Liz's Food recommendations
For about the umpteenth time Liz, please provide us with the
commercial foods you think have fewer grains than the comparable Hill's product. I know I have asked you for this many times before and you always refuse to answer. The constant lack of an answer seems to prove you have an anti Hill's agenda, rather than a sincere concern about pet health. Oh, I´m sorry, I´ve not seen that question before. How about Wellness, Felidae, Flint River Ranch, Wysong, Innova and other super premium brands? The carbohydrate content of a food gives you a precise idea of the percentage of grains it has. Not exactly, but close, in fact the percentage of grains will likely be HIGHER than the percentage of carbs, since a portion of the protein and fat is derived from grains. All you need to do is add up all the percentages given (protein, fat, ash, moisture, etc.) and the remaining is carbohydrates, that is, grains (unless the manufacturer adds other plantstuff like carrots or apples). Plain and simple. And don´t forget to check the lable for the *quality* of the animal protein used (by-products or not) and the process by which the food was manufactured (heating destroys many essencial components - baking x extrusion, cold processing, etc.). Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less ground up bone tissue – good point. Of course the comment about heat destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years, based upon time and temperature. It's a no brainer to add in sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the manufacturing process. This old wives tale and scaremongering about heat destroying stuff is complete nonsense. In fact for many nutrients, heating is what makes them bio-available to the animal. I have done two. If you´re interested, you can do the calculation for the other brands I mentioned. Terrific Examples – Thank-you now let's see what we've got. Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%, moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates, NOT 21% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium - 1.2% to 1.33% - In excess of KNF maximum calcium levels. Phosphorus – 1.0% to 1.1% - in excess of KNF maximums levels for an adult cat. Wellness Dry: 23.22% carbohydrates Again your calculations were in error, according to their web site they have Protein 33.0%, fat 19.0%, fiber 5.0%, Moisture 10.0%, Ash 6.0% Total 73% 100-73 = 27% carbohydrates NOT 23.22% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium 0.94% Phosphorus 1.33% In EXCESS of KNF maximums for an adult cat. WARNING – this food has an inverse calcium phosphorus ratio. Science Diet Nature´s Best: 34.5% carbohydrates carbs by adding up the guarantees, you cannot choose to measure carbs in Science Diet products by going to the web site and getting info you can't get from others. You must compare apples to apples. Guarantee levels: Protein 30%, fat 19%, fiber 2.0%, moisture 10%, ash 6.5% Total equals 67.5%. Carbs are therefore 32.5% NOT the 34.5% you noted above. Calcium 0.92% Phosphorus 0.74% Digestibility Protein – 88% Fat – 92% Carbs – 94.9% Science Diet Original: 34.3% carbohydrates Again you erred by not adding labels and not comparing apples to apples. Protein 30%, fat 20%, fiber 2%, Moisture 10%, ash 5.5% Total 67.5% Carbs are thus 32.5% not the 34.3% you claimed above. Calcium 0.76% Phosphorus 0.70% Digestibility Protein – 87% Fat – 91% Carbs – 99.9% If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage" foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to compare one growth food to another. Let's see how that works. Science Diet Feline Kitten Protein 33%, fat 23%, fiber 3%, moisture 10%, ash 7% Total = 76% thus this food is 24% carbs. Science Diet Nature's Best Feline Kitten Protein 35%, fat 22%, fiber 2%, moisture 10%, ash 6% Total = 75% thus this food is 25% carbs. The Science Diet products are 21-33% *LOWER* in carbs than Felidae and Wellness dry products. Guess you'll be off to buy some Science Diet won't you? Both are lower in carbs than your picks for a dry food based upon the third grade nutrition of lowering carbs and ignoring nutrients. The biggest irony of all is that if the Nature's Best kitten was repackaged as Brand X and had claims all over the bag as "holistic", "human grade", both of which terms could legally be applied to these foods, they would be the perfect foods according to your criteria. Oh never mind that won't work because you don't care about the digestibility of ingredients, only that they sound good. Since one food contains chicken by-products which are more digestible than plain chicken you would still ignore one of them because what goes on in the animals body isn't as important as an emotional judgment made about how good ingredients SOUND. Purina Cat Chow: 37.5% carbohydrates Calcium 1.24% Phosphorus 1.25% Whiskas: 40% carbohydrates Calcium 2.73% Phosphorus 1.82% Canned: Science Diet: 5.5% carbohydrates (all grains) Sigh, same errors actual by label is 5.7% carbs – How in the world you can call this all grains is utterly beyond me. You claimed earlier that the carbohydrates were exactly the amount of grains in a food. Since this food is composed of 94.3% NON carbohydrates and only 5.7% carbohydrates how you could claim it is "(all grains)" defies logic. Felidae: 0% carbohydrates (perfect for cats with diabetes or excess weight) Calcium 1.32% - in excess of KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Phosphorus 1.32% - in excess of the KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Wellness: less than 3% carbohydrates but no grains Calcium 1.52% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Phosphorus 0.96% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Whiskas Ground Chicken Dinner: 0% carbohydrates No data available, But let's look at another ZERO carb grocery store food. Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblets canned = 0% carbohydrates Calcium 2.1% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for calcium for a healthy adult cat. Phosphorus 1.9% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for phosphorus for a healthy adult cat. I would expect the Whiskas product to fall into the same category. So, as you can see for yourself, Science Diet is much closer to grocery store brands than it is to the super premium brands above both in low-quality ingredients and in percentage of carbs. And you have now been proven wrong. I'm sure you didn't purposefully distort the carb levels of the foods you offered. You're too smart to think you wouldn't be checked, so I'll assume there was some math error somewhere. Felidae dry carbs = 31% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus Wellness Dry carbs = 27% with *excessive* levels of calcium and phosphorus Science Diet Original carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels Nature's Best Chicken carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Science Diet Kitten carbs = 24% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Nature's Best Kitten carbs = 25% carbs within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Purina Cat Chow carbs 37.7% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus. Fancy Feast carbs 0% but with calcium double maximum KNF levels, and phos more than double maximum levels. So what you have proven is that Science Diet is anything but a "grocery store" quality food as it was the only example which kept calcium and phos levels down in the proper area. The clear message here is that some manufacturers are using much less expensive meat meals with very high percentages of ground up bone tissue in the meat meals, whereas Science Diet has chosen to use more expensive low "ash" (bone) meat meals. The only other thing "proven" is that some people still cling to third grade math levels of nutrition by basing their judgment on ingredients and have yet to take the next step to high school math level nutrition and carefully look at the nutrients. |
|
|
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less ground up bone tissue ? good point. Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone here can try at home and see for themselves. Of course the comment about heat destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years, based upon time and temperature. Nonsense is your argumentation. Can you please explain this recent hype of adding linoleic and linolenic acids (omega 6 and 3) to pet foods? Both are easily destroyed by heat and both are essential. If manufacturers had known degradation temperature of every vitamin for forty years, why is this omega thing such a recent hype? Food manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go back to college. It's a no brainer to add in sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the manufacturing process. Yes, they can do that for the *known* nutrients. How about the nutrients we still do not know about? How do they test for those? Or do you think we already know all there is to know about nutrition? Biochemistry is only the most underdeveloped science of all sciences simply because it is so complex. This old wives tale and scaremongering about heat destroying stuff is complete nonsense. Yeah, about the entire world knows that and Mr. Know-it-all stating differently. In fact for many nutrients, heating is what makes them bio-available to the animal. Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s diet. Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%, moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates How about the other ingredients you did not add up? Omega-6 fatty acids - 3.5% Digestive Enzymes - 1.5 % Omega-3 fatty acids - 0.75% Linoleic acid - 3,70% Magnesium and taurine - ~0.3% Or are those things carbohydrates in your concept? I won´t bother looking at the rest of your manipulated numbers. Now if you are going to say something like "those things are included in proteins, fats and ash," I say we write them and ask. Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage? If you have ONE study showing either of them to be toxic to kidneys please post. And don´t give me that old crap of the early stages of kidney disease. Phosphorus is only harmful to kidneys if it is in excess in *blood*, not in diet. Excess phosphorus in blood (hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a blood panel. This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies) treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work. Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters. |
