PDA

View Full Version : Cats and grains


Kiran
May 17th 06, 07:53 AM
http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/grains.php

Grains have been a major mainstay for humans, and the agriculture as
well as use of grain in our diet, providing us with bread - a dense
source of energy and nutrients - have propelled human civilization
forward in its evolution. But what about grains in the meal plan of the
cat? Cats are domesticated animals, heavily influenced by human
society. They share our lives, our house, and - yes - our food.
Nonetheless, the cat is a cat. In a very distant past we may indeed
share a common ancestor as mammals, but otherwise the cat's physiology
is as much an extreme when compared to ours, as day is to night. If we
want to understand the dietary needs of cats, we must look at cats as
they live in the wild, and not at how they live as part of human
civilization, and thusly the foods they adapted to eat.

Grain is man made - grass seeds, enhanced in size through selective
breeding. Before humans discontinued their nomadic lifestyle and
settled as farmers, there was no grain. There where only seeds -
available to wildlife for the take merely seasonal. Advocates of the
use of grain in cat foods argue, that these foods would naturally be
part of the cat's diet as the stomach content of their prey - rodents
and birds. Yet, these species too, where first introduced to grain
merely ten thousand years ago, and that only in the presence of far
apart human settlements. A truly natural diet for rodents and birds is
not based on grains, but on insects and fruits, as well as greens for
rodents. Merely seasonal do these animals fed on seeds, and a large
proportion of those would be made up of oily seeds and nuts, rather
then carbohydrate based grass seeds. The relation of the stomach
content, for example of a mouse, is only 5% - 9% of the total weight of
the animal, therefore not supplying the cat, at any time, with more
then that as grain in her diet.

Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for humans
either, but we have perfectly adapted to it as a mainstay. Could the
cat adapt? Yes and no. Simple differences between people as omnivores
and cats as true carnivores make it impossible for the cat to break
down nearly any type of plant matter. Digestion of carbohydrate and
cellulose containing plant matter begins in the mouth. The substances
are ground up by our chewing motion and fortified with enzymes, in
order to break them down manually as well as chemically. The cat, in
turn, possesses no molars, nor the ability to chew or grind foods.
Also, the cat's body does not produce the enzymes necessary for the
break down of plant cellulose. The cat's digestive tract is, in
relation to that of a human, much shorter and designed to deal with
highly digestible foods of animal source; any ingested plant matter is
normally passed "unharmed". The cat's digestive juices may be potent,
but it is digestion time that breaks down plant matter. The cat passes
food much too quickly from stomach to the small intestine and then to
the colon, for any digestion of plant matter to happen.

The cat is a very intelligent being, and she has emotionally adapted to
a live among humans. Despite her extreme physical restrictions as true
carnivore, the cat has learned to eat other, more human like foods
besides her usual all prey regiment. In fact, this widened palate
enables cats to live in colonies with their own kind - something never
observed among their ancestors: the African Wild Cat. Because the
domestic cat has adapted to eat other things, such as fatty or protein
based human discards, and is not solely dependant on prey availability,
territorial stress is greatly reduced - opening channels for
communication.

The adaptation to a greater variety of food sources did not leave the
cat's physiology completely unchanged. In the cats native North African
range, the now wide spread domesticated cat is a threat to the
existence of her wild cat ancestor. Domestic stock frequently
hybridizes with wild cats, leading to a rapit vanishing of pure wild
cats. Scientists hope to preserve the species through population
control of the domestic stock, but how does one distinguish between
these two very similar looking species in order to catalogue any data
or observations? As it turns out, the domestic cat's intestines are a
few centimeters longer then those of a true wild cat, a feature which
is passed on to hybrid offspring, clearly distinguishing true wild cats
from those influenced by human civilisation.

If the cat lacks the ability to digest plant matter, could grains be
cooked as a means of "pre digesting" them? Yes, that does work indeed.
The cat's food can thusly be fortified with carbohydrates which is
converted by the cat's liver to glucose as a source of energy. The
problem is, that the cat converts a large portion of dietary protein
(glycogenic amino acids) to glucose for energy, and any excess of
glucose from carbohydrate source is stored as body fat!
The question should not be: if or if not the cat can digest grains, but
rather if there is any benefit for the cat, or if in fact, it could be
harmful.

Commercial pet food manufactures rely heavily on the use of grains to
manufacture their products. However, the grains are not added because
they hold much nutritional value, but because they lower the cost of
the product.

