PDA

View Full Version : Good canned foods: what to look for?


AlexZ
February 27th 06, 11:52 PM
I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post
that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in
canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would
volunteer to put it together in one post.

Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?

Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not?

Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %?

Anything else?

Which of this information is not available on cans themselves and must
be obtained some other way?

To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a
separate thread about dry food if there is interest.

MaryL
February 28th 06, 01:21 AM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
>I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post
> that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in
> canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would
> volunteer to put it together in one post.
>
> Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?
>
> Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not?
>
> Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %?
>
> Anything else?
>
> Which of this information is not available on cans themselves and must
> be obtained some other way?
>
> To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a
> separate thread about dry food if there is interest.

I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum
nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post the
actual nutritional analysis by brand and variety, so you may simply be
duplicating work that has already been done. Here are some examples
(including both canned and dry food, although I realize that your request
was for canned food only):

KatKarma nutritional analysis of canned cat food (ordered by phosphorus
content):
http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm
KatKarma nutritional analysis of dry cat food (ordered by phosphorus
content):
http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dryfood.htm
Janet & Binky's Canned Cat Food Nutritional Information (includes calories):
http://www.sugarcats.net/sites/jmpeerson/canfood.html
Janet & Binky's Dry Cat Food Nutritional Information (includes calories):
http://www.sugarcats.net/sites/jmpeerson/dryfood.html

MaryL

cybercat
February 28th 06, 02:12 AM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
> I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post
> that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in
> canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would
> volunteer to put it together in one post.
>
> Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?

I only buy canned cat food in which the first ingredient reads "beef,
chicken, fish, turkey," etc., in other words, not by-products. I have
found that this is true only of premium foods and a few cheaper brands.
When I last looked into the nutrition in canned food, I found that if the
first ingredient is real meat, the other nutrition is usually good.

One exception might be if your cat is allergic to wheat gluten. Some of
the FF brands that have meat as a first ingredient have wheat gluten.

Victor Martinez
February 28th 06, 05:00 AM
AlexZ wrote:
> Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)

Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products.

> Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?

Some fish may contain high ammounts of heavy metals.

> Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not?

In my experience, tubers are better than grains.

> Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %?

Not sure about that, but I don't worry about it if I'm feeding a good
quality food.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

Mathew Kagis
February 28th 06, 09:00 AM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
> I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post
> that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in
> canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would
> volunteer to put it together in one post.
>
> Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?
>
> Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not?
>
> Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %?
>
> Anything else?
>
> Which of this information is not available on cans themselves and must
> be obtained some other way?
>
> To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a
> separate thread about dry food if there is interest.

I'm certainly no expert, but I tend towards the 'groovy, natural' stuff...
Innova, Welness brand etc... I preffer to see ingredients like 'chicken' not
'chiken meal' & 'brown rice' not 'rice flour'... The less processed, the
better in my book...
--
Mathew
Butler to 3 cats: Chablis, Muscat & Sage
En Vino Veritas


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Upscale
February 28th 06, 09:09 AM
"Mathew Kagis" > wrote in message
>
> I'm certainly no expert, but I tend towards the 'groovy, natural' stuff...
> Innova, Welness brand etc... I preffer to see ingredients like 'chicken'
not
> 'chiken meal' & 'brown rice' not 'rice flour'... The less processed, the
> better in my book...

All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the
cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried yet),
my cat will only eat Iams type hard cat chow. So far, I estimate that I've
invested a good $100 on other brands of cat food, including various canned
types and aside from a little bitty piece of processed cheese once in
awhile, she won't eat anything else. This includes her not liking various
types of people food like chicken, shrimp, tuna and cream.

Victor Martinez
February 28th 06, 01:18 PM
Upscale wrote:
> All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the
> cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried yet),

I don't recommend starving your cat to force him/her to eat a certain
brand of food. You can't outstubborn a cat. Which is why ours don't eat
only Innova/Felidae/etc. They don't like it as much as they like Nutro.


--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

Mathew Kagis
February 28th 06, 04:06 PM
"Upscale" > wrote in message
...

