Which food is the lesser of two evils??

[ilovemia]

Don't be so sure, as I fed it.
Royal Canin Veterinary Diet Hypoallergenic Hydrolyzed Protein Adult HP Dry Cat Food
Ingredients:
Brewers rice, hydrolyzed soy protein, chicken fat, natural flavors, powdered cel¬lulose, vegetable oil, dried beet pulp, monocalcium phosphate, fish oil, potassium chloride, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, fructooligosaccharides, sodium silico aluminate, salt, taurine, vitamins [DL-alpha tocopherol acetate (source of vitamin E), inositol, niacin supplement, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), D-calcium pantothenate, biotin, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), riboflavin supplement (vitamin B2), thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), vitamin A acetate, folic acid, vitamin B12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement], choline chloride, DL-methionine, marigold extract (Tagetes erecta L.), trace minerals [zinc protein¬ate, zinc oxide, ferrous sulfate, manganese proteinate, copper proteinate, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite], rosemary extract, preserved with natural mixed tocopherols and citric acid.
Ohhhhhhhh yeah it has Chicken fat and fish oil

In my book, yep, vegetarian- All the protein in there comes FROM PLANTS.

It is a hypoalergenic diet food. Of course it will have no meat in it if that is the suspected cause of allergy. After thye are established on this and feeling better, then you add a meat. One kind at a time to rule out allergies. Thats why its RXed so people keep having to go back to the vet for a refill and to see how the cat is doing as meat is added again.

 

[ldg]

It is a hypoalergenic diet food. Of course it will have no meat in it if that is the suspected cause of allergy. After thye are established on this and feeling better, then you add a meat. One kind at a time to rule out allergies. Thats why its RXed so people keep having to go back to the vet for a refill and to see how the cat is doing as meat is added again.

Actually, Hill's Pet has a hypoallergenic food with hydrolized animal proteins. So it isn't a situation of "of course it will have no meat in it." :dk:

 

[ilovemia]

Personally I think your decision to stay on the wet diet is a sound one.  So far I've been able to avoid the dentals and really, really don't want to put my furkids through that.  I can't get mine to eat bones or wings.  I mean they refuse to even sniff at them.  So far the feline Greenies treats seem to be doing their job.  Maybe it's the small amount of kibble they graze during the day.  I dunno, just glad we have good choppers here

Over the years none of my cats ever had dentals and all were great eaters of kibble only. They have all lived long lives. I sometimes wonder if when you take the cats for a dental, they start scraping to much calcium off and cause more problems with decay. In the wild cats never had dentals. Just something to think about.

 

[carolina]

Actually, Hill's Pet has a hypoallergenic food with hydrolized animal proteins. So it isn't a situation of "of course it will have no meat in it." :dk:

Hills' Z/D canned has far better ingredients than this one IMHO, even the dry.

 

[Willowy]

Over the years none of my cats ever had dentals and all were great eaters of kibble only. They have all lived long lives. I sometimes wonder if when you take the cats for a dental, they start scraping to much calcium off and cause more problems with decay. In the wild cats never had dentals. Just something to think about.

Yeah, but in the wild, cats eat little critters with bones. Not kibble or mushy food. So it's not really the same situation :dk:. Some of mine have had dentals, some haven't. Some cats have really crummy teeth no matter what they eat . Must be genetic.

IF the vet wanted to assess the cat periodically and add meats back in, I'd be fine with that. But it seems like vets just slap the prescription foods all over the place "client: "hey Doc, my cat sometimes throws up" Doc: "well, we better try this prescription food then!"), AND tell you to stick with that food forever. Grrr.

 

[carolina]

It is a hypoalergenic diet food. Of course it will have no meat in it if that is the suspected cause of allergy. After thye are established on this and feeling better, then you add a meat. One kind at a time to rule out allergies. Thats why its RXed so people keep having to go back to the vet for a refill and to see how the cat is doing as meat is added again.

