Cat foods and too much sugar - what are the best?

"Annie Wxill" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
... Someone was telling me that Fancy Feast is loaded with sugar, but a
check
of some sites indicate it isn't that bad. ...

Hi,
I've never heard of a cat food containing sugar. I've looked at lots of
labels over the years, but I don't recall ever seeing sugar as an
ingredient.
Just a couple of months ago a study was published that said that cats
don't have the ability to taste sugar.
If you are concerned about sugar in a certain brand, it would be easy
enough to read the label and see if what you heard is true.
Annie
Annie

Sugar is added to cat food in some countries to aid palatability. It seems
to be common in Germany.

Tweed

What I found very disturbing about Fancy Feast is not the carbs but the
very high phosphorus content. I try to keep the phosphorus content
below 0.80%, as a rule.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm

Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast 0.75
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast 0.75

The above two were the only Fancy Feast I could find that meet the
criteria.

Generally I try a 1.1 to 1.0 ratio of calcium to phosphorus. Granted
wet food is hard and one hopes the dry food achieves this. This is
somewhat the same for humans too. Too much phosphorus is not a good
thing for bones and perhaps for the renal system. Any scientists want
to weight in here?

wrote in message
oups.com...
What I found very disturbing about Fancy Feast is not the carbs but the
very high phosphorus content. I try to keep the phosphorus content
below 0.80%, as a rule.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm


I think her data is outdated- its probably from before the Nestle'/Purina
takeover. I have the most current Fancy Feast and Friskies proximate
analyses directly from Nestle' Purina PetCare.



Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast 0.75
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast 0.75

The above two were the only Fancy Feast I could find that meet the
criteria.

The dry matter value for *all* these Fancy Feast diets are 0.80% or lower:

Marinated Beef Feast,
Marinated Chicken Feast,
Marinated Salmon Feast,
Grilled Chicken Feast,
Grilled Tuna Feast,
Minced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast,
Seafood Filets Tuna & Ocean Whitefish.

Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast and Grilled Turkey Feast weigh in at
0.95%- which is acceptable if the cats won't eat lower phosphorus diets.

I don't know how you're calculating the phosphorus content. But the way to
convert the amount of nutrient from an as-fed to a dry-matter basis, divide
the amount of the nutrient, as fed, by the fraction of dry matter. For
example: 0.18% (AF) / 22% (fraction of DM) = 0.80% DMB. If the moisture
content of a diet is 75% instead of 78%, then formula would be 0.18%/25% =
0.72%.

Phil

Phil P. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
What I found very disturbing about Fancy Feast is not the carbs but the
very high phosphorus content. I try to keep the phosphorus content
below 0.80%, as a rule.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm


I think her data is outdated- its probably from before the Nestle'/Purina
takeover. I have the most current Fancy Feast and Friskies proximate
analyses directly from Nestle' Purina PetCare.

Nope, her data has been updated for 2005.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm

But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the
same, which is way too high for canned or wet food as a general rule. I
just don't trust them. It's cheap and they don't publish their numbers.
I can't find their numbers on their web site. Can you?

Again, I was on their web site and I could not find any info
whatsoever. Just idiot level pictures of the cans. Gee whiz. What a
dumbing down of their customers.

Can you find the numbers? I've suggested this before to them.

Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast 0.75
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast 0.75

The above two were the only Fancy Feast I could find that meet the
criteria.

The dry matter value for *all* these Fancy Feast diets are 0.80% or lower:

Marinated Beef Feast,
Marinated Chicken Feast,
Marinated Salmon Feast,
Grilled Chicken Feast,
Grilled Tuna Feast,
Minced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast,
Seafood Filets Tuna & Ocean Whitefish.

Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast and Grilled Turkey Feast weigh in at
0.95%- which is acceptable if the cats won't eat lower phosphorus diets.

I don't know how you're calculating the phosphorus content. But the way to
convert the amount of nutrient from an as-fed to a dry-matter basis, divide
the amount of the nutrient, as fed, by the fraction of dry matter. For
example: 0.18% (AF) / 22% (fraction of DM) = 0.80% DMB. If the moisture
content of a diet is 75% instead of 78%, then formula would be 0.18%/25% =
0.72%.

