Question about fish in cat food

wrote in message
...
wrote:

On 16 Dec 2011 20:54:40 GMT, wrote:

Common wisdom among people who know something about feline nutrition
is that cats should't be fed fish too often. But a question about it
from a friend made me realize that I'm not sure why.

Years ago I did foster care for a cat rescue group and routinely used
canned mackeral when socializing fearful or feral cats. I was told
that a regular diet of fish was bad because it leached calcium from
the bones and could soften them.

Do you think this could be true for dogs, too? I know that cats and dogs
have some different nutritional requirements, but something like calcium
being leached from bones seems like it would apply to dogs and cats, and
humans, for that matter. (But that's just a theory, I don't actually
know.)

--
Joyce

I suspect it has a lot to do with the individual animal. When I was growing
up, we had a dog that was fed nothing but table scraps. She lived to be 21,
and was healthy the whole time.

Joy

"Dan M" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:11 +0000, Christina Websell wrote:

We are very lucky nowadays that cat foods are available in many forms,
kitten foods, senior foods etc Makes you wonder how they ever survived
on the scraps they had many moons ago. Obviously they did or we
wouldn't have their descendants.
Tweed

Indeed. I'm guessing that the occasional bird or vole must have helped
make up for any deficiencies they might have had.

Cats were never fed at least in the 20's when my grandmother had one.
They were expected to live on the mice and rats they caught in return for
their home.

I told Boyfie about that when he was his own bedroom on his own duvet. He
sez he did catch some very small ratties a while ago and that should be
enuff.

Tweed

In ,
shouted to everyone in earshot,

JB wrote:
provided feed might reduce the amount of ocean life that the fish eat,
but I wouldn't expect it to entirely replace their natural diet.
But (I would assume) they would be feeding them food that doesn't have
mercury in it. Maybe I shouldn't assume that...

rereading what I wrote, I guess could have been more clear. what I
meant to suggest was that the feed from the farm would be mercury-free
and would therefore probably lower the amount of mercury in a farmed
fish vs. wild-caught, but I also didn't want to assume that the fish
would be eating no mercury-laced natural diet at all. I don't have a
good idea of how significant the effect of the farm feed is on a
fish's mercury content.

That's disgusting. The food industry puts corn (in one form or another)
in *everything*. Not healthy for cats or humans.

yeah, it's an obnoxious practise. and I really have nothing against
corn, but I'd still just as soon not have it in stuff where corn isn't
the point of the product.

JB wrote:

In ,
shouted to everyone in earshot,

JB wrote:
provided feed might reduce the amount of ocean life that the fish eat,
but I wouldn't expect it to entirely replace their natural diet.
But (I would assume) they would be feeding them food that doesn't have
mercury in it. Maybe I shouldn't assume that...

rereading what I wrote, I guess could have been more clear. what I
meant to suggest was that the feed from the farm would be mercury-free
and would therefore probably lower the amount of mercury in a farmed
fish vs. wild-caught, but I also didn't want to assume that the fish
would be eating no mercury-laced natural diet at all. I don't have a
good idea of how significant the effect of the farm feed is on a
fish's mercury content.

I have heard that farmed fish are better for that reason, but that they're
not as good for just about any other reason.

That's disgusting. The food industry puts corn (in one form or another)
in *everything*. Not healthy for cats or humans.

yeah, it's an obnoxious practise. and I really have nothing against
corn, but I'd still just as soon not have it in stuff where corn isn't
the point of the product.

I love corn on the cob, but yeah. "New! Chocolate ice cream! *Now with
corn*!!" (Unfortunately, that's not just an absurd joke.)

--
Joyce

I want freedom, the right to self expression, everyone's right to
beautiful radiant things. -- Emma Goldman

On 17/12/2011 7:54 AM, wrote:
Common wisdom among people who know something about feline nutrition
is that cats should't be fed fish too often. But a question about it
from a friend made me realize that I'm not sure why. Is it because of
the presence of mercury in (wild) fish? Is that also the reason why
one shouldn't feed a cat too much tuna, or is that a separate issue?

Also, does anyone know whether farmed fish has a lower mercury content?
I would expect it to since they have more control over the water.


