Best canned food vs. worst

Steve Crane wrote:
(...)
change in diet. When we have carbohydrate free foods that do not
contain high levels of minerals known to be a risk, then the risk of
following an unproven hypothetical dietary idea is lessened.

Yet, if you look at SACN - the home made foods section - the home
recipes given are invariably very low in phosphorous, and IIRC, all the
diets need additional phosphorous to meet the AAFCO suggested levels.
It is clearly relatively easy to produce diets that are low in
phosphorous. I'm sure the problem is one of economics, not some
mystical barrier to producing a meat-rich diet that is simultaneously
low in phosphorous.


At the
moment the carbophobics are so intense and focused on hypothetical
and
unproven supposed advantages that they are totally ignoring the
downside. For every action there is a reaction - my fear is that in
reacting to the carbophobics unoproven claims and hypothetical
advantages we are ignoring the "reaction" of feeding high phos foods
to
a very at risk population of cats.

There are no downsides - as long as the owner makes sure to choose a
diet low in phosphorous. This is quite possible, given there are canned
diets that are both relative low in carbohydrate and phosphorous, etc.

(...)
contain much higher levels of iodine than veggies or grains. For
every
action there is an equal re-action.

Only if you're, like, moving rocks.

Steve.

Steve G wrote:
Steve Crane wrote:
(...)

Consider that renal failure has hugely increased in cats over the
past
decade. According to Perdue's database renal failure hit 0.9658% of
cats in 1980 - in 1990 it had risen to 4.81% of cats and by the
year
2000 it had risen to 10.31% of all cats. In a 20 year period renal
disease has increased by a whopping ten fold increase.

But what's the reason for this? Increased lifespan with a concomitant
CRF increase? Or are cats getting CRF at an earlier age than
previously? Or is it simply better detected these days, and the
underlying incidence of CRF is unchanged? Or is it diet related?

Very good questions. Some do believe it's related to diet along with
other factors. There was an interesting study done relating to
vaccines a few years ago but I haven't heard anything more recent:

http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/acvim_3_2002.html

"PARENTERAL ADMINISTRATION OF FVRCP VACCINES
INDUCES ANTIBODIES AGAINST FELINE RENAL TISSUES.

MR Lappin, WA Jensen, R Chandrashekar, and SD Kinney. From
the Department of Clinical Sciences (Lappin), Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO and the Heska Corporation, Fort Collins
CO (Jensen, Chandrashekar, and Kinney).

Chronic renal failure is a common cause of death in cats.
Lymphocytic/plasmacytic interstitial nephritis is common
histopathologically,
suggesting immune-mediated reactions may play a role. Feline
herpesvirus 1,
calicivirus, and panleukopenia virus for use in feline vaccines (FVRCP)

are
commonly grown in Crandall-Reese Feline Kidney (CRFK) cells. As a
consequence, commercially available FVRCP vaccines contain CRFK
proteins.
The objectives of this study were to determine whether cats inoculated
with
FVRCP vaccines develop antibodies against CRFK cell extracts and if so,

to
determine if these antibodies reacted with extracts of feline renal
tissue (FRT).

Fourteen age-matched, mixed-sex, unvaccinated kittens were divided
into seven
pairs. To each pair of kittens, one of the following was administered:
10=B5g of
CRFK protein SQ; 50=B5g of CRFK protein SQ; 50=B5g of CRFK protein plus
an
aluminum adjuvant SQ; a FVRCP vaccine for intranasal administration, or

one of
three FVRCP vaccines for SQ administration. The concentration of CRFK
protein
used was comparable to the range detected in the vaccines. Kittens
receiving
CRFK proteins were inoculated every two to four weeks for a total of
eight times
during the study period and kittens receiving vaccines were inoculated
every three
weeks for three inoculations. Serum samples were collected prior to
inoculation
and six months later. ELISAs to detect feline antibodies that bind to
CRFK cell
extracts or FRT extracts were optimized. All sera were assayed in both
ELISAs
and absorbance values calculated. An individual cat was considered
positive for
antibodies against either CRFK cell extracts or FRT extracts if the
mean
absorbance value of duplicate post-inoculation wells was greater than
the mean
plus three standard deviations of the 14 pre-inoculation sample
absorbance values.

