PDA

View Full Version : Phosphorus and kilocalories of "new" Marinated Morsels by Fancy Feast


November 4th 05, 02:44 AM
I went to buy the Marinated Chicken or Tuna Feast in Savory Juices, as
Phil had pointed out, they are low in phosphorus. And low in
kilocalories, I might add.

BUT, it's now Marinated Morsels Chicken [or Tuna] Feast in Gravy,
grrrr.

New Bite Size! Whoppee. Web site, click here for more info. Get a
bigger picture of the can. Gee thanks.

I go to the web site. No info whatsoever, just dumb pictures. These
come out of focus groups which I once attended. I kept complaining,
give some info on the cans, at least kilocalories. But no, they were
interested only in the type of font and how big the picture which looks
like an ice cream dish instead of meat for a cat. Here cat, see the big
picture?

So I telephoned but I could not get through to any one. Too busy. No
wonder if you have to call and plead for info. They will mail the info,
so it takes about a week if you do get through. You can ask on the
phone but some of the info is not correct. Best to get it in writing.

So Phil P. or anyone, do you know yet the new specs for this "new"
food. I would like it to be the same as the old. Finally found some
supermarkets that carry no more than 2 of the good types of Fancy
Feast, those with no more, as a general rule, 0.80% OR LESS phosphorus.
Sometimes I go to 0.95% but rarely. I like to keep the phosphorus low
since there is talk and research that high phosphorus might initiate
urinary tract problems or diseases later down the road.

Why do they make it so hard to get this basic info? They are a BIG
company. Is it because they have Fancy Feast that is sky high in
phosphorus levels? They don't want to publish the specs? It's a real
and unnecessary aggravation. And makes me suspicious and want to find
alternative cat foods. Know any that I could buy outside the pet
stores? Anybody?

The old ones were:
*Marinated Chicken Feast in Savory Juices: 0.09% (AF) - 0.40% (DMB) 78
kcals
*Marinated Salmon Feast in Savory Juices: 0.13% (AF) - 0.59% (DMB) 80
kcals

These were extremely low in phosphorus and lower in kcals than many. So
quite attractive to me and my cat loved them. The DMB is Dry Matter
Basis which is the AF (As Fed) divived by the moisture content, which
is usually 78% for Fancy Feast, all different types. I have yet to find
a Fancy Feast that is not 78% water, which is a common benchmark for
the canned cat food industry.

Steve Crane
November 5th 05, 11:27 PM
wrote:
> Why do they make it so hard to get this basic info? They are a BIG
> company. Is it because they have Fancy Feast that is sky high in
> phosphorus levels? They don't want to publish the specs? It's a real
> and unnecessary aggravation. And makes me suspicious and want to find
> alternative cat foods. Know any that I could buy outside the pet
> stores? Anybody?

I suspect the biggest problem is what lot of food do you want values
for? Phosphorus levels in most such foods are not a key part of the
process, just an outcome that sometimes is good, and sometimes is not,
depending upon the shift it was produced and the raw ingredients used
today. I doubt seriously that you would find consistencey between
different lots of this food over time. If there is no consistency, then
publishing the data becomes problematic. If a consumer expects to
purchase a food with X% of some nutrient, and the product contains 2X%
of the ingredient, the manufacturer has a problem. On the other hand if
no data is provided, then the food can be 1X, 2X, or 10X and the
manufacturer has no concerns.

November 6th 05, 06:13 AM
Steve Crane wrote:
> wrote:
> > Why do they make it so hard to get this basic info? They are a BIG
> > company. Is it because they have Fancy Feast that is sky high in
> > phosphorus levels? They don't want to publish the specs? It's a real
> > and unnecessary aggravation. And makes me suspicious and want to find
> > alternative cat foods. Know any that I could buy outside the pet
> > stores? Anybody?
>
> I suspect the biggest problem is what lot of food do you want values
> for? Phosphorus levels in most such foods are not a key part of the
> process, just an outcome that sometimes is good, and sometimes is not,
> depending upon the shift it was produced and the raw ingredients used
> today. I doubt seriously that you would find consistencey between
> different lots of this food over time. If there is no consistency, then
> publishing the data becomes problematic. If a consumer expects to
> purchase a food with X% of some nutrient, and the product contains 2X%
> of the ingredient, the manufacturer has a problem. On the other hand if
> no data is provided, then the food can be 1X, 2X, or 10X and the
> manufacturer has no concerns.

