(Steve Crane) wrote in message om...
(...)

Source: Small Animal Clinical Nutrition IV ed pages 309 and 334
Authors of this chapter:
Claudia A. Kirk, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM, ACVN, University of Tennesee
Jacques DeBraekeleer, DVM, PhD, ACVIM, ACVN, University Netherlands
P. Jane Armstrong. Diplomate ACVIM, ACVN, Perdue.
(ACVIM = board certified in small animal internal medicine, ACVN =
board certified in veterinary nutrition.)

And there I was thinking that ACVIM meant 'Associate of the Council of
Vole and Insect Masseurs'. But Onward!



Dry matter basis expressed as percentage

growth adult
Protein 35-50% 30-45%
fat 18-35% 10-30%
fiber 5% 5%
calcium 0.8-1.6% 0.5-1.0%
phosphorus 0.6-1.4% 0.5-0.8%
sodium 0.3-0.6% 0.2-0.6%
potassium 0.6-1.2% 0.6-1.0%
magnesium 0.08-0.15% 0.04-0.1%

And these figures illustrate not only my point that ALS / Kitten /
Adult diets appear to often differ minimally, but further that it is
quite easy to come up with a formulation that would be suitable for
adult and kitten! In other words, you yourself (sic) are quoting
evidence with which to support the notion that ALS ain't necessarily
'kitten food'. Or, to switch it about a bit - there are a range of
nutritional compositions that are appropriate for both adult and
kitten.

Which is - more or less - my point. Or one of 'em.



Foods in excess of the adult parameters would be more appropriate as a
growth food. While it is possible an adult food at the high end of the
adult range could pass the AAFCO feeding trial for growth, it would be
highly unlikley that an adult food in the middle to lower end of the
adult ranges would do so.

From the figures you quote, it seems that an adult food in the middle
of the adult range *would* be an 'appropriate' kitten food. A quick
hop down basic math lane:

Nutrient 'Average' adult recommendation
Pr 38
Fa 25
Fb 5
Ca .75
Ph .65
Na .4
K .8
Mg .07

Calcium and magnesium are marginal, but I betcha half a pound of
lemur's eyeballs to a jelly doughnut that a kitten would do fine on a
food with the above profile.

Having said all that, the meaning of these ranges needs to be defined,
really. Without that knowledge, we have no idea how 'hard' these
limits are, or precisely what they represent. Now, I don't expect you
(or anyone else) to define that here ... after all, given that book
you quote from is c.1200 pages long, I imagine 'what they represent'
would take more than a sentence to summarise! It's on my list of
'light bedtime reading' though...

Steve.