> All this 'natural' food is all well and good, but doesn't it depend on the
> cat? Short of starving your furball for a week (which I haven't tried
yet),
> my cat will only eat Iams type hard cat chow. So far, I estimate that I've
> invested a good $100 on other brands of cat food, including various canned
> types and aside from a little bitty piece of processed cheese once in
> awhile, she won't eat anything else. This includes her not liking various
> types of people food like chicken, shrimp, tuna and cream.
>
Have you tried a gradual blending of new food into the Iams? Just a
thought... Mine are not so particular & don't (so far) seem to object to
variety when it comest to their dry kibble... When it comes to 'gooshy'
food... If it comes from a can... It MUST be good!
> --
Mathew
Butler to 3 cats: Chablis, Muscat & Sage
En Vino Veritas


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Upscale
February 28th 06, 04:23 PM
"Mathew Kagis" > wrote in message
> >
> Have you tried a gradual blending of new food into the Iams? Just a
> thought... Mine are not so particular & don't (so far) seem to object to
> variety when it comest to their dry kibble... When it comes to 'gooshy'
> food... If it comes from a can... It MUST be good!

Yes, I did try blending various new foods, but it's a little difficult to
blend moist food with dry kibble. When I first brought my six month old
Deetoo home from animal services, I had all this special cat food ready for
her which she refused to touch. Fortunately, the shelter had included a few
packages of Performatrim which is what they fed all their cats. The Iams was
the closest I could find to that in the local stores and she went for it.

I guess I shouldn't be complaining. Iams cat chow and water, it's a very
simple and easy food regimen. Obviously, it's working because my little
sweetie is big and strong like a bull.

Racquel Darrian
February 28th 06, 05:03 PM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
>I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find a post
> that puts it all together. If you would state what to look for in
> canned food (from health and nutrition point of view), I would
> volunteer to put it together in one post.
>
> Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> Avoid or at least minimize fish and other seafood?
>
> Carbs: If we mush have some, which ones are acceptable, which ones not?
>
> Sodium, Mg, Ca, Phosphorous (any others?): Ideal %? Acceptable %?
>
> Anything else?
>
> Which of this information is not available on cans themselves and must
> be obtained some other way?
>
> To minimize confusion, please stay with canned food. We can have a
> separate thread about dry food if there is interest.

In the UK I have found that my cat will eat (this is a big thing with my cat
who would rather starve than eat something he doesn't like) Somerfields
Premium Chicken in Supermeat. it has 14% chicken as opposed to 4% in most
other brands.

February 28th 06, 06:03 PM
Victor Martinez wrote:
> AlexZ wrote:
> > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
>
> Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products.
>
Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?

PawsForThought
February 28th 06, 06:42 PM
Victor Martinez wrote:
> AlexZ wrote:
> > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
>
> Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products.

What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list
by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things
like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition
for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver
flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver.

MaryL
February 28th 06, 07:00 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> I wish petfood companies would list
> by-products for what they really are.
>

Yes, and that goes for human food, too. I wish manufacturers/producers were
required to list ingredients *in plain English* (or the language of the
nation where it is sole). One almost needs to be a detective to decipher
some ingredients.

MaryL

cybercat
February 28th 06, 07:51 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Victor Martinez wrote:
> > AlexZ wrote:
> > > Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> >
> > Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed
by-products.
>
> What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list
> by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things
> like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition
> for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver
> flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver.
>

Yes, I should have mentioned why I don't want byproducts as the first
ingredient--precisely because they don't tell you what is really in there.
I recognize that muscle meat isn't the only thing cats need. Good point.

AlexZ
February 28th 06, 08:01 PM
MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:

: I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum
: nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post the
: actual nutritional analysis by brand and variety, so you may simply be
: duplicating work that has already been done. Here are some examples
: (including both canned and dry food, although I realize that your request
: was for canned food only):

The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is
good and where it begins to get bad. Also the page is 3 yrs old (some
formulas could have changed?) and the updated page has many fewer
entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to interoret
the % numbers.

AlexZ
February 28th 06, 08:09 PM
"> wrote:

: Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
: linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?

As I understand it, thanks to pages like
http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004

the problem is not with "byproducts" in a natural setting but with what
gets called "buproducts" in industrial food production. Even good
quality pet food is basically a byproduct of human foods, and what gets
labeled as "byproduct" could be very poor quality in terms of chemical
impurities, diseased meat, etc. Or so I understand thus far.

So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely
inerpret the words used by our industries?

MaryL
February 28th 06, 08:58 PM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
> MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>
> : I think it would be a good idea to post information about optimum
> : nutritional data. However, there are already some web sites that post
> the
> : actual nutritional analysis by brand and variety, so you may simply be
> : duplicating work that has already been done. Here are some examples
> : (including both canned and dry food, although I realize that your
> request
> : was for canned food only):
>
> The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is
> good and where it begins to get bad. Also the page is 3 yrs old (some
> formulas could have changed?) and the updated page has many fewer
> entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to interoret
> the % numbers.