Phil

I'm not interested in their dry food since I use Science Diet which
publishes their contents in great details, and include both As Fed and
as a Dry Matter Basis, so what you describe is a moot point with
Science Diet. In any case, it's a trivial conversion. It's just the
quantity percentage with the water removed. Again, Fancy Feast has too
high a phosphorus content for their canned food and so I will believe
until they publish something to the contrary.

I am very disappointed how hard it is to get all the relevant
information from most of the manufacturers except Science Diet and
Royal Canin. I have not discussed anything with IAMS yet so I don't
know about them.

But many of the others, including "Natural" or Organic are just plain
terrible. If they can't supply the basic numbers from the laboratories,
I wonder if they have any real controls. It's awful just trying to get
the idiot numbers, like how much phosphorus is in your foods. I gave up
on most of these manufacturers. Just take them very, very skeptically.

I'm getting so fed up with them I'll probably start making my own cat
food, using fresh chicken and throwing in a good powder with the
vitamins and minerals, like carnitine and taurine.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil P. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
What I found very disturbing about Fancy Feast is not the carbs but
the
very high phosphorus content. I try to keep the phosphorus content
below 0.80%, as a rule.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm


I think her data is outdated- its probably from before the
Nestle'/Purina
takeover. I have the most current Fancy Feast and Friskies proximate
analyses directly from Nestle' Purina PetCare.

Nope, her data has been updated for 2005.

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm


Her data certainly *is* outdated. The canned food list hasn't been updated
since "Revised: 12-Oct-2003" and the dry food list hasn't been updated
since "Revised: 05-Nov-2003".


But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the
same,


Wrong again. Her data is is outdated by almost *two years* and the
improvements in the FF diets during that time have been *substantial*. I've
been researching cat foods for 25 years so I can tell you with absolute
certainty that changes in a line of diets can change dramatically from year
to year or even batch to batch.


which is way too high for canned or wet food as a general rule. I
just don't trust them.

Sounds like a personal problem. You shouldn't post bogus information about
a cat food just because you don't like or trust the company.


It's cheap and they don't publish their numbers.


Wrong again on both counts. Fancy Feast isn't cheap relative to other
premium brands. Forty five cents/3 oz. can translates into .82/5.5 oz. And
they certainly do publish their numbers- all you have to do is ask for them.
Other than Hill's, none of the pet food companies publish their proximate
analyses on the web.


I can't find their numbers on their web site. Can you?


All you have to do is call Nestle'/Purina- its a toll free number- and ask
for them.



Again, I was on their web site and I could not find any info
whatsoever. Just idiot level pictures of the cans. Gee whiz. What a
dumbing down of their customers.


Not really. The overwhelming vast majority of pet owners don't have or want
a clue about nutrient levels. In fact, the overwhelming vast majority of
pet owners actually think dry food contains more protein than canned foods-
so do many vets.



Can you find the numbers? I've suggested this before to them.


Yep. I called the company and asked them to send me the proximate analyses-
and they did.



Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast 0.75
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast 0.75

The above two were the only Fancy Feast I could find that meet the
criteria.

The dry matter value for *all* these Fancy Feast diets are 0.80% or
lower:

Marinated Beef Feast,
Marinated Chicken Feast,
Marinated Salmon Feast,
Grilled Chicken Feast,
Grilled Tuna Feast,
Minced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef Feast,
Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast,
Seafood Filets Tuna & Ocean Whitefish.

Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast and Grilled Turkey Feast weigh in at
0.95%- which is acceptable if the cats won't eat lower phosphorus diets.

I don't know how you're calculating the phosphorus content. But the way
to
convert the amount of nutrient from an as-fed to a dry-matter basis,
divide
the amount of the nutrient, as fed, by the fraction of dry matter. For
example: 0.18% (AF) / 22% (fraction of DM) = 0.80% DMB. If the moisture
content of a diet is 75% instead of 78%, then formula would be 0.18%/25%
=
0.72%.

Phil

I'm not interested in their dry food


LOL! Whose talking about dry food? All the diets I listed are *canned
food*.


since I use Science Diet which
publishes their contents in great details, and include both As Fed and
as a Dry Matter Basis, so what you describe is a moot point with
Science Diet.


Whose talking about Science Diet? I posted a response to correct your
statement about the phosphorus levels in Fancy Feast.


In any case, it's a trivial conversion. It's just the
quantity percentage with the water removed. Again, Fancy Feast has too
high a phosphorus content for their canned food and so I will believe
until they publish something to the contrary.