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less ground up bone tissue ? good point. Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone here can try at home and see for themselves. Of course the comment about heat destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years, based upon time and temperature. Nonsense is your argumentation. Can you please explain this recent hype of adding linoleic and linolenic acids (omega 6 and 3) to pet foods? Both are easily destroyed by heat and both are essential. If manufacturers had known degradation temperature of every vitamin for forty years, why is this omega thing such a recent hype? Food manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go back to college. It's a no brainer to add in sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the manufacturing process. Yes, they can do that for the *known* nutrients. How about the nutrients we still do not know about? How do they test for those? Or do you think we already know all there is to know about nutrition? Biochemistry is only the most underdeveloped science of all sciences simply because it is so complex. This old wives tale and scaremongering about heat destroying stuff is complete nonsense. Yeah, about the entire world knows that and Mr. Know-it-all stating differently. In fact for many nutrients, heating is what makes them bio-available to the animal. Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s diet. Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%, moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates How about the other ingredients you did not add up? Omega-6 fatty acids - 3.5% Digestive Enzymes - 1.5 % Omega-3 fatty acids - 0.75% Linoleic acid - 3,70% Magnesium and taurine - ~0.3% Or are those things carbohydrates in your concept? I won´t bother looking at the rest of your manipulated numbers. Now if you are going to say something like "those things are included in proteins, fats and ash," I say we write them and ask. Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage? If you have ONE study showing either of them to be toxic to kidneys please post. And don´t give me that old crap of the early stages of kidney disease. Phosphorus is only harmful to kidneys if it is in excess in *blood*, not in diet. Excess phosphorus in blood (hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a blood panel. This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies) treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work. Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters. |
Steve Crane wrote: For about the umpteenth time Liz, please provide us with the commercial foods you think have fewer grains than the comparable Hill's product. I know I have asked you for this many times before and you always refuse to answer. The constant lack of an answer seems to prove you have an anti Hill's agenda, rather than a sincere concern about pet health. Oh, I´m sorry, I´ve not seen that question before. How about Wellness, Felidae, Flint River Ranch, Wysong, Innova and other super premium brands? The carbohydrate content of a food gives you a precise idea of the percentage of grains it has. Not exactly, but close, in fact the percentage of grains will likely be HIGHER than the percentage of carbs, since a portion of the protein and fat is derived from grains. All you need to do is add up all the percentages given (protein, fat, ash, moisture, etc.) and the remaining is carbohydrates, that is, grains (unless the manufacturer adds other plantstuff like carrots or apples). Plain and simple. And don´t forget to check the lable for the *quality* of the animal protein used (by-products or not) and the process by which the food was manufactured (heating destroys many essencial components - baking x extrusion, cold processing, etc.). Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less ground up bone tissue – good point. Of course the comment about heat destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years, based upon time and temperature. It's a no brainer to add in sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the manufacturing process. This old wives tale and scaremongering about heat destroying stuff is complete nonsense. In fact for many nutrients, heating is what makes them bio-available to the animal. I have done two. If you´re interested, you can do the calculation for the other brands I mentioned. Terrific Examples – Thank-you now let's see what we've got. Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%, moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates, NOT 21% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium - 1.2% to 1.33% - In excess of KNF maximum calcium levels. Phosphorus – 1.0% to 1.1% - in excess of KNF maximums levels for an adult cat. Wellness Dry: 23.22% carbohydrates Again your calculations were in error, according to their web site they have Protein 33.0%, fat 19.0%, fiber 5.0%, Moisture 10.0%, Ash 6.0% Total 73% 100-73 = 27% carbohydrates NOT 23.22% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium 0.94% Phosphorus 1.33% In EXCESS of KNF maximums for an adult cat. WARNING – this food has an inverse calcium phosphorus ratio. Science Diet Nature´s Best: 34.5% carbohydrates carbs by adding up the guarantees, you cannot choose