None of the cats was positive for antibodies against CRFK or FRT
extracts prior
to inoculation. All six kittens inoculated with CRFK proteins were
positive for
anti-CRFK antibodies in the post-inoculation sample; five of these six
kittens were
positive for anti-FRT antibodies. Neither cat inoculated with the
intranasal FVRCP
vaccine was positive for anti-CRFK or anti-FRT antibodies
post-inoculation. Of
the cats inoculated with FVRCP vaccines SQ, five of six and four of six

were
positive for anti-CRFK antibodies or anti-FRT antibodies in the
post-inoculation
sample, respectively.

Administration of FVRCP vaccines SQ to cats can induce antibody
responses to
CRFK proteins and feline renal tissues. Further research will be needed

to define
the role of these autoantibodies in the development of chronic renal
failure in cats."

Lauren

Steve Crane wrote:
It is interesting to note that feeding commercial pet foods to wild
canids is the recommendation of the American Zoo and Aquarium,
Nutritional Advisory Group. This same group also suggests raw meat in
"carnivore logs" should only be used for the purposes of
administering medication like wormers, enticing animals to move
through
cages or doorways, and getting the wild canid accustomed to eating
commercial diets.

That's dogs. Many (most?) other animals may be fed a commerical diet
but it is always supplemented to mimic the diversity of the wild diet.


For the most part zoos feed a commercial diet. The biggest exceptions
are zoos with funding problems who can't afford to do so.

I know of several fairly large zoos that feed their big cats raw meat.
They may feed commercial diet as well, but raw meat is a big part of
the diet.

-L.

Steve Crane wrote:

Ya know Megan - ya just can't stop
yourself from lying can you?
=A0=A0=A0=A0Please identify ANYTIME where I
EVER made the claim that phosphorus
CAUSES kidney disease.

snip expected bait and switch and scare tactics

I haven't lied and I have never said that you claim phosphorus causes
kidney disease.

What I have said is that you imply it by posting over and over exactly
the things you posted in your response to me, which include scare
tactics and implication WRT phosphorus. You know exactly what you're
doing and it's on par with a snake oil salesman.

You go on and on and use the "excessive phosphorus" catch phrase ad
nauseum, yet you still have provided NO proof that phosphorus causes
kidney disease in healthy cats or is harmful in other ways. Over and
over again you avoid doing so, but you can't have it both ways.

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

wrote:
I wrote:
snip primer on Steve Crane
I forgot to add that his alter ego, the troll Chris Gaub (also a
Hill's
employee) is best ignored as well. He consistently lies and makes
claims
but refuses to provide cites to back them up. He is also a hypocrite
(on
the scale of Mary) and is best killfiled, or if you don't have that
capability you can always skip his posts, as I do.

Megan


Megan, why don't you provide some proof for once instead of running
your mouth? You are constantly trashing or attempting to smear Steve
or me. What's the matter...are you afraid of the argument AGAIN??
You're what? 0-212, now??

I DARE you to show anytime where I've ever lied. I jsut don't roll
like that. Anytime anyone dares disagree w/ you, you beg and plead w/
others to killfile us. Actually, you should be placed in everyone's
killfiles, so that they don't have to listen to you vitriol any longer.

PawsForThought wrote:
wrote:
And why is it okay for Solid Gold people to come on this ng and not
Hill's people??

The only reason Solid Gold posted here (once, mind you) was in reply
to
Steve Crane the Hills rep's lame (and obvious) attempt at smearing
Solid Gold, and for no other reason. Solid Gold stated their reason
for posting, and never tried to hide the fact that they worked for
Solid Gold (unlike other petfood reps here).