Are you sure about this - do you have some kind of reference? I
appreciate your taking the time to post this but I think and I hope
what you say is not so for the companies I am interested in but may be
so for many others.10X, no way unless it's a no-name brand from a
no-name country or maybe one of those super holistic expensive types,
like Newman's who never tell me what's in their products.

Science Diet and I suspect Purina simply do not operate in this
fashion. Purina will mail to me the details which they could not if
your above supposition was correct for Purina. Your ideas may be
correct for all those who do not publish because they are not tracking
the levels. But they should not vary as much as you say unless it's
really a free for all operation. But who knows? Who analyzes the foods?

Phosphorus levels are tracked and are key and not trivial because of
health concerns. Generally the really stable food makers, like Science
Diet, in my experience, keep the food to certain standards. For
example, Science Diet will keep the pH of most of their non-senior
foods to 6.2 to 6.4. That's an important achievement in my estimation
and one that they are really using "science" in Science Diet. Most of
the other companies do not even know the pH or cannot tell me what I
call.

Maybe you're right. But I think if you can track pH levels, there is an
indication that the levels of the various nutrients are also being
tracked. So is my hope in this regard. I must depend on the kindness of
large corporations which is well, depending on the kindness of
strangers sometimes works and sometimes just about gets you killed. And
staying alive is what this is all about.

In any case, Purina is one of those huge conglomerates in which some
things are done right but most is for the superficial without much
substance. This is why they don't publish ALL their data. Science Data,
on the other hand, publishes everything on their website,
www.hillspet.com, right down to the pH levels, the As Fed and Dry Mater
Basis levels, the kilocalories, how much to feed. For example:

The following is from Hill's Pet which makes Science Diet and has
almost all the information I could possibly want, free, out in public.
I would give up having an all natural product when presented with
something that is spelled out in detail, the good and the bad. In this
case, the consistancy you refer to is key for me! and her felineness.

You'll notice that Science Diet has a minimum guarantee of phosphorus.
Do they always achieve their proportions? I believe they make an effort
to do so. One reason cats fed Science Diet do not have the urinary
problems of other cats is because Science Diet makes an effort to use
some science. This is what a vet told me and what I have observed. The
other cat foods sold in supermarkets are sky high in phosphorus, easily
twice to three times the amount of phosphorus. And if out of proportion
to calcium. Not a good combination. I once asked Pet Guard who makes
premium products sold in specialty stores and organic food stores, what
is their calcium to phosphorus ratio - they never could tell me! So
their products are fabulous but how do I ascertain that a proper
balance is maintained between Calcium and Phosphorus. I cannot so I
stopped buying their products. Wysong is like Pet Guard but publishes
all the details. So I buy their pure products, a few of which are not
fortified or balanced, but when I want pure meat for my cat as an
addition, almost as good as cooking a chicken for her but without the
hassles.

http://www.hillspet.com/zSkin_2/products/product_details.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=8455244417 60419&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302037387&bmUID=1131255959888

Gourmet Turkey Entrée Adult [SCIENCE DIET]

Tempt your Cat with the terrific taste of turkey, and keep her strong
and healthy at the same time. Gourmet Turkey Entrée Adult Cat Food not
only tastes great, it has all the essential nutrients cats need to stay
strong and healthy.