Yes, I would like to see the pages updated. The % refers to each nutrient
as a percent age of calories (kcal).

MaryL

AlexZ
February 28th 06, 09:09 PM
MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
: "AlexZ" > wrote in message
: > The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is
: > good and where it begins to get bad. Also the page is 3 yrs old (some
: > formulas could have changed?) and the updated page has many fewer
: > entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to interoret
: > the % numbers.
:
: Yes, I would like to see the pages updated. The % refers to each nutrient
: as a percent age of calories (kcal).

Sorry, by not being able to interpret, I meant I don't know if 0.067%
of something is good, bad, acceptable, dangerous, etc. Just lack of
education on my part, but I thought it would be nice if after years and
years of discussions and debates a group like this could evolve a
concrete list people could refer to.

MaryL
February 28th 06, 09:17 PM
"AlexZ" > wrote in message
...
> MaryL -OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
> : "AlexZ" > wrote in message
> : > The web pages you mention give numbers but don't tell me which % is
> : > good and where it begins to get bad. Also the page is 3 yrs old (some
> : > formulas could have changed?) and the updated page has many fewer
> : > entries. Still, it is a good source. I just don't know how to
> interoret
> : > the % numbers.
> :
> : Yes, I would like to see the pages updated. The % refers to each
> nutrient
> : as a percent age of calories (kcal).
>
> Sorry, by not being able to interpret, I meant I don't know if 0.067%
> of something is good, bad, acceptable, dangerous, etc. Just lack of
> education on my part, but I thought it would be nice if after years and
> years of discussions and debates a group like this could evolve a
> concrete list people could refer to.

Oh, sorry. I agree...there have been some discussions, and I failed to
bookmark them. I hope someone can direct us to a good source for this
information (although there is a lot of disagreement, of course!).

MaryL

Victor Martinez
March 1st 06, 01:49 AM
wrote:
>>>Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
>>
>>Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products.
>>
>
> Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
> linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?

Actually, cats tend not to eat feathers or beaks. :) I have no idea what
"by-products" actually contains, anything from beaks to diseased
animals. There was no linking anything. If you read the original
sentence, there were two questions asked. Which I answered.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

Upscale
March 1st 06, 05:42 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
>
> This is for example only and I'm not endorsing either of these foods.
> I just wanted to show how one food lists "by-products" and how the
> other food will list what it is, "chicken liver."

I've always taken by-product to mean some other part of the animal. For
instance, if you're talking about beef, by-product might be some heart,
liver, kidney, ground ligament, or other bits of the animal.

PawsForThought
March 1st 06, 07:23 PM
Upscale wrote:
> "PawsForThought" > wrote in message
> >
> > This is for example only and I'm not endorsing either of these foods.
> > I just wanted to show how one food lists "by-products" and how the
> > other food will list what it is, "chicken liver."
>
> I've always taken by-product to mean some other part of the animal. For
> instance, if you're talking about beef, by-product might be some heart,
> liver, kidney, ground ligament, or other bits of the animal.

I used to think that too, but it seems if the ingredient were actually
liver for instance, it would be listed as liver, and not as a
by-product, as in this example:

"By-product: An ingredient produced in the course of making a primary
food ingredient; a secondary or incidental product. Feathers are a
by-product of poultry meat processing. Feathers which are removed from
a carcass during production of poultry meat are then hydrolyzed
(pressure cooked with steam until they are an edible gel) which makes
them an acceptable feed grade ingredient. Hydrolyzed feathers have been
assigned the (IFN) International Feed Number 5-03-795 and can appear on
a label as "Poultry By-products." On page 158 in the AAFCO book,
Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control
Officials Incorporated, they show: Hydrolyzed Poultry By-Products
Aggregate is the product resulting from heat treatment, or a
combination thereof, of all by-products of slaughter poultry, clean and
undecomposed, including such parts as heads, feet, underdeveloped eggs,
intestines, feathers and blood." The IFN assigned to this mix is
5-14-508. Today's regulations allow the entire mix or any part of it to
appear on a label as "Poultry By-products." A "Fish By-product" can
contain heads, tails, intestines and blood. This fish process residue
has been assigned the IFN 5-07-977. A "Meat By-product" could be
viscera and blood soaked sawdust from the floors of a packing house
where meat is being processed. The meat being processed can be lamb,
beef, horse, or any other source. Each one has its own IFN. Some of the
animal feed IFN's that contain wood shavings from the floor of a
processing facility include "Dried Ruminant Waste" #1-07-526, and
"Undried Processed Animal Waste Products" #5-02-790. It is important to
note that the amount of wood shavings in either of these two "Meat
By-products" is limited and should not be more than 35% in one and 40%
in the other. When a pet food label's list of ingredients shows the
word By-product you can be assured that there is NO measurable amount
of meat in the ingredient. If the ingredient contained enough meat that
it could be measured the pet food company would proudly list the MEAT,
not just the By-product of that meat's production."