The Cornell Book of Cats: "Although carbohydrates make up about 40% of
commercial dry cat foods, they are not a dietary necessity for the cat.
In fact, cats can be maintained on carbohydrate free diets in which
energy is derived exclusively from non carbohydrate sources.
Carbohydrates are included as a source of energy and to provide
structure for dry cat food."

The Merk Veterinary Manual: "Carbohydrates are a less expensive source
of energy than fat or protein.(...) In cats, carbohydrates are
apparently not essential in the diet when ample protein and fats supply
glycogenic amino acids and glycerol.(...) In both dogs and cats, if
starches are not cooked, they will be poorly digested and may result in
flatulence or diarrhoea."

The Well Cat Book: "Carbohydrates (sugars, starches, and cellulose) are
not required by cats in their diet. The digestible carbohydrates (sugar
and starch), however, can be used as energy source, providing 3.5
calories for each gram consumed. Cooking and/or fine grinding of
carbohydrate sources (e.g. cereal grains, potatoes, vegetables) greatly
improves their utilization and allows pet food manufacturers to
formulate dry and semimoist foods based on these plant products that
are not a major part of any cat's natural diet."

Carbohydrates are not necessary in the cat's diet. If large amounts of
grains are included in the diet, more essential nutrients are displaced
by this cheap source of unnecessary calories. Intake of carbohydrates
is the number one cause of obesity in cats. It causes indigestion,
regurgitation, or diarrhoea, and Feline Future has traced grains and
vegetables in cat foods as an overlooked cause of self induced
bilateral alopecia (hair loss) in cats. Large amounts of sugars (and
any amount of sugar is above the norm for cats) causes the endorcine
system to overwork and malfunction, predisposing cats to the risk of
pancreatitis and diabetes.

(END

stan beck
May 17th 06, 01:02 PM
I think this all can be boiled down to a simple principle -- and that
is this: Think about what the animal would eat in the wild and try not
to stray from it. It's best not to disturb what God set in motion.

Stan

www.Kitten-Pictures.com
The most adorable Kitten Pictures on the net!

Upscale
May 17th 06, 01:36 PM
"stan beck" > wrote in message
> I think this all can be boiled down to a simple principle -- and that
> is this: Think about what the animal would eat in the wild and try not
> to stray from it. It's best not to disturb what God set in motion.

Sorry, can't agree with that sentiment at all. There's been all sorts of
advances in health science that have improved upon what god originally set
in motion. Even something as simple as antibiotics which keeps people alive
today who would have died less than 100 years ago. The same goes for the
growing of food and the ability to grow it in much larger quantities than a
few years back. In the wild, animals would eat dirty rotten flesh and be
exposed to all sorts of contagions (like rabies) that we presently immunize
against.

So no, wild animal type of diet is definitely *not* a preferred choice for
your pet. Not if you want your pets to live longer, healthier lives.

Abe
May 17th 06, 01:39 PM
>It's best not to disturb what God set in motion.
If God set evolution/natural selection in motion, then I agree.

Toni
May 17th 06, 02:57 PM
"Upscale" > wrote in message
news:c52f2$446b18ce$cef88bc5$
> Sorry, can't agree with that sentiment at all. There's been all sorts of
> advances in health science that have improved upon what god originally set
> in motion. Even something as simple as antibiotics which keeps people
> alive
> today who would have died less than 100 years ago. The same goes for the
> growing of food and the ability to grow it in much larger quantities than
> a
> few years back. In the wild, animals would eat dirty rotten flesh and be
> exposed to all sorts of contagions (like rabies) that we presently
> immunize
> against.
>


I think you are nitpicking and missing the point.

Cats have evolved as obligate carnivores- animals who prey upon and eat
other animals. Prey animals consisting of meat, bone, organs, and
predigested vegetable matter in the stomach.
So, to me, feeding a cat a diet consisting of rice, corn, or wheat is in
direct opposition to what their preferred and necessary diet is.

No one is suggesting that you feed your cats rotten meat or disease riddled
animals.


> So no, wild animal type of diet is definitely *not* a preferred choice for
> your pet. Not if you want your pets to live longer, healthier lives.

There are many, many of us feeding a clean raw diet that would beg to
differ. Raw fed cats are some of the healthiest animals out there with
naturally strong immune systems, naturally clean teeth, and a gleaming non
shedding coat.

It is of course up to you how to nourish the animals in your care, but to
suggest that we not try and cleanly duplicate a cats natural diet is, to me
anyway, absurd.