Key Benefits

* Adult Canned was developed to meet the nutrient and energy needs
for adult cats 1 to 6 years of age.
* Adult is available in a variety of formulas to suit individual
tastes.
* Enriched with taurine to help maintain good vision and a healthy
heart
* Low magnesium
* Tastes great- money-back guarantee

Daily Feeding Guide
Cover and refrigerate unused portion.

These ranges are a starting point only. Your pet may need less or more
food to maintain proper weight. Adjust as needed. If you are unsure,
ask your veterinarian.
Feeding this food for the first time? Mix increasing amounts of your
pet's new food with decreasing amounts of the old food over a 7-day
period.
When using with dry food, decrease the amount of canned food to avoid
overfeeding.

Adult maintenance - using 3 oz (85 g) can
Weight of Cat Amount per Day
5 lb (2,3 kg) 1 1/2 - 2 can
10 lb (4,5 kg) 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 can
15 lb (6,8 kg) 3 1/2 - 4 1/2 can

Adult maintenance - using 5.5 oz (156 g) can
Weight of Cat Amount per Day
5 lb (2,3 kg) 3/4 - 1 can
10 lb (4,5 kg) 1 1/3 - 1 3/4 can
15 lb (6,8 kg) 1 3/4 - 2 1/2 can

Adult maintenance - using 14.25 oz (404 g) can
Weight of Cat Amount per Day
5 lb (2,3 kg) 1/3 - 3/8 can
10 lb (4,5 kg) 1/2 - 2/3 can
15 lb (6,8 kg) 2/3 - 1 can

Product Characteristics
This product, by design, has the following characteristics:
High-Quality Protein Helps maintain strong bones and muscles.
Contains all essential amino acids including taurine to help ensure
optimal heart and eye health
Essential Fatty Acids Help maintain proper function of nervous and
immune systems, as well as promote healthy skin and a shiny coat.
Digestible Carbohydrates Supply abundant energy for adult cats.
Vitamins and Minerals Provide an ideal balance of vitamins and minerals
for adult cats.

Target Urine pH Normal acid (6.2 - 6.4)*

*Urine pH of individual cats may vary due to complicating factors such
as: time of feeding before urine collection, type of urine collection,
individual animal variation, and test methodology.

Metabolizable Energy¹ (Caloric Content)
Canned 1117 kcal/kg (95 kcal/ 85 g can 174 kcal/ 156 g can 451
kcal/ 404 g can )
¹Measurement of Usable Energy in a food, which differs substantially
from gross caloric content.

Average Nutrient Contents
Nutrient
Nutrient Guarantee
%As Fed1
%Dry Matter2
%As Fed,
Caloric Basis3
g/100
kcal
Protein 9.5 min 11.0 44.0 9.8
Fat 5.0 min 6.2 24.8 5.6
Carbohydrate (NFE) 5.7 22.8 5.1
Crude Fiber 0.8 max 0.6 2.4 0.5
mg/100 kcal3
Calcium 0.12 min 0.20 0.80 179
Phosphorus 0.10 min 0.18 0.72 161
Sodium 0.08 0.32 72
Potassium 0.18 0.72 161
Magnesium 0.024 max 0.020 0.080 18
Taurine 0.05 min 0.08 0.32 72
¹Differs from label guarantees which are either maximums or minimums.
²The nutrient in the product after moisture is removed. It is used to
make direct comparisons of nutrient profiles of products with differing
moisture contents.
³Nutrient intake for every 100 kilocalories consumed.


Ingredients
Water, turkey, liver, corn meal, corn gluten meal, chicken liver
flavor, powdered cellulose, guar gum, xanthan gum, locust bean gum,
DL-Methionine, taurine, minerals (calcium sulfate, dicalcium phosphate,
calcium carbonate, salt, potassium chloride, zinc oxide, ferrous
sulfate, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium
selenite), vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin D3 supplement, vitamin E
supplement, thiamine, niacin, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine
hydrochloride, riboflavin, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

Not bad eh? At least I know what I am getting, in nutrients, in
chemicals or what not, and it's not too bad, considering. Actually this
does not have by products so I kind of like it although it's a tad
higher in kilocalories than I like for her highness.