to measure carbs in Science Diet products by going to the web site and getting info you can't get from others. You must compare apples to apples. Guarantee levels: Protein 30%, fat 19%, fiber 2.0%, moisture 10%, ash 6.5% Total equals 67.5%. Carbs are therefore 32.5% NOT the 34.5% you noted above. Calcium 0.92% Phosphorus 0.74% Digestibility Protein – 88% Fat – 92% Carbs – 94.9% Science Diet Original: 34.3% carbohydrates Again you erred by not adding labels and not comparing apples to apples. Protein 30%, fat 20%, fiber 2%, Moisture 10%, ash 5.5% Total 67.5% Carbs are thus 32.5% not the 34.3% you claimed above. Calcium 0.76% Phosphorus 0.70% Digestibility Protein – 87% Fat – 91% Carbs – 99.9% If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage" foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to compare one growth food to another. Let's see how that works. Science Diet Feline Kitten Protein 33%, fat 23%, fiber 3%, moisture 10%, ash 7% Total = 76% thus this food is 24% carbs. Science Diet Nature's Best Feline Kitten Protein 35%, fat 22%, fiber 2%, moisture 10%, ash 6% Total = 75% thus this food is 25% carbs. The Science Diet products are 21-33% *LOWER* in carbs than Felidae and Wellness dry products. No they're not! You're comparing the SD *kitten* food to the W & F. The two regular SDs you compared were *higher*, even after your "corrections". The W & F are *not* exclusive kitten foods, despite your attempted slight of hand. If you want to be exact, SD *kitten* food is lower in carbs if you're looking to feed a kitten. For an adult cat, it is *higher* in carbs. Karen Guess you'll be off to buy some Science Diet won't you? Both are lower in carbs than your picks for a dry food based upon the third grade nutrition of lowering carbs and ignoring nutrients. The biggest irony of all is that if the Nature's Best kitten was repackaged as Brand X and had claims all over the bag as "holistic", "human grade", both of which terms could legally be applied to these foods, they would be the perfect foods according to your criteria. Oh never mind that won't work because you don't care about the digestibility of ingredients, only that they sound good. Since one food contains chicken by-products which are more digestible than plain chicken you would still ignore one of them because what goes on in the animals body isn't as important as an emotional judgment made about how good ingredients SOUND. Purina Cat Chow: 37.5% carbohydrates Calcium 1.24% Phosphorus 1.25% Whiskas: 40% carbohydrates Calcium 2.73% Phosphorus 1.82% Canned: Science Diet: 5.5% carbohydrates (all grains) Sigh, same errors actual by label is 5.7% carbs – How in the world you can call this all grains is utterly beyond me. You claimed earlier that the carbohydrates were exactly the amount of grains in a food. Since this food is composed of 94.3% NON carbohydrates and only 5.7% carbohydrates how you could claim it is "(all grains)" defies logic. Felidae: 0% carbohydrates (perfect for cats with diabetes or excess weight) Calcium 1.32% - in excess of KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Phosphorus 1.32% - in excess of the KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Wellness: less than 3% carbohydrates but no grains Calcium 1.52% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Phosphorus 0.96% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Whiskas Ground Chicken Dinner: 0% carbohydrates No data available, But let's look at another ZERO carb grocery store food. Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblets canned = 0% carbohydrates Calcium 2.1% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for calcium for a healthy adult cat. Phosphorus 1.9% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for phosphorus for a healthy adult cat. I would expect the Whiskas product to fall into the same category. So, as you can see for yourself, Science Diet is much closer to grocery store brands than it is to the super premium brands above both in low-quality ingredients and in percentage of carbs. And you have now been proven wrong. I'm sure you didn't purposefully distort the carb levels of the foods you offered. You're too smart to think you wouldn't be checked, so I'll assume there was some math error somewhere. Felidae dry carbs = 31% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus Wellness Dry carbs = 27% with *excessive* levels of calcium and phosphorus Science Diet Original carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels Nature's Best Chicken carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Science Diet Kitten carbs = 24% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Nature's Best Kitten carbs = 25% carbs within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Purina Cat Chow carbs 37.7% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus. Fancy Feast carbs 0% but with calcium double maximum KNF levels, and phos more than double maximum levels. So what you have proven is that Science Diet is anything but a "grocery store" quality food as it was the only example which kept calcium and phos levels down in the proper area. The clear message here is that some manufacturers are using much less expensive meat meals with very high percentages of ground up bone tissue in the meat meals, whereas Science Diet has chosen to use more expensive low "ash" (bone) meat meals. The only other thing "proven" is that some people still cling to third grade math levels of nutrition by basing their judgment on ingredients and have yet to take the next step to high school math level nutrition and carefully look at the nutrients. |