--
Toni
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

Upscale
May 17th 06, 03:33 PM
> I think you are nitpicking and missing the point.
>
> Cats have evolved as obligate carnivores- animals who prey upon and eat
> other animals. Prey animals consisting of meat, bone, organs, and
> predigested vegetable matter in the stomach.
> So, to me, feeding a cat a diet consisting of rice, corn, or wheat is in
> direct opposition to what their preferred and necessary diet is.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and
corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed food
that is superior for our pets than what they'd get from a pure meat diet
that you're suggesting. Stan said to feed a pet what it would get in the
wild. In the wild, an animal will eat most any type of food that might
provide sustenance.

In addition, the "by-products" you *might* see on a can of pet food consist
of those meat, bone and other matter that you've listed above. Man used to
be a carnivore, now he's not for the most part. People live longer than they
ever did before. Pets like cats and dogs are similarly living longer than
they ever did before. You can thank present day science for that. It's your
option what you feed your pet, that's your business. I prefer to side with
scientific study that tells me what is good for my cat. Sorry, but that's
not a purely natural diet as far as I'm concerned.

Unless Stan is talking about how man has evolved and what he has invented
from the evolvement of his intellect, then to say leave things as God set
them in motion is completely unrealistic.

Toni
May 17th 06, 04:25 PM
"Upscale" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and
> corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed
> food
> that is superior for our pets than what they'd get from a pure meat diet
> that you're suggesting.


I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the last
60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the manufacturing
process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real whole food. Also
grains typically represent far too high a percentage of processed foods
manufactured for cats, the major exception being the recently introduced
Innova EVO.


>
> In addition, the "by-products" you *might* see on a can of pet food
> consist
> of those meat, bone and other matter that you've listed above. Man used to
> be a carnivore, now he's not for the most part.


Please- when was man ever a carnivore? We have been omnivores for as long as
we have existed. A simple look at any species teeth and digestive system
will tell you what they need to eat. Man has molars for grinding grains and
vegetables, and a longer intestinal tract to digest them. Cats have canines
for ripping and tearing meat and a shorter intestinal tract and more
concentrated stomach acids as well. It is basic evolution.


>People live longer than they
> ever did before. Pets like cats and dogs are similarly living longer than
> they ever did before. You can thank present day science for that.


No, you can thak modern medicine and the fact that domesticated animals are
far removed from the predators, disease, and accidental deaths prevalent in
wild populations. Processed foods over the last several decades are have
contributed to the loss of health of all of us due to immune disorders,
allergies, diabetes, heart disease, etc., etc., etc.


> It's your
> option what you feed your pet, that's your business. I prefer to side with
> scientific study that tells me what is good for my cat. Sorry, but that's
> not a purely natural diet as far as I'm concerned.
>


Those scientific studies you are so high on were funded by pet food
manufacturers.


> Unless Stan is talking about how man has evolved and what he has invented
> from the evolvement of his intellect, then to say leave things as God set
> them in motion is completely unrealistic.
>



IMO nature always knows best, and will always win.


--
Toni
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

Upscale
May 17th 06, 04:42 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
> wild populations. Processed foods over the last several decades are have
> contributed to the loss of health of all of us due to immune disorders,
> allergies, diabetes, heart disease, etc., etc., etc.

Not wanting to make this a protracted discussion, I agree that many
processed foods have not been the best option for humans. However, I
disagree on what causes the conditions that you've listed above. The biggest
reason for them being caused is man's sedentary lifestyle. The lack of
exercise and the little effort needed to obtain food and shelter has by far
and away been the major cause for those conditions.

If everybody who subsisted solely on Big Macs balanced those processed foods
with adequate exercise, most of those diseases and medical problems you've
listed wouldn't exist. It's not that the processed foods exist, it's that
man fails to regulate his intake of them.

That's all I've got to say. :)

CatNipped
May 17th 06, 05:35 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Upscale" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say feed them rice and
>> corn. What I suggested is that our present day sciences have developed
>> food
>> that is superior for our pets than what they'd get from a pure meat diet
>> that you're suggesting.
>
>
> I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the
> last 60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the
> manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real
> whole food. Also

This is just not true. Pets used to live only 5 or 6 years when I was a
child. The manufactured food available then was nutritionally unsound and
basically contained only food scraps and "left-overs" (thinks pig hooves and
gristle) from processed human food. Other than that pets were given table
scraps (which, while good for humans was not good for pets' nutritional
needs)

*MILLIONS* of dollars have been spent over the years by pet food
manufacturers to improve the quality of pet food and as a result pets are
living much longer, healthier lives.