Steve Crane
March 2nd 06, 03:48 AM
AlexZ wrote:
> "> wrote:
>
> : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
> : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?
>
> As I understand it, thanks to pages like
> http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004
>
> the problem is not with "byproducts" in a natural setting but with what
> gets called "buproducts" in industrial food production. Even good
> quality pet food is basically a byproduct of human foods, and what gets
> labeled as "byproduct" could be very poor quality in terms of chemical
> impurities, diseased meat, etc. Or so I understand thus far.
>
> So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely
> inerpret the words used by our industries?

It's a bit more basic than that. You can buy meat meals of any specie
in a dozen different grades. It is easily possible to buy a chicken
meal that contains 20% ash for less money than a chicken by-product
meal that contains 5% ash. That chicken meal may have a digestibility
level of only 50%, while the chciken by product meal may be 80%.
Anytime you attempt to review a pet food based on ingredients alone,
you are doomed to failure. Why? Becasue reading an ingredinet label
alone will not tell you what quality that ingredient is. For example
suppose a pet food contains "chicken". Nothing on the lable tells you
if the "chicken" is highly digestible, contains abroad spectrum of
amino acids, or instead is very low digestibility and contains 20% ash
or ground up bones.

For those reasons you need to look a bit deeper. Review the nutrients
and not the ingredients. No animal uses an "ingredient", they use the
nutrients that the ingredients are suppposed to bring to the table.
Take the time to look at nutrient levels, digestibility, antioxidant
vitamin levels, etc.

Steve Crane
March 2nd 06, 09:48 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
On page 158 in the AAFCO book,
> Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control
> Officials Incorporated,

1994?? you have to be joking right? There have been literally dozens
upons dozens of changes since 1994.


> they show: Hydrolyzed Poultry By-Products Aggregate

Nonsense - just let me know what pet food contains that ingredient -
I'd love to see it. Remember that ingredients definitions are hard and
fast, you cannot substitute "hydrolyzed poultry by product aggregate"
for "poultry by products" - they are two separate and distinct
ingredients. Any manufacturer that used "hydrolyzed poultry by
products" would have to use that exact term on the label.


> Today's regulations allow the entire mix or any part of it to
> appear on a label as "Poultry By-products."

You mean your 12 year old AAFCO regulations - but not "todays"
regulations -
2005 AFFCO Poultry By products is defined as:
" Poultry by-products must consist of non-rendered clean parts of
carcasses of slaughtered poultry such as heads, feet, viscera, free
from fecal content and foreign matter except in such trace mounts as
might unavoidably ocurr in good factory practice. If the product bears
a name descriptive of its kind, the name must correspond thereto"

It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or
more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry,
venison, salmon etc. You can buy high quality low ash meals or cheap
high ash meals. The cheaper high ash meals derive that additional ash
from the ground up bones in the meat meal. This can show up in the
finished product in elevated levels of calcium and phosphorus. Remember
that pure muscle meats - regardless of specie - contains about 0.01%
calcium, and there is very little calcium in grains, fats, oils, etc
used in commercial foods. The vast majority of calcium in any food
comes from the meat meals. So how does a finished food end up with 2%
calcium - or 200 times the level of calcium intrinsic to the muscle
tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat
meals.


> A "Meat By-product" could be
> viscera and blood soaked sawdust

False - there is no provision within the AAFCO definition for generic
meat meal which permits the addition of "sawdust" - that is just silly
internet mythology. The 2005 AAFCO definition of meat By-products is as
follows:

"Meat By-products is the nonrendered, clen parts, other than meat,
derived from slaughtered animals. It includes, but is not limited to
lungs spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted
low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of
theri contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth, and hoofsd. It
shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears a name
descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto. (Proposed 1973,
Adopted 1974, Amended 1978)"

Since this particular definition has not changed since your antiquated
1994 book was printed, I must assume you suffered a temporary typo
problem and came up with sawdust just for hell of it? Or were you are
being deliberately false in representing that sawdust could be included
in "meat by-products"? Remember the ingredient "must be DERIVED FROM
the slaughtered..." The last time I heard sawdust was derived from
trees, not cows.