From what I know, the problem with feeding fish to cats is two-fold.
First of all, like almost all foods, fish is not a "complete" food, that
is, it doesn't have all the macro and micro nutrients in the exact right
proportions. The second problem is that fish, particularly salt water
fish, can have a high mineral salt content which is really not good for
anyone, especially cats as they have very concentrated urine anyway and
a prone to stones. Raw fish is probably "not that bad" for a cat now and
hten, but the canned stuff that we humans like to eat has got even more
mineral salt in it (thats one of hte way its preserved) and really isn't
suitable for a cat's physiology. A small bit won't hurt, but it would be
very unwise to use human-consumption tuna as the major source of protein
for a cat (it would also be a dumb idea for us for exactly the same
reasons.)

Mercury is mostly a problem in carnivorous fish, like tuna. Farmed tuna
may not have such a mercury problem as its wild cousins, depending on
the feed at the farm.

Upshot is: human-consumption toona is a treat, not a food. Fish can be a
reasonable part of a cat's diet providing that other sources of protein
are provided, and the *overall* intake of proteins, fats, carbs &
micronutrients are in balance (they don't have to be in balance for any
one meal, though).

I am not a feline nutritionist.

Yowie

On 16 Dec 2011 20:54:40 GMT, wrote:

Common wisdom among people who know something about feline nutrition
is that cats should't be fed fish too often. But a question about it
from a friend made me realize that I'm not sure why. Is it because of
the presence of mercury in (wild) fish? Is that also the reason why
one shouldn't feed a cat too much tuna, or is that a separate issue?

Also, does anyone know whether farmed fish has a lower mercury content?
I would expect it to since they have more control over the water.

Thanks.

I read not to feed cats more than the occasional treat of peoplefood
tuna because they like it too much and it doesn't have any kitty
vitamins added to it - a lot of cats will choose it in preference to
their actual catfood, and their health will suffer.

On 16 Dec 2011 22:06:10 GMT, Dan M wrote:

Years ago I did foster care for a cat rescue group and routinely used
canned mackeral when socializing fearful or feral cats. I was told that
a regular diet of fish was bad because it leached calcium from the bones
and could soften them.

FWIW.

I wonder if fish contains appropriate levels of taurine? If not, that
would certainly be a good reason to not feed too much of it.

Canned fish contains NO taurine unless it was added to it for catfood
purposes. Which is why it would be very bad for a cat to eat it and
nothing else.

On 2011-12-16, wrote:
wrote:

On 16 Dec 2011 20:54:40 GMT, wrote:

Common wisdom among people who know something about feline nutrition
is that cats should't be fed fish too often. But a question about it
from a friend made me realize that I'm not sure why.

Years ago I did foster care for a cat rescue group and routinely used
canned mackeral when socializing fearful or feral cats. I was told
that a regular diet of fish was bad because it leached calcium from
the bones and could soften them.

Do you think this could be true for dogs, too? I know that cats and dogs
have some different nutritional requirements, but something like calcium
being leached from bones seems like it would apply to dogs and cats, and
humans, for that matter. (But that's just a theory, I don't actually know.)


Food isn't leached from bones by food, but on a diet with too
little calcium your body will use calcium stored in your bones to make
up the difference. Diets containing too much phosphorus can interfere
with calcium metabolism. Minerals go in and out of your bones all your
life.

Bud

"JB" wrote
I really have nothing against corn, but I'd still just
as soon not have it in stuff where corn isn't the point
of the product.

Especially not GMO corn - which is now the most prevalent kind in food
products.

Kajikit wrote:

On 16 Dec 2011 20:54:40 GMT, wrote:

Common wisdom among people who know something about feline nutrition
is that cats should't be fed fish too often. But a question about it
from a friend made me realize that I'm not sure why. Is it because of
the presence of mercury in (wild) fish? Is that also the reason why
one shouldn't feed a cat too much tuna, or is that a separate issue?

Also, does anyone know whether farmed fish has a lower mercury content?
I would expect it to since they have more control over the water.

Thanks.

I read not to feed cats more than the occasional treat of peoplefood
tuna because they like it too much and it doesn't have any kitty
vitamins added to it - a lot of cats will choose it in preference to
their actual catfood, and their health will suffer.

I was asking more about fish-based cat food, you know, "salmon and
herring flavor" and stuff like that. I don't feed my cats a diet of
people food, although Roxy always manages to con a few pieces of meat
from me when I'm eating dinner.

--
Joyce

Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living
creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of
worthless human lives. -- Albert Schweitzer