People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us
geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as good
as today!

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/

Toni
May 17th 06, 07:11 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Toni" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>

>> I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the
>> last 60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the
>> manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real
>> whole food. Also
>

> This is just not true. Pets used to live only 5 or 6 years when I was a
> child. The manufactured food available then was nutritionally unsound and
> basically contained only food scraps and "left-overs" (thinks pig hooves
> and gristle) from processed human food. Other than that pets were given
> table scraps (which, while good for humans was not good for pets'
> nutritional needs)
>
> *MILLIONS* of dollars have been spent over the years by pet food
> manufacturers to improve the quality of pet food and as a result pets are
> living much longer, healthier lives.
>


Is todays processed food better than that initially introduced after WWll?
Of course it is.

Now ask me if I think that todays processed food is better than a diet of
fresh whole foods?
No.
If it was we'd all be eating Total cereal exclusively.

Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal
exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods?


> People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us
> geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as
> good as today!
>


I'll see your 'geezer' and raise you 10 years.
<g>


--
Toni (older than dirt myself)
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

CatNipped
May 17th 06, 07:21 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "CatNipped" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Toni" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>
>
>>> I disagree. Processed pet foods have done more to harm animals over the
>>> last 60 or so years they have been available. Much is lost in the
>>> manufacturing process, and sprayed on substitutes are inferior to real
>>> whole food. Also
>>
>
>> This is just not true. Pets used to live only 5 or 6 years when I was a
>> child. The manufactured food available then was nutritionally unsound
>> and basically contained only food scraps and "left-overs" (thinks pig
>> hooves and gristle) from processed human food. Other than that pets were
>> given table scraps (which, while good for humans was not good for pets'
>> nutritional needs)
>>
>> *MILLIONS* of dollars have been spent over the years by pet food
>> manufacturers to improve the quality of pet food and as a result pets are
>> living much longer, healthier lives.
>>
>
>
> Is todays processed food better than that initially introduced after WWll?
> Of course it is.
>
> Now ask me if I think that todays processed food is better than a diet of
> fresh whole foods?
> No.
> If it was we'd all be eating Total cereal exclusively.

The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the
same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In order
to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them
exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things they
eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as they
would eat in nature. And you know what - cats in "nature" live an average
of 3 to 5 years and most of them look pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me.
The research done on pets' nutritionaly needs is almost as extensive (in the
US) as for humans' nutritional needs. I would still trust that the millions
of dollars spent on that research has found out more about this subject than
what I can guess at, so I'll stick to manufactured foods for my cats (who
are 16, 8, 7, and 2 and are and have always been healthy and active).

>
> Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal
> exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods?

There are both nutritionally sound foods and junk foods, both fresh and
packaged, available for all species! ;> It's all a matter of educating
yourself in reading labels.

>
>> People are always talking about "the good old days", but take it from us
>> geezers who are older than dirt, "the good old days" weren't nearly as
>> good as today!
>>
>
>
> I'll see your 'geezer' and raise you 10 years.
> <g>

OK, do you remember when "cell phones" where bigger than your head???! ;>
When I was a child we didn't even have cell phones - our land lines came
with rotary dials, telephone numbers where only 7 digits, and telephone
number prefixes where things like "Edgewood 1".

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
>
> --
> Toni (older than dirt myself)
> http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
>

cybercat
May 17th 06, 07:36 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote

> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the
> same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In
order
> to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them
> exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things
they
> eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as they
> would eat in nature.

Precisely.

[...]

> >
> > Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal
> > exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods?
>
> There are both nutritionally sound foods and junk foods, both fresh and
> packaged, available for all species! ;> It's all a matter of educating
> yourself in reading labels.
>

Yep. It is mostly chemistry. However--there is fairly recent evidence
(for humans, anyway--or is that lab rats?) that there are protective
properties in whole foods that make them worth more than the sum
of their parts, if that makes sense. Meaning that health benefits
in whole foods are seen that cannot be explained by the chemicals
they know are in the foods. (Here I am using "whole foods" as in,
the whole pear instead of just the stuff we know is in the pear,
taken in a vitamin tablet.) It suggests to me that there are still
substances in some whole foods that have not been identified and
are destroyed with processing/preserving.