Steve Crane wrote: For about the umpteenth time Liz, please provide us with the commercial foods you think have fewer grains than the comparable Hill's product. I know I have asked you for this many times before and you always refuse to answer. The constant lack of an answer seems to prove you have an anti Hill's agenda, rather than a sincere concern about pet health. Oh, I´m sorry, I´ve not seen that question before. How about Wellness, Felidae, Flint River Ranch, Wysong, Innova and other super premium brands? The carbohydrate content of a food gives you a precise idea of the percentage of grains it has. Not exactly, but close, in fact the percentage of grains will likely be HIGHER than the percentage of carbs, since a portion of the protein and fat is derived from grains. All you need to do is add up all the percentages given (protein, fat, ash, moisture, etc.) and the remaining is carbohydrates, that is, grains (unless the manufacturer adds other plantstuff like carrots or apples). Plain and simple. And don´t forget to check the lable for the *quality* of the animal protein used (by-products or not) and the process by which the food was manufactured (heating destroys many essencial components - baking x extrusion, cold processing, etc.). Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less ground up bone tissue – good point. Of course the comment about heat destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years, based upon time and temperature. It's a no brainer to add in sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the manufacturing process. This old wives tale and scaremongering about heat destroying stuff is complete nonsense. In fact for many nutrients, heating is what makes them bio-available to the animal. I have done two. If you´re interested, you can do the calculation for the other brands I mentioned. Terrific Examples – Thank-you now let's see what we've got. Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%, moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates, NOT 21% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium - 1.2% to 1.33% - In excess of KNF maximum calcium levels. Phosphorus – 1.0% to 1.1% - in excess of KNF maximums levels for an adult cat. Wellness Dry: 23.22% carbohydrates Again your calculations were in error, according to their web site they have Protein 33.0%, fat 19.0%, fiber 5.0%, Moisture 10.0%, Ash 6.0% Total 73% 100-73 = 27% carbohydrates NOT 23.22% carbohydrates as you claimed above. Now we'll go beyond third grade ingredient nutrition and take a peek at the nutrients. Calcium 0.94% Phosphorus 1.33% In EXCESS of KNF maximums for an adult cat. WARNING – this food has an inverse calcium phosphorus ratio. Science Diet Nature´s Best: 34.5% carbohydrates carbs by adding up the guarantees, you cannot choose to measure carbs in Science Diet products by going to the web site and getting info you can't get from others. You must compare apples to apples. Guarantee levels: Protein 30%, fat 19%, fiber 2.0%, moisture 10%, ash 6.5% Total equals 67.5%. Carbs are therefore 32.5% NOT the 34.5% you noted above. Calcium 0.92% Phosphorus 0.74% Digestibility Protein – 88% Fat – 92% Carbs – 94.9% Science Diet Original: 34.3% carbohydrates Again you erred by not adding labels and not comparing apples to apples. Protein 30%, fat 20%, fiber 2%, Moisture 10%, ash 5.5% Total 67.5% Carbs are thus 32.5% not the 34.3% you claimed above. Calcium 0.76% Phosphorus 0.70% Digestibility Protein – 87% Fat – 91% Carbs – 99.9% If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage" foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to compare one growth food to another. Let's see how that works. Science Diet Feline Kitten Protein 33%, fat 23%, fiber 3%, moisture 10%, ash 7% Total = 76% thus this food is 24% carbs. Science Diet Nature's Best Feline Kitten Protein 35%, fat 22%, fiber 2%, moisture 10%, ash 6% Total = 75% thus this food is 25% carbs. The Science Diet products are 21-33% *LOWER* in carbs than Felidae and Wellness dry products. No they're not! You're comparing the SD *kitten* food to the W & F. The two regular SDs you compared were *higher*, even after your "corrections". The W & F are *not* exclusive kitten foods, despite your attempted slight of hand. If you want to be exact, SD *kitten* food is lower in carbs if you're looking to feed a kitten. For an adult cat, it is *higher* in carbs. Karen Guess you'll be off to buy some Science Diet won't you? Both are lower in carbs than your picks for a dry food based upon the third grade nutrition of lowering carbs and ignoring nutrients. The biggest irony of all is that if the Nature's Best kitten was repackaged as Brand X and had claims all over the bag as "holistic", "human grade", both of which terms could legally be applied to these foods, they would be the perfect foods according to your criteria. Oh never mind that won't work because you don't care about the digestibility