Again, you're wrong. Some of the Fancy Feast diets contain the *lowest* in
phosphorus content on the market. You should get your facts straight before
you post bogus information about a cat food just because you don't happen to
trust the company. Purina has been around for 50 years and is probably the
most respected pet food company in the industry.

Phil P. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


which is way too high for canned or wet food as a general rule. I
just don't trust them.

Sounds like a personal problem. You shouldn't post bogus information about
a cat food just because you don't like or trust the company.

The reason I don't trust them is when they said if you want an in-depth
view, it was literally an enlarged view of the can. Give me a break.
That infuriates me. A big picture of a can is more information? I once
was in one of their focus groups and really suggested strongly that
they give out intelligent information. Their whole focus was on colors
and how big a font to use. GRRRRR.


It's cheap and they don't publish their numbers.

Wrong again on both counts. Fancy Feast isn't cheap relative to other
premium brands. Forty five cents/3 oz. can translates into .82/5.5 oz. And
they certainly do publish their numbers- all you have to do is ask for them.
Other than Hill's, none of the pet food companies publish their proximate
analyses on the web.

They should publish their numbers. So it's not cheap. Okay. It's cheap
compared to Science Diet but if it were as good... And I was not wrong
about their not publishing their numbers. So there! Publishing means
that, putting the numbers out there, preferably on the cans or at least
on the web sites.


All you have to do is call Nestle'/Purina- its a toll free number- and ask
for them.

Hassle.

LOL! Whose talking about dry food? All the diets I listed are *canned
food*.

Thanks. That's nice to know. I miread what you posted.


Again, you're wrong. Some of the Fancy Feast diets contain the *lowest* in
phosphorus content on the market. You should get your facts straight before
you post bogus information about a cat food just because you don't happen to
trust the company. Purina has been around for 50 years and is probably the
most respected pet food company in the industry.

I'm glad to hear that. Yes Purina has been around. And I'm not sure,
but I believe they make a really cheap food that is certified for the
teeth, as opposed to Science Diet, which last I looked, was the only
other one making a certified tooth food. Now that may change. Was that
Purina?

I've been going up and back with Science Diet and some of their
published numbers. I just wish they would really list how they do this
and their sampling techniques.

Interestingly, Royal Canin even had me talking to a vet, now that was
impressive. Most of the other companies want to know who I am, but the
women on the line don't give their last names or their credentials.
Almost always women. Science Diet can do the conversions although I get
annoyed that all their numbes are not exactly the same, like energy
requirements and what to feed a 10 pound cat. It's not a big difference
but can't get any scientific data out of them, still better than the
other companies. At least they can talk a bit of the lingo.

And some of them, like Pet Guard was one, I could not get the info.
They thought it strange I should want to know the calcium and
phosphorus contents. I think it was them.

And what really is infuriating. NO KILOCALORES on the cans. Can you
believe that? At least post on the web site the caloric content, all of
them should do that.

In any case, I think Purina might be okay but I doubt if they are as
good as Science Diet. But let's see. Do they regulate the pH levels too
now?

So let me ask you, Purina, very inexpensive compared to Science Diet.
How does their dry food related to Science Diet light? I'm thinking of
on dry food, I think it was Purina, that was pretty good, but can't
recall now. Probably Purina since they also make Friskies, home of the
cat circus.

I'm don't mean to be a meanie and would like to agree with you. It's
easier buying canned food than cooking for my cat. Was it you I was
discussing fiber content and diet food, that is, weight loss food?

" wrote in
oups.com:

I am very disappointed how hard it is to get all the relevant
information from most of the manufacturers except Science Diet and
Royal Canin. I have not discussed anything with IAMS yet so I don't
know about them.


Someone I know who has a dog raves about Flint River Ranch which makes a
hard cat food. It seems you have to buy through one of their
distributors, either by phone or over the net. Is it as good as some
say?

My mom's cat loves her Purina Pro Plan hard cat food and in the wet
canned food arena, only rarely will eat anything other than Fancy Feast.
Once in awhile she'll eat Wellness Turkey or Purina Pro Plan canned food.

Btw, does anyone know what the little black spices are in Wellness cans?
Is that the flaxseed that's listed as an ingredient?

"Phil P." wrote in news:G9GdnYM0H7HVVZLeRVn-
:


Wrong again on both counts. Fancy Feast isn't cheap relative to other
premium brands. Forty five cents/3 oz. can translates into .82/5.5 oz.