This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh"
thing, but I think it is a component.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

CatNipped
May 17th 06, 07:46 PM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CatNipped" > wrote
>
>> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not*
>> the
>> same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In
> order
>> to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them
>> exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things
> they
>> eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as they
>> would eat in nature.
>
> Precisely.
>
> [...]
>
>> >
>> > Do you think that a human would be as healthy eating Total cereal
>> > exclusively as he would be eating fresh, whole foods?
>>
>> There are both nutritionally sound foods and junk foods, both fresh and
>> packaged, available for all species! ;> It's all a matter of educating
>> yourself in reading labels.
>>
>
> Yep. It is mostly chemistry. However--there is fairly recent evidence
> (for humans, anyway--or is that lab rats?) that there are protective
> properties in whole foods that make them worth more than the sum
> of their parts, if that makes sense. Meaning that health benefits
> in whole foods are seen that cannot be explained by the chemicals
> they know are in the foods. (Here I am using "whole foods" as in,
> the whole pear instead of just the stuff we know is in the pear,
> taken in a vitamin tablet.) It suggests to me that there are still
> substances in some whole foods that have not been identified and
> are destroyed with processing/preserving.
>
> This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh"
> thing, but I think it is a component.


True, but always remember that when humans first determined what they could
live on, and before farming much less manufactured food, the average life
span was 15 - 20 years! Again, those "let's get back to the good times,
let's do like our forebears did" proponents don't really realize how bad
things were back then - disease was rampant and the average human lived a
short, brutal life. We're living longer, healthier lives (either despite or
because of our current eating habits) than ever before in history.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
>
>
> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
> http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

cybercat
May 17th 06, 08:20 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote> >
> > This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh"
> > thing, but I think it is a component.
>
>
> True, but always remember that when humans first determined what they
could
> live on, and before farming much less manufactured food, the average life
> span was 15 - 20 years! Again, those "let's get back to the good times,
> let's do like our forebears did" proponents don't really realize how bad
> things were back then - disease was rampant and the average human lived a
> short, brutal life. We're living longer, healthier lives (either despite
or
> because of our current eating habits) than ever before in history.
>
> --

You bet--and my comment was definitely not in favor of the
"good old days" or "back to nature" argument. You are right,
we are better off than ever. Even with regard to things like
air quality--exhaust fumes from cars and the hole in the
ozone layer are nothing to "sneeze at" so to speak. But
many people do not seem to think about how awful it
was when people used coal and/or wood fires for heat,
especially before advances in filtration.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

CatNipped
May 17th 06, 08:30 PM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CatNipped" > wrote> >
>> > This may be a whole other issue than the "packaged" vs "fresh"
>> > thing, but I think it is a component.
>>
>>
>> True, but always remember that when humans first determined what they
> could
>> live on, and before farming much less manufactured food, the average life
>> span was 15 - 20 years! Again, those "let's get back to the good times,
>> let's do like our forebears did" proponents don't really realize how bad
>> things were back then - disease was rampant and the average human lived a
>> short, brutal life. We're living longer, healthier lives (either despite
> or
>> because of our current eating habits) than ever before in history.
>>
>> --
>
> You bet--and my comment was definitely not in favor of the
> "good old days" or "back to nature" argument. You are right,
> we are better off than ever. Even with regard to things like
> air quality--exhaust fumes from cars and the hole in the
> ozone layer are nothing to "sneeze at" so to speak. But
> many people do not seem to think about how awful it
> was when people used coal and/or wood fires for heat,
> especially before advances in filtration.

I do have to agree with you and Toni, however, in saying that whole, natural
foods are better than most processed foods. A lot of our longevity is due
to a safer environment and the advances in health care more than due to
diet. I think we still have a long way to go in improving our diets
(*ESPECIALLY* here in the US - the fattest nation on earth).

I just like to keep in mind that when people bemoan the lack of "natural"
foods in our diets, that all those preservatives have provided more
available "fresh" food to feed our millions, and have decreased rot and
things like "natural" grain ergot that goes along with some "natural" food
and would kill us a lot sooner than cancer later in life.

Those nasty preservatives are what hat has allowed us to feed the
6,516,475,399 people currently living on this planet.

Hugs,

CatNipped

> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita
> http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Upscale
May 17th 06, 11:03 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote in message
>
> Remember transistor radios that only got AM? Remember 8 track tape decks?
> Both too big to carry easily.

8 track tapes didn't exist when I was kid, but I do remember putting one in
the second hand '67 T-Bird bought when I was 19. Beautiful car, only after
putting $7000 into it in a span of two years, it rusted out from underneath
me.

