats are now overweight or obese and is at "epidemic levels;" so it isn't surprising that with that extra weight,
- 67% of cats have arthritis; or that
- "Incidence of diabetes have DOUBLED in the past five years;"
- 85% of cats over the age of 3 years have dental disease; finally,
- Kidney disease is 7x more common in cats than dogs.

Could this last one be because dogs are carnivores that have adapted to an omnivorous diet since domestication, and cats remain obligate carnivores - yet are being fed diets that are full of species-inappropriate ingredients, and fed in a species-inappropriate manner? Actually, all of the illnesses would seem to be.

References:

- Effects of nutrition choices and lifestyle changes on the well-being of cats, a carnivore that has moved indoors (JAVMA)

- Idiosyncratic nutrient requirements of cats appear to be diet-induced evolutionary adaptations* (Nutrition Research Reviews)

- Can Increasing the Amount of Fat or Carbohydrate in a Cat's Diet Compensate for Low Protein Intake? (Insights into Veterinary Endocrinology blog by Small Animal Endocrinologist Specialist Dr. Mark E. Peterson)


It could be argued that the empirical evidence indicates that "many" (most?) commercial foods are not healthy for our cats.

An excellent paper on why this happens (apart from the profit motive, but how it happens from a regulatory standpoint) is Deconstructing the Regulatory Façade: Why Confused Consumers Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes
.

2) Bacterial Risk of raw food. From the "bacterial risk" standpoint, the growth in factory farming / mass production and processing of meat (at least in the U.S.) has led to meat that is routinely contaminated with various parasitic problems: E. coli, salmonella, etc., thus there is a real basis for concern as re: eating / feeding raw food:

- Chicken consumption in the US has grown from 1.9m tons in 1960 to 13.3m in 2012;
- Beef consumption in the US has grown from 7.4m tons in 1960 to 11.5m in 2012;

(USDA figures compiled by Earth Policy Institute) http://www.earth-policy.org/data_center/C24

- “USDA accepts – indeed, expects – to find Salmonella in a significant fraction of raw poultry samples. In the fourth quarter of 2010, 4.2% of turkeys, 9.5% of broiler chickens, 9% of raw ground turkey samples and nearly 23% of raw ground chicken samples analyzed under USDA’s HACCP Verification Testing Program were positive for Salmonella.” http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/usdas-failed-salmonella-policy/#.UcdsKz5fkyc

Now – our carnivores are well adapted to managing this risk. This was demonstrated in this raw feeding study by the Winn Feline Foundation, actually: Nutritional adequacy and performance of raw food diets in kittens “Evidence of Salmonella infection was evident in some kittens fed the raw diet, but was not clinically significant. Both raw diets met the claims for nutritional adequacy. White blood cell counts were slightly elevated in the kittens fed the homemade raw diet, likely a reflection of the higher microbial content. Innate immunity appeared to function at a higher level in the kittens fed a raw diet.”

Of course, there are many studies (in people) indicating that exposure to allergens/pathogens increases innate immunity. It’s the whole basis of vaccination.
.

3) Ingredients in commercial food. The pet food industry grew up using the waste from the chain of human food production. This might have been a good thing in the 1950s and 1960s – even the 1970s. But since the progress of technology has allowed for ever more recovery of our waste for OUR food use – what goes into cat (and dog) food (for the most part) is the garbage of the garbage.

An excerpt from an article I wrote:

The New York Times article reported that Dr. Nestle (“pronounced NES-sel”) found “the so-called premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands. Within the premium brands, there is also a wide price range yet when the ingredients lists are compared, they are strikingly similar [as]…All pet foods are made from the byproducts of human food production. No matter what the package says, your dog is not getting whole chicken breasts, but what remains after the breasts have been removed for human food.” (emphasis added). The NYT article lists the largest manufacturers in the pet food industry: Nestlé, Purina, Mars and Procter & Gamble. But Nestlé owns Purina (having purchased Ralston Purina in 2001), and Del Monte, which holds the #3 market share spot in the pet food industry, is not included in the list. Each of the pet food industry giants is first and foremost a giant in packaged human foods. The pet food industry giants are found in just about every isle of the supermarket – not just the pet supplies isle: pet food puts what would otherwise be profit-draining waste to profit-enhancing use.

Drs. Nestle and Nesheim examined premium versus nonpremium brands and found that there often isn’t much difference in quality. Given most pet foods are manufactured from the human food chain waste products, this shouldn’t be overly surprising. They found that nonpremium (generic or supermarket distribution) pet foods contain more grains and by-products, but that “all contained basically the same ingredients.” Of course there are differences in protein sources, and marketing of “grain-free” foods has altered the pet food industry landscape forever. An apparent step in the right direction for a more species-appropriate diet, and certainly a life-saver for many pets that have developed allergies or other health problems related to consuming grains, sadly “grain-free” is not synonymous with low carbohydrates (see tables). It’s no news to vets and animal nutritionists that cats, as carnivores, have essentially no nutritional requirement for carbohydrates. Yet those grains have been replaced with peas, potatoes, and other “non-grain” carbohydrates. Carrots, peas, and potatoes not fit for human consumption are still cheaper than our waste meat products.