Try .52 a can in NYC, which is more expensive than Wellness!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil P. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


which is way too high for canned or wet food as a general rule. I
just don't trust them.

Sounds like a personal problem. You shouldn't post bogus information
about
a cat food just because you don't like or trust the company.

The reason I don't trust them is when they said if you want an in-depth
view, it was literally an enlarged view of the can. Give me a break.
That infuriates me. A big picture of a can is more information? I once
was in one of their focus groups and really suggested strongly that
they give out intelligent information. Their whole focus was on colors
and how big a font to use. GRRRRR.


You have to remember, those of us who are concerned about nutrient levels
represent a only very small fraction of the cat-owning public. The only
"nutrients" most people heard of are "ash" and "by-products"- and that's
only because some pet food companies used the phrases "low ash" or "no
by-products" as marketing gimmicks. In reality, neither term has any
meaning to the average owner since "ash" isn't an ingredient per se- its an
analysis and doesn't correlate to the magnesium or any other specific
mineral content of the diet, and 'by-products'- which are actually *more*
nutritious than skeletal meat and that which the cat eats when she eats an
entire mouse.

Wanna laugh? One of Nutro's lines advertises "contains no corn" (but
contains wheat), and another Nutro line advertises "contains no wheat" (but
contains corn)! LOL! Nutro is actually the company responsible for the
negative hype about by-products- meanwhile, their diets contain some of the
highest phosphorus & calcium levels on the market-- which means their diets
contain low-quality meats (a lot of ground bone).





It's cheap and they don't publish their numbers.

Wrong again on both counts. Fancy Feast isn't cheap relative to other
premium brands. Forty five cents/3 oz. can translates into .82/5.5 oz.
And
they certainly do publish their numbers- all you have to do is ask for
them.
Other than Hill's, none of the pet food companies publish their
proximate
analyses on the web.

They should publish their numbers. So it's not cheap. Okay. It's cheap
compared to Science Diet but if it were as good...


Several Fancy Feast diets are actually *better* than Science Diet. They
contain more meat- 4 of the first 5 ingredients of many diets are meat- 25%
more protein with similar or lower phosphorus levels, and less plant
material.


And I was not wrong
about their not publishing their numbers. So there! Publishing means
that, putting the numbers out there, preferably on the cans or at least
on the web sites.

Publish means "To prepare and issue material for public distribution or
sale." Nestle'/Purina publishes proximate analyses for distribution- all
you have to do is ask for them.





All you have to do is call Nestle'/Purina- its a toll free number- and
ask
for them.

Hassle.

Takes 5 minutes.



LOL! Whose talking about dry food? All the diets I listed are *canned
food*.

Thanks. That's nice to know. I miread what you posted.


Again, you're wrong. Some of the Fancy Feast diets contain the *lowest*
in
phosphorus content on the market. You should get your facts straight
before
you post bogus information about a cat food just because you don't
happen to
trust the company. Purina has been around for 50 years and is probably
the
most respected pet food company in the industry.

I'm glad to hear that. Yes Purina has been around. And I'm not sure,
but I believe they make a really cheap food that is certified for the
teeth, as opposed to Science Diet, which last I looked, was the only
other one making a certified tooth food. Now that may change. Was that
Purina?

Friskies Dental Diet- which is technically Nestle'/Purina.




I've been going up and back with Science Diet and some of their
published numbers. I just wish they would really list how they do this
and their sampling techniques.


They chemically analyze each new batch or formula. They're not require to
conduct feeding trials for each new batch. If you want to have a diet
analyzed yourself, send a can to Cornell's Nutritional & Environmental
Analytical Services. They do pet food analyses for the public.


Interestingly, Royal Canin even had me talking to a vet, now that was
impressive. Most of the other companies want to know who I am, but the
women on the line don't give their last names or their credentials.
Almost always women. Science Diet can do the conversions although I get
annoyed that all their numbes are not exactly the same, like energy
requirements and what to feed a 10 pound cat. It's not a big difference
but can't get any scientific data out of them, still better than the
other companies. At least they can talk a bit of the lingo.

Whenever I call a pet food company, I try to speak with a dietician or ACVN
nutritionist. Daily energy requirements depend on the neuter status
(neutered animals require 1/3 *less* kcals/day), activity level and perhaps
age.



And some of them, like Pet Guard was one, I could not get the info.
They thought it strange I should want to know the calcium and
phosphorus contents. I think it was them.

