OT -question on cat food @ Irene and Gaby, was AIDs --a sinister invention

[Irene de Villiers]

Gaby Rottler wrote:

With respect - it's not whether the food is dry, canned or raw that will
be relevant in the studies - it is what is IN these foods that will
cause the result of the study.

So this is the kind of study where a "test" of say "canned versus dry"
will be biased by the individual ingredients of the specific canned or
dry food used in the study. It is also biased by the feeding times and
type of water.
Many of these studies will use a food by the manufacturer supporting
the study (easy to check at a place like petfooddirect.com which lists
ingredients of various brands) against a food they KNOW is
inappropriate, from a competitor.
So basically they are comparing apples with oranges and reporting
that oranges have "insufficient apple" in them on analysis. There's
nothing valid about testing oranges for apple content - and the "Dry
versus canned" studies are equally faulty.

There ARE studies that use the same food ingredients dry and wet - and
they will show benefits of dry provided it is fed 24/7. These are rare
studies as there is no commercial food that provides dry and canned
equivalents. ALL the canned food has the same gooey junk added.

Dry food should not be meal-fed. So any study that does so, is also biased.
Cats in general should not be meal-fed. Their high protein metabolism
needs constant protein nibbles. (Insects suffice in the wild)

Water is very relevant. Studies often use tap water with whatever horrid
stuff is in it. Cats have more water taste buds than any other kind and
the taste of their water is very relevant to them. So is the
presentation. They hate being forced to drink from bowls into which
their whiskers do not fit - as their eyesight is very poor up close and
they need whiskers to feel where the water surface is so as not to dunk
a nose under water. Cats will avoid water if they have to breathe it
first to find where the surface is - and smarter cats will put food or
something into the water to help locate the surface they can not see.
(An opaque water bowl, like a coloured punch bowl is better than a
reflective steel or clear glass one - or your cat will try the toilet
bowl which fits this description.)
These factors all can skew studies, which then make conclusions to do
with food that are really to do with poor water supply.

Water supply is indeed less relevant in a canned food diet - but cats'
water requirements should not be confused with benefits of the dry food
being tested - which have to do with the CONTENT of the dry food.

In addition - the short term studies used are not enough to show the
gingivitis issues over time with canned food nor the failure of the gut
to absorb nutrients through a layer of gooey carrageenan as in canned
food but not dry.
Statistics where I worked (vet clinic with 2400 cats on the books for 25
years) showed clearly that dry-food only cats had less "dentals" than
those on canned who had yearly requirements.
My own cats used to get canned food as a treat - till I realized it was
the cause of the gingivitis I saw in my older cat - and I swapped to dry
only with canned from real food sources only such as salmon, sardines,
chicken turkey - as in cans for people - no more "cat food" cans.

I advocate FILTERED water for cats, in a large amber or green etc punch
bowl - placed AWAY from the food area. How much water an individual cat
consumes will be in accordance with at least these factors:
Environment (heat, moisture etc)
Activity level
Constitutional type.
[For example Sulph cats need 2 cups a day against 1 or less for another
constitutional type of same size in the same environment. Neither is
ill, it's just individuality at work.]
Moisture in food.
I strive for the "best interests of the cat" type solutions. As with
anything else in homeopathy that is individual. What I advocate for cats
in general is inappropriate for diabetic cats for example due to the 34%
carbohydrate content which is too high - and so on.
But there is usefulness in finding a "current best commercial option"
for the great majority of cats in my view. I also advocate a home made
approach for those that want it - but it is not the simplistic "throw
raw meat and bones with toxins added" that is so commonly advocated.

Having a standard for healthy cats of the "best I can find currently"
makes a good starting place for clients, and provides a yardstick for
other options that vary from this.
NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Irene de Villiers]

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

I agree with this.
I've 9 generations of my own breeding to go by at the moment:-)
This is bogus. It matters what is *in* the dry or wet kibble ))
Some dry food is mainly meat, fish and egg with beneficial fats and fibers.
Other dry "food" has no meat, no beneficial fats and no beneficial
fibers AT ALL yet is sold at vet clinics where it is considered
"premium" food!

I do not know what pens you are referring to, but even without that I
can see right through this little demo )

Namaste,
IRene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Youlia Anderson]

But there is usefulness in finding a "current best commercial option"
for the great majority of cats in my view. I also advocate a home made
approach for those that want it - but it is not the simplistic "throw
raw meat and bones with toxins added" that is so commonly advocated.

Having a standard for healthy cats of the "best I can find currently"
makes a good starting place for clients, and provides a yardstick for
other options that vary from this.
NAmaste,
IRene
------------------------------
Oh my, Irene. You are way more misinformed then I thought! I am not going to debate it with you, its a waste of time,looks like. If you can`t understand a simple logic that carnivores were designed to thrive of fresh meat, bones and organs of a prey , then I don`t see the point of debating. All the study were done to benefit the commercial pet food industry. They make billions on selling processed junk to pet owners. Then vets making tons of money treating the side effects of this bogus diet.Meanwhile our pets dying in numbers in early age suffering from periodontal disease, diabetes, cancers because they eat junk . Kibble was invented to dispose of human waste, it never was and never will be about health of animals. There is a good book on a subject, written by a well known vet.He explains it very well how periodontal disease affects the whole animal.
http://www.rawmeatybones.com/
Youlia