The article I wrote is here: http://catcentric.org/nutrition-and...y-cat-or-i-can-afford-to-feed-commercial-raw/ )


************************

Now, as to the “nutritional adequacy” issue. That was the entire discussion in this thread, already provided: http://www.thecatsite.com/t/239691/nutritionally-complete-assurances-for-our-pet-food

Auntie Crazy summed it up nicely:

I have repeatedly stated that science doesn't know everything there is to know about feline nutrition; they don't have a complete list of all the nutrients cats need, nor an understanding of the natural combinations in which those nutrients are best utilized.

And a very important point:

"Despite the lack of precise information on the requirements for many of the nutrients essential for cats and dogs and the paucity of information on the availability of nutrients in foods, many commercial diets support excellent growth, reproduction, and maintenance. However, these diets use empirical information that cannot be readily applied to the formulation of new diets. Progress in companion animal nutrition requires more precise information on requirements for various life stages (especially reproduction and maintenance), along with values for the bioavailability of nutrients in dietary ingredients. There is virtually no information on the bioavailability of nutrients for companion animals in many of the common dietary ingredients used in pet foods. These ingredients are generally byproducts of the meat, poultry and fishing industries, with the potential for wide variation in nutrient composition. Claims of nutritional adequacy of pet foods based on the current Association of American Feed Control Official (AAFCO) nutrient allowances ("profiles") do not give assurances of nutritional adequacy and will not until ingredients are analyzed and bioavailability values are incorporated." (Bold, my emphasis)

This is from Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle (Journal of Nutrition), written by members of the Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis.

The AAFCO guidelines / recommendations are often based on research not done in cats. As Carolina pointed out in this quote from the Harvard Grad law student paper above ( Deconstructing the Regulatory Façade: Why Confused Consumers Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes)

The rise in the use of grain and carbohydrate products over the last decade further contributes to the nutritional imbalance in commercial pet foods.[195] “Once considered a filler by the pet food industry, cereal and grain products now replace a considerable proportion of the meat that was used in the first commercial pet foods.”[196] Why the change? Cost. Corn is a much cheaper energy source than meat.[197] But the change in pet food formulas has a real impact on a pet’s health. “Dogs have little evolved need for carbohydrates and cats have no need for this source of energy.”[198] Moreover, although dogs and cats can almost completely absorb the carbohydrates from some grains such as rice, the nutrient availability of wheat, beans, and oats is poor. [199] Other ingredients, such as peanut hulls, have absolutely no significant nutritional value and are used strictly as filler.[200] This news is even more disturbing where two of the top three ingredients in dry pet foods is almost always some form of a grain product.[201] The result of ingredients with low nutritional value is a pet that is slowing starving to death and at the same time consuming more and more food. Also, since cats are true carnivores, one must wonder how pet food manufacturers justify feeding them substantial quantities of corn as part of their “balanced” diet…

…The proof that commercial pet food is not necessarily balanced is found on the packages: consider the high level of carbohydrates (as discussed above) and the “wild card” of the rendering process. Plus, each time regulatory agencies meet, they debate all over again how much of which nutrients will constitute 100% complete.[211] If this is so, then how could the previous balance of nutrients have been 100% complete? The most honest solution would be to cease the “complete and balanced” claims and start to educate the consumers about nutrition and their pets’ specific needs. But this would not sell pet food; the American public is addicted to the convenience of commercial pet foods and judging by the reluctance to eliminate fast food from our own diet, our pets will likely fare far worse.

Today, one simple word can strike fear in the heart of the pet food manufacturer claiming that its product is “100% complete”: taurine. Taurine is an essential amino acid found in most animal protein sources.[212] Taurine regulates the amount of calcium entering the heart tissue. The calcium then triggers each heart beat.[213] Thus, taurine deficiency can cause heart failure.[214] Few mammals are unable to produce taurine, but cats and humans are among them.[215] While the National Research Council did not issue a guideline regarding the minimal amount of taurine to be included in cat food until 1981, taurine was considered an essential nutrient as early as 1976.[216] In August of 1987, researchers at the University of California at Davis, reported in Science Magazine that a taurine deficiency in commercial cat foods had resulted in the deaths of thousands of cats before manufacturers began supplementing their products with taurine.[217]

Upon the discovery of the link between the dying cats and their taurine deficiencies, pet food companies, such as Ralston-Purina and Hill’s Pet Products, began reformulating their products to include additional taurine.[218] Ralston Purina produces Purina Cat Chow, the best-selling brand of cat food.[219] While no one will ever know exactly how many cats died as a result of eating nutritionally-inadequate pet food, there is little doubt that at least one (if not all) of the taurine-deficient brands bore the label “100% complete.”

.

Commercial pet foods may sustain life (now that cat food must contain minimum levels of taurine). But are they healthy for our cats?

Having had cats for (only) 11 years now - but having fed raw for only 1.5 of those, I can definitely say that my experience is that there is a very, very big distinction between sustaining life with food - and levels of energy and vitality from food. And I truly believed my cats were energetic and displayed vitality before I switched to raw, and argued such. Now that they eat raw food, the difference is... stark.

 

[tammyp]

Thanks again LDG,for your excellent collation of research. I've been going thru a period of self doubt with my raw feeding (Im sure it's common)...a long period of feline ill health, lots of bombardment of 'nutritional' advice, and it begins to wear you down.  Afterall, we just want our cats to be well, and I have a horror of ever making them sick; which is tapped into by many people/companies.  So it is good to refresh and 'reboot' with your information