And what really is infuriating. NO KILOCALORES on the cans. Can you
believe that? At least post on the web site the caloric content, all of
them should do that.


Yeah, I'd like to see the kcals on the bag/can myself. I'd also like to see
the nutrient contents listed on a caloric basis (nutrient/100 kcals) right
on the packages. Caloric basis is more accurate than 'as fed' or "dry
matter basis" because the amount of a nutrient that the cat actually
consumes depends on how much food the cat eats.



In any case, I think Purina might be okay but I doubt if they are as
good as Science Diet. But let's see.

Depends on your definition of 'good'. Most Purina Pro Plan canned diets
contain more meat and protein than Science Diet- but they also contain more
phosphorus.


Do they regulate the pH levels too
now?


I think only the 'Special Care" and veterinary diets list target pH.



So let me ask you, Purina, very inexpensive compared to Science Diet.


The Pro Plan and Purina One lines are about the same price as Science Diet.


How does their dry food related to Science Diet light? I'm thinking of
on dry food, I think it was Purina, that was pretty good, but can't
recall now. Probably Purina since they also make Friskies, home of the
cat circus.

Purina One Chicken & Rice is actually better than most Science Diet diets.
The first ingredient is meat and the phosphorus levels are 0.80%- which is
good for a dry food.



I'm don't mean to be a meanie and would like to agree with you. It's
easier buying canned food than cooking for my cat. Was it you I was
discussing fiber content and diet food, that is, weight loss food?

Could be. I don't remember.

Phil P. wrote:

You have to remember, those of us who are concerned about nutrient levels
represent a only very small fraction of the cat-owning public. The only
"nutrients" most people heard of are "ash" and "by-products"- and that's
only because some pet food companies used the phrases "low ash" or "no
by-products" as marketing gimmicks. In reality, neither term has any
meaning to the average owner since "ash" isn't an ingredient per se- its an
analysis and doesn't correlate to the magnesium or any other specific
mineral content of the diet, and 'by-products'- which are actually *more*
nutritious than skeletal meat and that which the cat eats when she eats an
entire mouse.

So low ash is meaningless? One couple I know said it helped their cat
who was having different types of crystals in the urine. Ash is to be
low, 6% if the cat has problems? Also magnesium less than 0.1%? but
above 0.05%? About by-products, I asked Science Diet and they said
spleen and lungs, which I thought, not bad, bit rich. I was concerned
about prions and Mad Cow Disease, not that most overfed cats would live
that long. I tried pointing out that cats fed ADEQUATE nutrition!!! but
lower calories would live longer but that's new science, comparatively
speaking. So yes, by-products were good in Science Diet.

Wanna laugh? One of Nutro's lines advertises "contains no corn" (but
contains wheat), and another Nutro line advertises "contains no wheat" (but
contains corn)! LOL! Nutro is actually the company responsible for the
negative hype about by-products- meanwhile, their diets contain some of the
highest phosphorus & calcium levels on the market-- which means their diets
contain low-quality meats (a lot of ground bone).

One store pushed this. Plus, it just seemed poorly made to me. Just not
fresh. Science Diet although much more expensive, even as dry food,
seemed more "alive" than Nutro which looked like cardboard to me. My
cat hated it. I'm pretty sure it was the Nutro line but not positive so
if I maligned...

Several Fancy Feast diets are actually *better* than Science Diet. They
contain more meat- 4 of the first 5 ingredients of many diets are meat- 25%
more protein with similar or lower phosphorus levels, and less plant
material.

Certainly a lot easier for me so I'll check this out.

Publish means "To prepare and issue material for public distribution or
sale." Nestle'/Purina publishes proximate analyses for distribution- all
you have to do is ask for them.

I would prefer it to be on the web site. I really would.


Takes 5 minutes.

Not me. Probably talk for an hour.


Friskies Dental Diet- which is technically Nestle'/Purina.

Very inexpensive compared to Science Diet and the only other one
certified by that vet association for teeth. But Oral Care is pretty
good. Big sized kibble. But it's around 3.9 kilocalories or "calories"
per gram.

They chemically analyze each new batch or formula. They're not require to
conduct feeding trials for each new batch. If you want to have a diet
analyzed yourself, send a can to Cornell's Nutritional & Environmental
Analytical Services. They do pet food analyses for the public.