It is not the only hydrolyzed protein food in the market, just as an FYI. I know the protocol well, having tried most of them.... Hills Z/D worked better than this one, it certainly didn't add all the pounds on Bugsy that this one did. But for him no diet worked except for raw. I tried RC, I tried Hills, I tried limited ingredient diets, I tried grain free.... I tried a LOT of diets and a TON of meds, in the end, a natural, species-appropriate diet did the trick for him (which unfortunately I fought against for a very long time.... ).

 

[tobytyler]

Both Toby

 and Cricket were on RC Hypoallergenic kibble for Toby's allergies for years.  It was very expensive but it did work for me at the time and his hair stopped falling out. 

That said, if I knew then what I do now I would have researched other alternatives.  Toby only lived to be less than 13,  which was far too short.  I am not saying that his diet caused his death.  But now in hindsight I realize he wasn't at his optimum health either, and that I do attribute to diet.

I disagree that there is no room for discussion or varying opinions here.  We all want to do what works best for our own situation and ultimately what is best for our cats. I was frankly pretty dead set against feeding raw, and joined TCS for an entirely different reason than diet concerns.  I did however make the switch to raw recently after weighing the pros and cons and with the help of this site.

I will add that I did notice a significant change in my 3 cats, both in their interactions with each other and with me.  What was the most amazing thing was it changed mealtime into a whole new enjoyable experience for all of us.   There was a personal benefit, as another member posted on my thread about the raw transition.  And once you make the transition away from kibble, as mentioned, the last thing you would want is to reintroduce it.

Also, when I mentioned I was feeding raw, my vet (not a raw food supporter) said he did see the animals he treats on a raw diet had significantly better dental health than the non-raw animals, both cats and dogs.

 

[tobytyler]

That I believe is true in most cases.

 

[bluebo]

Yikes what a lot of attacks towards my posts and a lot of hostile contempt towards these companies!  How do I begin to reply?  I could say a lot in defence of these so called terrible ingredients everyone names, and tell you that it's the nutrients that come from the ingredients, not the ingredients themselves, that ultimately are being used by your cat's body, and therefore what are ultimately important in any food.  It doesn't matter which sources the nutrients come from (meat, veggies, grains or supplements), as long as they are in the right amounts and are being digested by the cat.  Many studies have shown, for example, that some plant proteins are very highly digestible in cats and contain many amino acids and other nutrients that are very beneficial to their health.  In the case of the hypoallergenic diet you referenced (which does contain fats from animals and so is not vegetarian), it is very useful in managing severe IBD and food allergies in cats.  Look at the reviews on the link you provided and others, and you will see that this diet can be very effective (although of course it's not going to work for every cat):  http://reviews.petfooddirect.com/pr...Feline-Hypoallergenic-HP-23-Dry-Cat-Food.html.  You can go ahead and judge it by reading the ingredient list alone, but that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the nutrients that your cat is getting through that food.  You can see, though, that although there is no meat-based protein, the essential amino acids that are not provided in the protein sources (like taurine) are being supplemented.  I'm sure you realize that this food wasn't made for the purpose of feeding perfectly healthy cats with no food allergies.  It is meant for pretty extreme cases, where a food like this might be needed in order for certain cats to live a quality life.  

As for water consumption, which seems to be the biggest argument against dry food in general, I can tell you that my cats never eat wet or raw, but they do consume a lot of water.  The food they eat is meant to increase their thirst and water intake, and it works.  

But I feel like I am wasting my time trying to convince people here.  It is pretty clear there is no room on this forum for different opinions about pet nutrition, however well-founded they may be, so I won't waste my time trying to explain more.  If I did, I could see myself typing away frustratedly for days...  the lack of accurate information put forward by people here frustrates me so much!!  

All I have left to say is, if so many cats being fed Royal Canin are living long, very healthy lives, the science behind that food is indisputably working.  There is no proof other than in the results.  And if anyone here is actually wondering about feeding Royal Canin, I'd encourage you to find out accurate information about them (try through their website for starters, not google or forums) before passing judgement on a food that could be helping your pet.