> Some of the
> animal feed IFN's that contain wood shavings from the floor of a
> processing facility include "Dried Ruminant Waste" #1-07-526, and
> "Undried Processed Animal Waste Products" #5-02-790.

What nonsense - let me know when you see either of those ingredient
descriptions on any pet food, not even Ol Roy uses that stuff. Is this
just a trip down scaremongering lane and you're hoping everyone will
simply ignore the false claims?

You can buy a new book for $50 - but you would still have to learn to
be honest and not add words into ingredient definitions that do no
texist - like "sawdust". When my 2006 book gets back from the binders -
I'll be happy to check and see if there have been any additional
changes.

PawsForThought
March 2nd 06, 10:20 PM
Steve Crane wrote:
> It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or
> more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry,
> venison, salmon etc. You can buy high quality low ash meals or cheap
> high ash meals. The cheaper high ash meals derive that additional ash
> from the ground up bones in the meat meal. This can show up in the
> finished product in elevated levels of calcium and phosphorus. Remember
> that pure muscle meats - regardless of specie - contains about 0.01%
> calcium, and there is very little calcium in grains, fats, oils, etc
> used in commercial foods. The vast majority of calcium in any food
> comes from the meat meals. So how does a finished food end up with 2%
> calcium - or 200 times the level of calcium intrinsic to the muscle
> tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat
> meals.

Not necessarily. A manufacturer can add calcium to balance the amount
of phosphorous contained in the food. I know you'll say Hill's foods
has less phos but that's because more of their protein comes from
plant/grain sources. Now might be a good time once again to ask you to
remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be
disingenuous of course.

March 3rd 06, 01:50 AM
AlexZ wrote:
> "> wrote:
>
> : Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
> : linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?
>
> As I understand it, thanks to pages like
> http://www.littlebigcat.com/index.php?action=library&act=show&item=004

The link you provided is coming from a particular point of view and is
not unbiased.

>
> the problem is not with "byproducts" in a natural setting but with what
> gets called "buproducts" in industrial food production. Even good
> quality pet food is basically a byproduct of human foods, and what gets
> labeled as "byproduct" could be very poor quality in terms of chemical
> impurities, diseased meat, etc. Or so I understand thus far.

You'd have to call each individual company to ask them. Some are good
and some are bad. You cannot accurately judge a food based off of its
ingredient label. Almost all companies use a least-cost formulation
anyway and so the ingredient label may not reflect what is actually in
the bag. You've got to look at nutrient levels, not individual
ingredients to determine the proper nutrition for your particular cat.

>
> So the question is not what happens in the wild, but how to safely
> inerpret the words used by our industries?

March 3rd 06, 01:53 AM
Victor Martinez wrote:
> wrote:
> >>>Meat content: First few items should be meat? (By-products ok?)
> >>
> >>Absolutely! Cats are carnivores, nor herbivores. I don't feed by-products.
> >>
> >
> > Cats eat by-product in the wild all the time. What is the implication
> > linking by-products and herbivores?? What are you trying to get at?
>
> Actually, cats tend not to eat feathers or beaks. :) I have no idea what
> "by-products" actually contains, anything from beaks to diseased
> animals. There was no linking anything. If you read the original
> sentence, there were two questions asked. Which I answered.
>
No, that's not necessarily what "by-product" is. Since by your own
admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you
automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats
eat "by-product" all the time.

March 3rd 06, 01:57 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
<snipped the bs>

Lauren, where exactly did you get this "definition" for by-product?
Hmm? Perhaps you'd care to use a source that is a) more objective and
b) not more than 12 years old?