Again, thanks for your reply. I do not mean to quarrel but to discuss.
Your point is well taken and a bit scary.

November 6th 05, 06:26 AM
Treeline,

I think Steve's point is that Purina does not employ a fixed formula
for their grocery store foods (and maybe not even for their other
offerings??). Therefore, to receive specific data would be useless
since it would only refer to that single batch.

Perhaps Purina could give you some more insight on whether or not they
stick to a fixed formula and if not, then why not? :)

November 6th 05, 06:58 AM
wrote:
> Treeline,
>
> I think Steve's point is that Purina does not employ a fixed formula
> for their grocery store foods (and maybe not even for their other
> offerings??). Therefore, to receive specific data would be useless
> since it would only refer to that single batch.
>
> Perhaps Purina could give you some more insight on whether or not they
> stick to a fixed formula and if not, then why not? :)

Good point, I just looked up the PDF that Phil P. sent me and posted
here. There is not a min and a max for the phosphorus so I don't know
what that is. And compared to the calcium levels, it's out of whack for
the 5 Fancy Feasts that are not sky high in phosphorus. That's 5 out of
about what, 60 different types? By out of whack, I mean it's not the
1.1 to 1.0 ratio that I like to see with calcium to phosphorus for the
living creatures I am interested in feedings, namely, birds, humans,
and cats, not necessarily in that order :)

I can ask but it's almost impossible to get to a tech person. Although
they do have a vet and a dietician that one can post emails to. I don't
think I will be depending on Fancy Feast in the future as much as I
have in the recent past. It's probably the best of the supermarket
brands but not up to par for the specialty brands found only in pet
stores, like Science Diet. I keep touting them because that's what I've
been using. I don't know about Iams or Newmans or the others. She
sometimes eats Wellsong and loves the pure Wysong Chicken or Turkey au
Jus. If I get her hungry enough, she will eat anything but beef, smart
cat, knows what mad cow is about. Won't touch Fancy Feast with beef in
it. Very impressive. Smart feline. She has eaten beef at other times
too.

The lack of info is troubling from Fancy Feast, like pH maybe? So take
it for what it is. Supermarket stuff geared down and whose most
varieties are not satisfactory according to my demands for info and low
phosphorus levels and proper calcium to phosphorus ratios.

Thanks for your reply.

Phil P.
November 6th 05, 11:45 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...

> Good point, I just looked up the PDF that Phil P. sent me and posted
> here. There is not a min and a max for the phosphorus so I don't know
> what that is.

I sent you Nutrient Profiles (proximate analyses) which list the actual
nutrient contents in the food. The min/max is only the guaranteed analysis
which is *not* the actual nutrient contents. The GA is more harmful than
helpful because its misleading.


And compared to the calcium levels, it's out of whack for
> the 5 Fancy Feasts that are not sky high in phosphorus.

What do you consider "out of whack"? Cats can easily tolerate up to 1.25:1
or even a little higher. The C/P ratio of most diets fall within the range
of 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. The C/P ratios must meet the AAFCO requirements- so I
don't know what you're so worried about.

Simple solution: Buy only the diets that meet your C/P ratio requirements.

November 6th 05, 07:33 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Good point, I just looked up the PDF that Phil P. sent me and posted
> > here. There is not a min and a max for the phosphorus so I don't know
> > what that is.
>
> I sent you Nutrient Profiles (proximate analyses) which list the actual
> nutrient contents in the food. The min/max is only the guaranteed analysis
> which is *not* the actual nutrient contents. The GA is more harmful than
> helpful because its misleading.

True dat.

> And compared to the calcium levels, it's out of whack for
> > the 5 Fancy Feasts that are not sky high in phosphorus.
>
> What do you consider "out of whack"? Cats can easily tolerate up to 1.25:1
> or even a little higher. The C/P ratio of most diets fall within the range
> of 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. The C/P ratios must meet the AAFCO requirements- so I
> don't know what you're so worried about.
>
> Simple solution: Buy only the diets that meet your C/P ratio requirements.