Also, Carolina - I don't, but I'm sure I'd love to.

BUT- if cat is not physiologically created to eat a certain item/ingredient, why are these companies putting them in their product?
It is a given that dry food requires a "filler" or binder in order for everything to stick together when being processed. These ingredients are not naturally consumed by a feline and that is what concerns me.
I feed high and low quality canned because most of the ingredients are appropriate (MOST) and mainly because it is WET.
A little bit of back story- I got my cat 2.5 years ago from the local SPCA. We noticed almost immediately that he had constipation issues. We started him on Royal Canin (Medi-Cal) Gastro for his constipation. It did help him in the beginning but as time went on he developed even worse constipation then he had previous to using Royal Canin food.
I started researching high fibre diets and what I discovered startled me! I was told by the vets that Bo required MORE fibre but in fact, he needed LESS fibre.
As soon as I switched him to a lower fibre kibble he started to improve but not by much. I started giving him half wet and half kibble and he improved even more. BUT he was still pooping with blood.
I switched him to 100% wet (with the assistance from members on this board) and he is now blood free and popping consistently and effortlessly.
I have NO doubt that this would have turned into a case of mega colon. Thank God it didn't get that bad.
So while this Royal Canin veterinary formula was created to assist a specific issue. In my cats situation it exacerbated it. Why? That is the question that these companies must ask themselves. Why does this formula not work? What can we tweak to make it more effective? If they did more research they would realize that bulking up stool is only effective when an animal (or human for that matter) consumes enough water. Being a feline (originally a desert creature) he did NOT drink sufficient amounts of water. Scientists/biologists should know this.
I have no qualms with people who feed kibble. Be it financially or for convenience. Feed what you like.
BUT feeding something for financial/convenience reasons doesn't make it biologically appropriate.

 

[rad65]

As for water consumption, which seems to be the biggest argument against dry food in general, I can tell you that my cats never eat wet or raw, but they do consume a lot of water.  The food they eat is meant to increase their thirst and water intake, and it works.  

The food they eat is meant to make them thirsty? The prey that cats hunt are their main source of water in the wild. Any food that changes that and requires cats to supplement the water they get from food with real water isn't ideal.

 

[just mike]

Do be careful with that Mike.... I would make sure to get them to the dentist or a good dental at least now that they are older..... If you chose not to do it once a year, fine, but no food, no treats will remove the plaque underneath the gum line. Periodontal disease is linked to CRF, and can also affect the liver and heart - it can get dangerous and it is something that can be prevented, but only a dentist can do it. Anesthesia used to be much more dangerous in the past, but it is not the case anymore, not for healthy animals anyway..... I have had many conversations with several vets, both traditional and holistic about it, and all told me the same thing. The risks are very very small - much smaller than not having dental care.
Bugsy has dentals every year because of his stomatitis, hopefully now that he is on raw he is not going to need as often - I just took him to the vet and his mouth is the best it has ever been, even being off meds..... So

things will change! Hope's first dental was at 5, and Lucky's at 4.....

I know Carolina!  I have them checked every year and nada.  Outside of a little plaque none of them have had any dental issues.  Doesn't seem right but I even had my senior girl checked when she was at the vet school in Columbia and they came up with the same conclusion.  I'm not naive' enough to give kibble the credit for it either.  They get feline Greenies daily so I'm sure that helps but...  One of my dogs has already had one and he's only 4 years old. 

Now, about the anesthesia.  I was extremely reluctant to allow him to put my senior girl down with the "in and out" anesthesia.  Well, any anesthesia but this in and out business didn't sit well with me.  I was assured about it and allowed them to do it.  She is very, very disagreeable and he needed to do it in order to draw blood, check her teeth and get good Xrays.  She was in and out in an hour, fully alert and ready to bite or scratch anyone within reach.  I was really impressed!  So you're right, it's not nearly as dangerous as it used to be.

Any opinions on the 1 hour anesthetic?  I was terrified.