As for your "hmm, this is interesting" remark, why don't you let
everybody know that you are a Hill's Hater? You act as if you've just
discovered the ingredient list of a Hill's diet. For someone who hates
Hill's so much, you sure have quick access to a pair of ingredient
lists. You also didn't identify which list went with which product.
That's disingenuous on your part....which isn't anything new. :(

March 3rd 06, 02:03 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Steve Crane wrote:
> > It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or
> > more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry,
> > venison, salmon etc. You can buy high quality low ash meals or cheap
> > high ash meals. The cheaper high ash meals derive that additional ash
> > from the ground up bones in the meat meal. This can show up in the
> > finished product in elevated levels of calcium and phosphorus. Remember
> > that pure muscle meats - regardless of specie - contains about 0.01%
> > calcium, and there is very little calcium in grains, fats, oils, etc
> > used in commercial foods. The vast majority of calcium in any food
> > comes from the meat meals. So how does a finished food end up with 2%
> > calcium - or 200 times the level of calcium intrinsic to the muscle
> > tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat
> > meals.
>
> Not necessarily. A manufacturer can add calcium to balance the amount
> of phosphorous contained in the food. I know you'll say Hill's foods
> has less phos but that's because more of their protein comes from
> plant/grain sources. Now might be a good time once again to ask you to
> remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be
> disingenuous of course.

So tell us why a particular manufacturer would add excessively high
levels of calcium to balance out excessively high levels of phosphorus?
Are you advocating such a position? At least Steve comments from a
position of authority on the matter. You, on the other hand, have no
knowledge or background on the matter. Which could explain why your
previous posts in this thread are so misinformed.

Oh, and another question, Lauren. Just how much protein or phosphorus
do you think is contained in "plant/grain" sources?

Steve Crane
March 3rd 06, 02:23 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Now might be a good time once again to ask you to
> remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be
> disingenuous of course.

I thought about that a couple weeks ago, but since you've taken it upon
yourself to follow me around to various NG's and make this proclamation
yourself, there really isn't much need for me to do so anymore is
there. It's like having my own personal secretary. Neat! Thanks for
the help.

Victor Martinez
March 3rd 06, 03:56 AM
wrote:
> admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you
> automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats
> eat "by-product" all the time.

Whatever. You feed your cats by-products and I'll feed them good food. :)

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

AlexZ
March 3rd 06, 06:15 AM
"> wrote:

: No, that's not necessarily what "by-product" is. Since by your own
: admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you
: automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats
: eat "by-product" all the time.

Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial
processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever
reason.

A cat in wild is free to leave behind the parts she doesn't like, not
so when everything is presented as one paste with tasty fat and salt.

PawsForThought
March 3rd 06, 02:42 PM
Victor Martinez wrote:
> wrote:
> > admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you
> > automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats
> > eat "by-product" all the time.
>
> Whatever. You feed your cats by-products and I'll feed them good food. :)

LOL! Well since Gaubster works for Hill's, I'd imagine he's pretty
hard-pressed to feed them Science Diet. Personally, I would rather
feed a food that lists "chicken liver" instead of "by-products" since I
will then know exactly what by-product is in the food.

PawsForThought
March 3rd 06, 03:01 PM
Steve Crane wrote:
> AlexZ wrote:
> > Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial
> > processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever
> > reason.
> >
> > A cat in wild is free to leave behind the parts she doesn't like, not
> > so when everything is presented as one paste with tasty fat and salt.
>
> Maybe it would help to know what the term "by-product" officially means
> under AAFCO rules. Any product which is the result of the manufacturing
> of some other product is called a "by-product". Chicken liver, beef
> hearts etc are "by-products". All internal organs in chickens, cows,
> pigs, turkeys, etc. not commonly used in human foods are "by-products"
> under AAFCO law. A cat in the wild eats the internal organs or
> "by-products" first in all kills. Beef liver is commonly eatne by
> humans and thus is not termed a "by-product", Chicken liver, turkey
> liver, pig liver are not commonly eaten by humans and are thus termed
> by-products. Vitamin E is a "by-product" of soy bean manufacturing
> process. Lamb meal is a "by-product" under the AAFCO law because it is
> made as part of the process of slaughtering lambs for human
> consumption.
>
> Thus you incorrect when you state that no part of a prey in the wild is
> a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed
> "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules.

If the food has enough of chicken liver in it, it will list "chicken
liver" and not "by-products". Chicken liver is good, but not knowing
exactly what is in that particular food's listing of "by-product"
doesn't let you know if chicken liver is even in it, or instead,
by-products can serve as a very low quality protein source. By-products
that contain high levels of beaks and feet will also contain high
levels of poorly digestible, poor quality protein. That's why a food
that lists "chicken liver" or "chicken heart" is better.

> This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They
> used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they
> listed cicken liver and lamb meal on the ingredient panel both of which
> are a "by-product". They now operate under a court injunction
> prohibiting any further such claims.

Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food,
now could you? LOL!

Steve Crane
March 3rd 06, 03:04 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Steve Crane wrote:
> > It's a good time to remind everyone that there are probably a dozen or
> > more "grades" of any kind of meat meal - chicken, beef, poultry,
> > venison, salmon etc. You can buy high quality low ash meals or cheap
> > high ash meals. The cheaper high ash meals derive that additional ash
> > from the ground up bones in the meat meal. This can show up in the
> > finished product in elevated levels of calcium and phosphorus. Remember
> > that pure muscle meats - regardless of specie - contains about 0.01%
> > calcium, and there is very little calcium in grains, fats, oils, etc
> > used in commercial foods. The vast majority of calcium in any food
> > comes from the meat meals. So how does a finished food end up with 2%
> > calcium - or 200 times the level of calcium intrinsic to the muscle
> > tissue? Because of the high levels of ground up bones in the meat
> > meals.
>
> Not necessarily. A manufacturer can add calcium to balance the amount
> of phosphorous contained in the food. I know you'll say Hill's foods
> has less phos but that's because more of their protein comes from
> plant/grain sources. Now might be a good time once again to ask you to
> remind people that you work for Hill's. Not that you would be
> disingenuous of course.

Nice try - but that puppy simply doesn't hunt. Bones consist of high
levels of calcium and phosphorus. Typically the phos level is slightly
*lower* than the calcium level. 65 to 70 percent of the bone is
composed of inorganic substances. Almost all of this inorganic
substance is a compound called hydroxyapatite. "The chemical
composition of hydroxyapatite is (10 Calcium atoms, 6 Phosphorus atoms,
26 Oxygen atoms, and 2 Hydrogen atoms). Therefore, 65 to 70 percent of
bone is a mineral compound called hydroxyapatite that is composed of
nothing more than Calcium, Phosphorus, Oxygen and Hydrogen. There are
no Vitamins, Fatty Acids, enzymes, proteins or carbohydrates in this,
the largest component of raw bone. 30 to 35% of bone is composed of
organic material (on a dry weight basis). Of this amount nearly 95 %
is a substance called collagen. Collagen is a fibrous protein. It is
poorly digested by the dog and cat. The other one-twentieth of the 30%
organic substances are Chondroitin Sulfate, Keratin sulfate, and
Phospholipids. Therefore, 30 to 35% of bone is collagen with a tiny
fraction of other compounds."
http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html

The origin of the phos in any finished food is almost entirely from the
ground up bones.

A cheap meat meal may contain 20% "ash" of which that ash is composed
primarily of calcium and phosphorus. An expensive low ash meat meal
commonly runs about 7-8% ash. From a cost perspective the low ash meat
meal will be 15-25% cheaper than the high ash meat meal.

AlexZ
March 3rd 06, 04:17 PM
Steve Crane > wrote:

: Any product which is the result of the manufacturing of some
: other product is called a "by-product".

Good so far, but it also tells me that all rejected meat not deemed fit
for primary purpose (human consumption) is included in by-product.

: Chicken liver, beef hearts etc are "by-products".

If that was all, they could just have been called "internal organs" or
some such. By-product tells me there are things they don't want to
name. What is it? An and everything rejected for the original purpose?

: A cat in the wild eats the internal organs or "by-products" first in
: all kills.

I think you are being careless in equating internal organs and
by-products. The former may be included in the latter, but something
else must also be there to warrant a different name. I suspect it is
impurities, non-eatables, rejected batches, etc. If that is prohibited
by law, please clarify.

: Thus you incorrect when you state that no part of a prey in the wild is
: a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed
: "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules.

But all by-products are not internal organs, right?

Once again, this going back and forth between internal organs and
by-products is a bit too slick for my taste. However, I'll wait for you
to state your reasons for equating them.

PawsForThought
March 3rd 06, 04:48 PM
Steve Crane wrote:
> PawsForThought wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by by-products? I wish petfood companies would list
> > by-products for what they really are. Some do, some don't. Things
> > like offal (liver, kidney, heart) are excellent sources of nutrition
> > for cats. Foods that list "liver" are good. Foods that list "liver
> > flavor" aren't good in that they're using synthetic liver.
>
>
> synthetic liver????? Now that's a new one. Is this new synthetic
> liver made out of plastic, ground up milk cartons maybe? Let us know.
> Thanks for the laugh tho......