Very helpful to know. So they do cats and birds. Interesting. By birds,
I mean they have the Ornithological lab and published the recent
article about the ivory-billed woodpecker. Their chief went out on a
limb about that. Now back to cats...

Whenever I call a pet food company, I try to speak with a dietician or ACVN
nutritionist. Daily energy requirements depend on the neuter status
(neutered animals require 1/3 *less* kcals/day), activity level and perhaps
age.

Helpful info. When I was looking into the RER, Science Diet will fax
that if you ask, but it's off a bit. The Resting Energy Requirements
[RER] which is, tada... By the way, the RER for a neutered feline is
1.2 and 1.4 for intact so that's less than what you are suggesting. I
think your 1/3rd sounds better. Any reference for that?

70 x Weight in kilograms raised to the .75 power.
y
Need a calculator that does x to the y or x

.75
So it's RER = 70 x Kg

Kilograms are pounds divided by 2.2046 for those who are itching to
know.


And 0.8 x RER for weight loss but they have these various coefficients
for neutered and so on. How do they arrive at this I would like to
know. Hmmm. Looks impressive but without the science behind it, I
wonder. How many cats did they weigh and what were their criteria?

A 10 pound cat has an RER of 218 x 0.8 = 174.4 calories if aiming to
reduce the cat to 10 pounds, actually, that's a bit high. Their
packages for Light list 160 calories or 50 grams x 3.2 calories/gram
for 10 pound cat. Heh, I'm getting good at this. Now get this, their
Prescription Diet r/d [www.hillspet.com] for weight loss has a range
for reducing goes from around 135.9 kcals - 196.3 kcal for an average
of 166.1. In any case, that's a lot less on the low end but much higher
on the high end - guess it varies depending on weight of cat and the
target but it's not clear without additional instructions. Really have
to cut the calories down to get a cat to reduce. Slowly, few ounces,
4?, per week, and not a lot without a vet, a pound or so, 10% or so.
Need to buy a digital scale, either a postal and put a tray on it or an
expensive pediatric type. My bathroom scale does not cut it. So hard to
just get simple good things, like an accurate bathroom scale. Where are
standards when you need them? Some Tanada scales are accurate. Some
digital scales are a little faked, they just repeat the last weighing
to give an impression of consistancy. I'll find an accurate one down to
0.1 yet. Some day. If money is no object...


Yeah, I'd like to see the kcals on the bag/can myself. I'd also like to see
the nutrient contents listed on a caloric basis (nutrient/100 kcals) right
on the packages. Caloric basis is more accurate than 'as fed' or "dry
matter basis" because the amount of a nutrient that the cat actually
consumes depends on how much food the cat eats.

Pet Guard does list calories after one converts them down from
kilograms to ounces. Why can't they put the calories on a 3 ounce can
instead of listing it for the kilogram level? But at least they list it
unlike almost all the others. Science Diet does list calories on the
dry food, not the wet food. Go figure. It's about the same for many
cans. 95 calories for 3 ounce can but would be nice to just list the
kilocalories or "calories" for a 3 ounce or 85 gram can. What is so
hard about that? They do that for all other foods for humans. And
obesity is probably the number one problem for all pet owners. Need to
know calories to get a handle on obesity which leads to the
degenerative diseases, diabetes and so on.


Depends on your definition of 'good'. Most Purina Pro Plan canned diets
contain more meat and protein than Science Diet- but they also contain more
phosphorus.

Hmmm, will check into that. Depends on the amount of phosphorus and the
ratios.

Do they regulate the pH levels too now?
I think only the 'Special Care" and veterinary diets list target pH.

Science Diet, if you go to their web site, has target pH for many of
their foods, I thought all, but I could be wrong. pH of 6.2 to 6.4 for
1 to 6 years of age. And ph of 6.4 to 6.6 for their Senior line, which
is 7+ years of age. And again, this is for all their foods, including
the regular ones, not just the "Prescription Diet" food. This may be
something recent so it's new and maybe why you have not noticed it.
Science Diet raises the pH for for older cats to prevent different
types of crystals, so it's a tad less acidic 6.4-6.6. 7.0 is neutral.

Purina One Chicken & Rice is actually better than most Science Diet diets.
The first ingredient is meat and the phosphorus levels are 0.80%- which is
good for a dry food.

Really? I'll look into this. Did I have a coupon for this Threw it
away.

Amazing how much detail I picked up and my cat is still a little pudgy!
In any case, you gave me some good info and leads, thanks.