> Now I use an IPOD almost as small as the batteries those used to use

Never was into them much. To me they're not much different than the person
walking along and talking on their cell phone while they look for a
particular item in a store and pass by it four times because they're
distracted too much. I remember once watching one guy talking on his cell
phone to his girlfriend as he came into a corner store to find a money
machine. I knew right away what he was looking for. The machine was bigger
than he was, yet he walked by it three times and then asked at the front
couter if they had one. Absolutely ludicrous.

Nowadays, I'm so much into the electronic toys and power tools that I'm
almost ashamed for reminiscing about what wasn't around more than 40 years
ago.

PawsForThought
May 17th 06, 11:16 PM
Toni wrote:
> I think you are nitpicking and missing the point.
>
> Cats have evolved as obligate carnivores- animals who prey upon and eat
> other animals. Prey animals consisting of meat, bone, organs, and
> predigested vegetable matter in the stomach.
> So, to me, feeding a cat a diet consisting of rice, corn, or wheat is in
> direct opposition to what their preferred and necessary diet is.
>
> No one is suggesting that you feed your cats rotten meat or disease riddled
> animals.
>
>
> > So no, wild animal type of diet is definitely *not* a preferred choice for
> > your pet. Not if you want your pets to live longer, healthier lives.
>
> There are many, many of us feeding a clean raw diet that would beg to
> differ. Raw fed cats are some of the healthiest animals out there with
> naturally strong immune systems, naturally clean teeth, and a gleaming non
> shedding coat.

Well said, Toni, and I couldn't agree with you more. I've been feeding
my cats a homemade raw diet for over 5 years now and I think they've
really benefitted from it. I know a homemade diet is not for everyone,
but in my case, it's been well worth it.

Lauren

See my cats: http://tinyurl.com/76tg8

Toni
May 18th 06, 01:17 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not* the
> same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet. In
> order to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed them
> exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other things
> they eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and amount as
> they would eat in nature.


Exactly.
What's so hard about that?


--
Toni
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

CatNipped
May 18th 06, 01:45 PM
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "CatNipped" >
>
>>OK, do you remember when "cell phones" where bigger than your head???! ;>
>>When I was a child we didn't even have cell phones - our land lines came
>>with rotary dials, telephone numbers where only 7 digits, and telephone
>>number prefixes where things like "Edgewood 1".
>
> No "party line"?
> You musta bin summa dem rich folks when you wuz yung. :)

LOL! I forgot about those, but yes, we did!

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBRGwJl5MoscYxZNI5AQHtYAP9HsPnPVkiXg93WeQ45C JRnfuDjIaciKmx
> dJvy1eUKVLyiH+jWyrAvkqhnKVMxgVS6xrB+4uU/82xk5v2ASlqj9qGqIJH7uYbH
> oXiHqQqL6nr57AaTOhL8b97H36K86trew5WddyDGQarMuzV4jh I3dBq6e8s40p+r
> wbRp9EgK/ho=
> =lzLW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

CatNipped
May 18th 06, 01:58 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "CatNipped" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The only problem with "fresh whole foods" for cats is that it is *not*
>> the same as fresh whole foods for humans - they need a different diet.
>> In order to give cats what they need nutritionally we would have to feed
>> them exclusively on mice, lizards, insects, grass, and all the other
>> things they eat in the wild - and feed them in the same proprotion and
>> amount as they would eat in nature.
>
>
> Exactly.
> What's so hard about that?

You left out my next statement...

"Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look
pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me."

Cats, like humans in pre-history, tend to lead short, brutal lives when left
on their own in nature. They don't have the benefit of the millions of
dollars of research on cat health and nutrition that pet food companies have
conducted in the last 60 years, so they eat whatever they can catch (which
is not always the best thing for them, but it's all they can catch and
staves off starvation).

There are some people who have had success feeding their animals raw diets,
but it's a *LOT* harder than it sounds, it takes a lot of research to get
the right ingredients* in the right proportion - it's expensive - and you're
still taking the chance that you've forgotten or don't know about some
essential ingredient necessary to a cat's health.

* And people are still using ingredients (pork, beef) that cats wouldn't
normally eat in nature.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
>
> --
> Toni
> http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
>

Upscale
May 18th 06, 02:45 PM
> wrote in message
> I remember when CB radios had vacuum tubes. Heathkit still existed and
> had real cool radio kits. My favorite radio receiver was a Hallicrafters
> S-38 general coverage receiver

Remember the "Hero" robot from Heathkit? For years, I dreamed about owning
one of those. Haven't thought of Hero in years.