of ingredients, only that they sound good. Since one food contains chicken by-products which are more digestible than plain chicken you would still ignore one of them because what goes on in the animals body isn't as important as an emotional judgment made about how good ingredients SOUND. Purina Cat Chow: 37.5% carbohydrates Calcium 1.24% Phosphorus 1.25% Whiskas: 40% carbohydrates Calcium 2.73% Phosphorus 1.82% Canned: Science Diet: 5.5% carbohydrates (all grains) Sigh, same errors actual by label is 5.7% carbs – How in the world you can call this all grains is utterly beyond me. You claimed earlier that the carbohydrates were exactly the amount of grains in a food. Since this food is composed of 94.3% NON carbohydrates and only 5.7% carbohydrates how you could claim it is "(all grains)" defies logic. Felidae: 0% carbohydrates (perfect for cats with diabetes or excess weight) Calcium 1.32% - in excess of KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Phosphorus 1.32% - in excess of the KNF maximum levels for an adult cat. Wellness: less than 3% carbohydrates but no grains Calcium 1.52% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Phosphorus 0.96% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats. Whiskas Ground Chicken Dinner: 0% carbohydrates No data available, But let's look at another ZERO carb grocery store food. Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblets canned = 0% carbohydrates Calcium 2.1% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for calcium for a healthy adult cat. Phosphorus 1.9% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for phosphorus for a healthy adult cat. I would expect the Whiskas product to fall into the same category. So, as you can see for yourself, Science Diet is much closer to grocery store brands than it is to the super premium brands above both in low-quality ingredients and in percentage of carbs. And you have now been proven wrong. I'm sure you didn't purposefully distort the carb levels of the foods you offered. You're too smart to think you wouldn't be checked, so I'll assume there was some math error somewhere. Felidae dry carbs = 31% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus Wellness Dry carbs = 27% with *excessive* levels of calcium and phosphorus Science Diet Original carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels Nature's Best Chicken carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Science Diet Kitten carbs = 24% within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Nature's Best Kitten carbs = 25% carbs within KNF guidelines for calcium and phosphorus levels. Purina Cat Chow carbs 37.7% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus. Fancy Feast carbs 0% but with calcium double maximum KNF levels, and phos more than double maximum levels. So what you have proven is that Science Diet is anything but a "grocery store" quality food as it was the only example which kept calcium and phos levels down in the proper area. The clear message here is that some manufacturers are using much less expensive meat meals with very high percentages of ground up bone tissue in the meat meals, whereas Science Diet has chosen to use more expensive low "ash" (bone) meat meals. The only other thing "proven" is that some people still cling to third grade math levels of nutrition by basing their judgment on ingredients and have yet to take the next step to high school math level nutrition and carefully look at the nutrients. |
Steve,
Chris and I went around and around on this topic recently. What requirements are there for a product to pass the AAFCO (I assume that's what you mean) feed trial for growth, other than having 8 kittens consume the food for 10 weeks and show no significant nutritional deficiency or stunting of growth? Theoretically speaking, if one were to submit Science Diet Adult Maintenance to an AAFCO growth trial, would it have any chance of passing? -Alison in OH LOL! That´s all it takes? I bet bread and butter would be approved since the deficiency would have to be *significant*. |
Steve,
Chris and I went around and around on this topic recently. What requirements are there for a product to pass the AAFCO (I assume that's what you mean) feed trial for growth, other than having 8 kittens consume the food for 10 weeks and show no significant nutritional deficiency or stunting of growth? Theoretically speaking, if one were to submit Science Diet Adult Maintenance to an AAFCO growth trial, would it have any chance of passing? -Alison in OH LOL! That´s all it takes? I bet bread and butter would be approved since the deficiency would have to be *significant*. |
"Liz" wrote in message om... That´s how much Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. . LOL! Your delusions of grandeur are showing again! Of course a backwoods au naturel fanatic like you with no veterinary training whatsoever knows more about feline nutrition than board-certified Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition and Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine! ROTFL! ....and you wonder why vets who read your asinine theories and probably most people other than other deluded au naturel fanatics) think you're a "nut case"! LOL! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com