Out of whack is above 0.80% phosphorus. Although I go to 0.95% for some
Fancy Feasts. Really when it's getting way over 1% near 2% phosphorus
is truly out of whack. My writing was not clear. I was not referring to
the C/P ratios but the percentage of phosphorus or P.

I get your AAFCO reference - if any food meets that standard or
requirement, then I can assume the Calcium:Phosphorus ratios are 1.25:1
down to 1.1:1. That's so very helpful to know since I did not hear back
from some manufacturers about this, Pet Guard and Newman's as I recall
off hand and a third premium brand I cannot remember. If the pet food
meets AAFCO standards, then this is not a concern.

Steve Crane
November 6th 05, 09:00 PM
wrote:
> I get your AAFCO reference - if any food meets that standard or
> requirement, then I can assume the Calcium:Phosphorus ratios are 1.25:1
> down to 1.1:1. That's so very helpful to know since I did not hear back
> from some manufacturers about this, Pet Guard and Newman's as I recall
> off hand and a third premium brand I cannot remember. If the pet food
> meets AAFCO standards, then this is not a concern.

I think it's important to understand that AAFCO Min/Max levels are
based on NRC (National Research Council) levels. Those were established
in 1977, slightly altered in 1981 and 1985. In many caes the nutrient
min/max levels are the same as those first determined in 1977. We've
learned a lot about nutrition in the last thirty years. New NRC
standards have been proposed but so far have not yet been completed nor
"published" to take effect.

Like Phil I don't consider the Ca/Phos ratio to be all that critical in
cats. Anything within the ranges above are fine. I'm not aware of any
research that shows any real issues within those ranges. Overall levels
of phos on the other hand are a major concern.

You commented on 0.8% DMB phos as being within an acceptable level of
phos, which it is for a healthy normal cat. For a CRF cat this would be
much too high.

My comments in an earlier post were relative to a manufacturers
decision process around the level of phos in the food. Outside of
staying below the maximum permitted level set by AAFCO, very few
manufacturers of typical grocery foods consider the level of phos as
anything important. Thus the levels may change from lot to another. You
are correct when it comes to Science Diet holding to very narrow target
ranges. Since I see the actual analyticals of every food we produce I
am very attuned to the narrow target ranges of dozens of nutrients that
Hill's keeps to a specific target. (I've worked for Hill's for over 20
years)

Phil P.
November 7th 05, 12:02 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > Good point, I just looked up the PDF that Phil P. sent me and posted
> > > here. There is not a min and a max for the phosphorus so I don't know
> > > what that is.
> >
> > I sent you Nutrient Profiles (proximate analyses) which list the actual
> > nutrient contents in the food. The min/max is only the guaranteed
analysis
> > which is *not* the actual nutrient contents. The GA is more harmful
than
> > helpful because its misleading.
>
> True dat.
>
> > And compared to the calcium levels, it's out of whack for
> > > the 5 Fancy Feasts that are not sky high in phosphorus.
> >
> > What do you consider "out of whack"? Cats can easily tolerate up to
1.25:1
> > or even a little higher. The C/P ratio of most diets fall within the
range
> > of 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. The C/P ratios must meet the AAFCO requirements- so
I
> > don't know what you're so worried about.
> >
> > Simple solution: Buy only the diets that meet your C/P ratio
requirements.
>
> Out of whack is above 0.80% phosphorus. Although I go to 0.95% for some
> Fancy Feasts. Really when it's getting way over 1% near 2% phosphorus
> is truly out of whack. My writing was not clear. I was not referring to
> the C/P ratios but the percentage of phosphorus or P.