Toni
May 18th 06, 05:11 PM
"CatNipped" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look
> pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me."
>
> Cats, like humans in pre-history, tend to lead short, brutal lives when
> left on their own in nature. They don't have the benefit of the millions
> of dollars of research on cat health and nutrition that pet food companies
> have conducted in the last 60 years, so they eat whatever they can catch
> (which is not always the best thing for them, but it's all they can catch
> and staves off starvation).
>


IMO the shorter lives are more often caused by cars, infections/fights,
kitten mortality, and other accidents than lack of proper food.


> There are some people who have had success feeding their animals raw
> diets, but it's a *LOT* harder than it sounds, it takes a lot of research
> to get the right ingredients* in the right proportion - it's expensive -
> and you're still taking the chance that you've forgotten or don't know
> about some essential ingredient necessary to a cat's health.
>


Well- I can now walk into my pet shop and buy premade organic raw foods that
are every bit as researched and properly put together as processed dry
foods. I can buy lab raised frozen mice, lab raised crickets, cat grass, and
can order online a whole host of farm raised chickies, duckies, rats,
pheasant, etc.
Yes- it is quite a bit more expensive, but I figure on saving later in their
lives when they do not turn up with diabetes, hyperthyroidism, renal failure
etc. nor need dentals every year.


> * And people are still using ingredients (pork, beef) that cats wouldn't
> normally eat in nature.

That is true- I just ask myself if a cat could bring down and kill whatever
creature and if the answer is no my cats don't get it.

And I do have use for dry foods- Innova EVO is in my cupboard right now for
those days when raw is just not happening for whatever reason. I just avoid
those brands with what I consider to be excessive and unnecessary
carbohydrates that a cat would not ingest in nature- the subject of this
thread.


We're all just looking to do the best for our kitties in as reasonably a
safe, economical, and non labor intensive way as possible. Certain of our
own life beliefs influence the decisions we make for our animals, and as
long as what you feed is well researched and considered then it's fine by
me.


--
Toni
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com

CatNipped
May 18th 06, 05:25 PM
"Toni" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "CatNipped" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cats in "nature" live an average of 3 to 5 years and most of them look
>> pretty scraggly and flea-bitten to me."
>>
>> Cats, like humans in pre-history, tend to lead short, brutal lives when
>> left on their own in nature. They don't have the benefit of the millions
>> of dollars of research on cat health and nutrition that pet food
>> companies have conducted in the last 60 years, so they eat whatever they
>> can catch (which is not always the best thing for them, but it's all they
>> can catch and staves off starvation).
>>
>
>
> IMO the shorter lives are more often caused by cars, infections/fights,
> kitten mortality, and other accidents than lack of proper food.
>
>
>> There are some people who have had success feeding their animals raw
>> diets, but it's a *LOT* harder than it sounds, it takes a lot of research
>> to get the right ingredients* in the right proportion - it's expensive -
>> and you're still taking the chance that you've forgotten or don't know
>> about some essential ingredient necessary to a cat's health.
>>
>
>
> Well- I can now walk into my pet shop and buy premade organic raw foods
> that are every bit as researched and properly put together as processed
> dry foods. I can buy lab raised frozen mice, lab raised crickets, cat
> grass, and can order online a whole host of farm raised chickies, duckies,
> rats, pheasant, etc.
> Yes- it is quite a bit more expensive, but I figure on saving later in
> their lives when they do not turn up with diabetes, hyperthyroidism, renal
> failure etc. nor need dentals every year.
>
>
>> * And people are still using ingredients (pork, beef) that cats wouldn't
>> normally eat in nature.
>
> That is true- I just ask myself if a cat could bring down and kill
> whatever creature and if the answer is no my cats don't get it.
>
> And I do have use for dry foods- Innova EVO is in my cupboard right now
> for those days when raw is just not happening for whatever reason. I just
> avoid those brands with what I consider to be excessive and unnecessary
> carbohydrates that a cat would not ingest in nature- the subject of this
> thread.
>
>
> We're all just looking to do the best for our kitties in as reasonably a
> safe, economical, and non labor intensive way as possible. Certain of our
> own life beliefs influence the decisions we make for our animals, and as
> long as what you feed is well researched and considered then it's fine by
> me.

True! Peace out!!!!

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
>
> --
> Toni
> http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
>
>

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 05:00 AM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/grains.php
>

> Grain is man made -

Corn, rice, wheat are man-made? Okey dokey. See what I mean about Feline
Future being extreme and fanatical?