Most likely rendered fat with artificial flavoring. If you can
clarify, go right ahead. My thinking is that if it were indeed chicken
liver, it would be listed as such, and not listed as "flavor".

March 3rd 06, 04:54 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Victor Martinez wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > admission, you don't know what by-product can be, I don't know why you
> > > automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bad. In the wild, cats
> > > eat "by-product" all the time.
> >
> > Whatever. You feed your cats by-products and I'll feed them good food. :)
>
> LOL! Well since Gaubster works for Hill's, I'd imagine he's pretty
> hard-pressed to feed them Science Diet. Personally, I would rather
> feed a food that lists "chicken liver" instead of "by-products" since I
> will then know exactly what by-product is in the food.

"LOL"? It doesn't take much to amuse you does it? So you're saying
you'd rather feed a food that has by-products in it than a food that
has by-products in it? <rolling my eyes> You forget (or have never
grasped the concept) about fixed formulas. You "think" you're feeding
one thing and you probably are feeding something else (if you're
talking about commercial foods). Since you don't even feed commercial
foods (you feed raw ingredients), I don't know why you care?

As for Victor, I see that you couldn't rebut the point I made. <shrug>

March 3rd 06, 04:56 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Steve Crane wrote:
> > AlexZ wrote:
> > > Byproduct of what? No part of a prey in wild is byproduct of industrial
> > > processes, with chemical impurities or meat rejected for whatever
> > > reason.
> > >
> > > A cat in wild is free to leave behind the parts she doesn't like, not
> > > so when everything is presented as one paste with tasty fat and salt.
> >
> > Maybe it would help to know what the term "by-product" officially means
> > under AAFCO rules. Any product which is the result of the manufacturing
> > of some other product is called a "by-product". Chicken liver, beef
> > hearts etc are "by-products". All internal organs in chickens, cows,
> > pigs, turkeys, etc. not commonly used in human foods are "by-products"
> > under AAFCO law. A cat in the wild eats the internal organs or
> > "by-products" first in all kills. Beef liver is commonly eatne by
> > humans and thus is not termed a "by-product", Chicken liver, turkey
> > liver, pig liver are not commonly eaten by humans and are thus termed
> > by-products. Vitamin E is a "by-product" of soy bean manufacturing
> > process. Lamb meal is a "by-product" under the AAFCO law because it is
> > made as part of the process of slaughtering lambs for human
> > consumption.
> >
> > Thus you incorrect when you state that no part of a prey in the wild is
> > a "by-product" since all internal organs of that prey are indeed
> > "by-products" under the AAFCO Rules.
>
> If the food has enough of chicken liver in it, it will list "chicken
> liver" and not "by-products". Chicken liver is good, but not knowing
> exactly what is in that particular food's listing of "by-product"
> doesn't let you know if chicken liver is even in it, or instead,
> by-products can serve as a very low quality protein source. By-products
> that contain high levels of beaks and feet will also contain high
> levels of poorly digestible, poor quality protein. That's why a food
> that lists "chicken liver" or "chicken heart" is better.

You can repeat your talking points all you want, Lauren---that doesn't
make it true. Go ahead and cling to your antiquated beliefs, you
really don't KNOW what you're talking about.

>
> > This is part of what got one manufacturer in trouble recently. They
> > used to claim their food "contained no by-products" when in fact they
> > listed cicken liver and lamb meal on the ingredient panel both of which
> > are a "by-product". They now operate under a court injunction
> > prohibiting any further such claims.
>
> Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food,
> now could you? LOL!

....and which brand of food did Steve "denigrate"?

March 3rd 06, 05:03 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:

> >
> > The link you provided is coming from a particular point of view and is
> > not unbiased.
>
> How is Dr. Hofve's article biased? She doesn't sell petfood, unlike
> yourself.

Easy. She is coming from a particular point of view which is not
objective. She perpeuates the myth that plastic wrap goes in to pet
foods? 4D animals? One of those "D"s is in EVERY food. All animals
(chicken, beef, turkey, etc.) are dead when they are put in the food.
She only presents one aspect of "by-products". She uses emotive words
that show exactly where she is coming from. She references "holistic"
veternarians as if they are somehow more knowledgeable or "better" than
regular vets. Do I need to go on or could you not see this?

March 4th 06, 12:37 AM
"PawsForThought" > wrote:

>
>Ah yes, you couldn't post without denigrating another brand of food,
>now could you? LOL!

The irony.

-mhd