Interestingly, an adult mouse contains 2.98% Ca and 1.72% P (DMB). What's
that- about 1.7: 1? Those figures come from the "Nutrient Composition of
Whole Vertebrate Prey" by the Animal Health Center, Wildlife Conservation
Society (a/k/a The Bronx Zoo). Now there's great a job!


>
> I get your AAFCO reference - if any food meets that standard or
> requirement, then I can assume the Calcium:Phosphorus ratios are 1.25:1
> down to 1.1:1. That's so very helpful to know since I did not hear back
> from some manufacturers about this, Pet Guard and Newman's as I recall
> off hand and a third premium brand I cannot remember. If the pet food
> meets AAFCO standards, then this is not a concern.

Yup. The AAFCO seal means the C:P ratio is correct.

Phil P.
November 7th 05, 12:10 AM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I think it's important to understand that AAFCO Min/Max levels are
> based on NRC (National Research Council) levels. Those were established
> in 1977, slightly altered in 1981 and 1985. In many caes the nutrient
> min/max levels are the same as those first determined in 1977. We've
> learned a lot about nutrition in the last thirty years. New NRC
> standards have been proposed but so far have not yet been completed nor
> "published" to take effect.

Another thing that bothers me about the NRC is that they used purified
diets- so, the nutrient determinations don't really apply to commercial
diets. That's probably why the AAFCO raised the minimum requirements.

Whatdaya think?

Phil P.
November 8th 05, 10:51 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > Good point, I just looked up the PDF that Phil P. sent me and posted
> > > here. There is not a min and a max for the phosphorus so I don't know
> > > what that is.
> >
> > I sent you Nutrient Profiles (proximate analyses) which list the actual
> > nutrient contents in the food. The min/max is only the guaranteed
analysis
> > which is *not* the actual nutrient contents. The GA is more harmful
than
> > helpful because its misleading.
>
> True dat.
>
> > And compared to the calcium levels, it's out of whack for
> > > the 5 Fancy Feasts that are not sky high in phosphorus.
> >
> > What do you consider "out of whack"? Cats can easily tolerate up to
1.25:1
> > or even a little higher. The C/P ratio of most diets fall within the
range
> > of 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. The C/P ratios must meet the AAFCO requirements- so
I
> > don't know what you're so worried about.
> >
> > Simple solution: Buy only the diets that meet your C/P ratio
requirements.
>
> Out of whack is above 0.80% phosphorus. Although I go to 0.95% for some
> Fancy Feasts. Really when it's getting way over 1% near 2% phosphorus
> is truly out of whack. My writing was not clear. I was not referring to
> the C/P ratios but the percentage of phosphorus or P.


Interestingly, an adult mouse contains 2.98% Ca and 1.72% P (DMB). What's
that- about 1.7: 1? Those figures come from the "Nutrient Composition of
Whole Vertebrate Prey" by the Animal Health Center, Wildlife Conservation
Society (a/k/a The Bronx Zoo). Now there's great a job!


>
> I get your AAFCO reference - if any food meets that standard or
> requirement, then I can assume the Calcium:Phosphorus ratios are 1.25:1
> down to 1.1:1. That's so very helpful to know since I did not hear back
> from some manufacturers about this, Pet Guard and Newman's as I recall
> off hand and a third premium brand I cannot remember. If the pet food
> meets AAFCO standards, then this is not a concern.

Yup.

Steve Crane
November 9th 05, 02:39 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > I think it's important to understand that AAFCO Min/Max levels are
> > based on NRC (National Research Council) levels. Those were established
> > in 1977, slightly altered in 1981 and 1985. In many caes the nutrient
> > min/max levels are the same as those first determined in 1977. We've
> > learned a lot about nutrition in the last thirty years. New NRC
> > standards have been proposed but so far have not yet been completed nor
> > "published" to take effect.
>
> Another thing that bothers me about the NRC is that they used purified
> diets- so, the nutrient determinations don't really apply to commercial
> diets. That's probably why the AAFCO raised the minimum requirements.
>
> Whatdaya think?

Agreed