>
> Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for humans
> either,


Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)

<snip>

We had some good wars about "natural' fanaticism in this group a few years
ago. You can find them all in Google. I'm sure you'll get a few good laughs
from them. I did.

Phil

May 21st 06, 05:36 AM
"Phil P." > wrote:

>Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
>still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)

Phil, the Paleo diet did not consist of grains which is why there is a
strong following today advocating the Paleo diet.

-mhd

Kiran
May 21st 06, 06:16 AM
Phil P. > wrote:

: "Kiran" > wrote in message

I should have made it clearer that I was merely quoting an article by
someone else...

: > Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for
: > humans
: > either,
: Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
: still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)

While people ate roots and fruits for a long time, agriculture and
grains are more recent, under 15,000 yrs maybe.

This of cource has no bearing on whether *cats* should eat grains.
What is your view/experience on that?

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 07:43 AM
> wrote in message
...
> "Phil P." > wrote:
>
> >Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
> >still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)
>
> Phil, the Paleo diet did not consist of grains which is why there is a
> strong following today advocating the Paleo diet.
>


I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the early hominids were herbivores and
ate primarily plant material.

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 07:43 AM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote:
>
> : "Kiran" > wrote in message
>
> I should have made it clearer that I was merely quoting an article by
> someone else...

Yes, I know. I was commenting on the irrelevancies in the site.


>
> : > Now, at the dawn of mankind, grain was not a natural food for
> : > humans
> : > either,
> : Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
> : still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)
>
> While people ate roots and fruits for a long time, agriculture and
> grains are more recent, under 15,000 yrs maybe.


Hominids ate plant material long before they ate meat.


>
> This of cource has no bearing on whether *cats* should eat grains.


Yep, I know. What humans ate has no bearing on what cats should eat. I have
no idea why Feline Future even mentioned human diets. See what I mean about
the site?


> What is your view/experience on that?

Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular?

Kiran
May 21st 06, 08:50 AM
Phil P. > wrote:

: [on whether *cats* should eat grains]
: Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular?

Whatever makes sense nutritionwise. I believe most of the controversy
is about grains (wheat, corn, rice, etc).

As fruits and vegetables are expensive and cats can't taste sugar, I
can't imagine too many manufacturers getting carried away with those.
So probably grains are the heroes of our story!

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 03:09 PM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote:
>
> : [on whether *cats* should eat grains]
> : Are you referring to carbohydrates in general or grains in particular?
>
> Whatever makes sense nutritionwise. I believe most of the controversy
> is about grains (wheat, corn, rice, etc).
>
> As fruits and vegetables are expensive and cats can't taste sugar, I
> can't imagine too many manufacturers getting carried away with those.

Better take a look at Wellness! Its practically a fruit salad! lol

"Sweet Potatoes, Carrots, Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Flaxseed, Squash,
Cranberries, Blueberries, Zucchini"

They've substituted fruits and vegetables- which have a higher glycemic
index than most grains.


> So probably grains are the heroes of our story!

A small amount of grain is ok. What Feline Future doesn't tell you is that
carbs have a protein-sparing effect.

A lot of people misuse the term "obligate carnivore"- it means the cat
*must* eat meat because some essential nutrients for cats are only found in
meat. It doesn't mean the cat must eat *only* meat.

Phil

May 21st 06, 05:31 PM
"Phil P." > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> "Phil P." > wrote:
>>
>> >Bulli****. The first hominids were primarily herbivores. (That's why we
>> >still have molars with fissured crowns instead of points)
>>
>> Phil, the Paleo diet did not consist of grains which is why there is a
>> strong following today advocating the Paleo diet.
>>
>
>
>I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the early hominids were herbivores and
>ate primarily plant material.
>
>

Yes but not grains.

Just Google "Paleo diet".

PaleoDiet.com - The Paleolithic Diet Page
What the Hunter/Gatherers Ate

-mhd

Kiran
May 21st 06, 06:14 PM
Phil P. > wrote:

: A lot of people misuse the term "obligate carnivore"- it means the cat
: *must* eat meat because some essential nutrients for cats are only found in
: meat. It doesn't mean the cat must eat *only* meat.

OK, I see that to understand these terms you not only should know Latin
but also think like a lawyer. :)

In that case, (and I have in mind a chart like
http://www.geocities.com/jmpeerson/canfood.html ),

what percentage of calories can safely be from carbs?