Lauren

What other pet food reps are here? YOU? I think Solid Gold didn't
want to stick around because they would be outed as working for a
company that does next to nothing (if anything) in the area of
reseach...feline or otherwise.

wrote:
Steve Crane wrote:

Ya know Megan - ya just can't stop
yourself from lying can you?
Please identify ANYTIME where I
EVER made the claim that phosphorus
CAUSES kidney disease.

I haven't lied and I have never said that you claim phosphorus causes
kidney disease.

What I have said is that you imply it by posting over and over
exactly
the things you posted in your response to me, which include scare
tactics and implication WRT phosphorus. You know exactly what you're
doing and it's on par with a snake oil salesman.

You go on and on and use the "excessive phosphorus" catch phrase ad
nauseum, yet you still have provided NO proof that phosphorus causes
kidney disease in healthy cats or is harmful in other ways. Over and
over again you avoid doing so, but you can't have it both ways.

Megan


Megan, just listen to yourself. You are asking Steve to provide proof
that phosphorus "causes" kidney disease in healthy cats while Steve has
never claimed that it does. Yet you deny ever saying that Steve has
claimed that phosphorus causes kidney disease. Why are you asking him
to provide proof of something he has never said that he has done?
Dizzy yet? You are trying to have it both ways. For the record (and
anyone can check this out themselves), I've never seen Steve state that
phosphorus (excessive or otherwise) "causes" kidney disease. So why
are you always on his back when he points out that excessive phosphorus
(as found in many of the diets YOU recommend) has no positive benefits?
I think it is because even you cannot find any good reason to feed
excessive phosphorus to cats.

Steve has already explained why excess phosphorus in a diet of a cat
that is in sub-clinical renal failure is NOT a good idea. Since
neither you nor anyone else can predict which cat is going to
experience renal disease, it makes sense that excess phosphorus in the
diet is a bad idea.

kaeli wrote:

How do you convert them?
That always confuzzled me.
As Fed, DMB, and all that.
I wish they'd just regulate the stuff like on human food labels.


There are four types of nutrient numbers.

1. Guaranteed Analysis - what is required on a bag of pet food. For
dogs only Protein, Fat, Fiber and Moisture are required, For cats they
add "ash". Guaranteed analysis is virtually worthless. You will find it
expressed as either Minimums or Maximums. For example Min 35% protein
or Protein - Not less Than 35%%. That means it has 35% protein or maybe
40% or maybe 50% - you really have no idea. It does mean the food must
contain at least 35% protein. In the case of moisture and ash these
will be expressed in Maximums - Max 10% moisture. Again it could 10% or
5% there is no way to tell. Since you really don't know what the actual
level is - converting these values is prone to some error.

2. As Fed Analysis - this is an actual analysis of the actual levels
found in the food. Thus the numbers will be 35.4% protein - no minimums
or maximums - but actual values - however theses values will always
include the moisture in the food and thus must be converted to DMB for
comparison to any other food. You can do OK comparing one dry food to
another as most fall in the 7-10% moisture level and thus the amount of
water in the food isn't going to vary greatly between one food and
another. Where you get into trouble is comparing a dry food to a canned
food.

3. Dry Matter Basis - this is the actual nutrient percentage after the
water is removed and is the best way to compare one food to another as
it eliminates the difference that varying level of moisture may have.

4. Kcal basis - usually expressed in grams/100kcals for macro nutrients
like protein, fat, fiber. In mgs/100kcals for macro minerals like
calcium, phosphorus etc. and then in mcg/100 kcals for very small
values like selenium, iodine, etc. This is the "Gold Standard" method
of looking at nutrients in a pet food as it takes into account the
caloric density and determines how many grams, mgs, mcgs a cat will
ingest when meeting daily caloric needs.

Converting the values.
Converting Guaranteed values is iffy at best but works the same way as
converting an As Fed value.

Determine the moisture content of the food. Subtract that from 100.

Moisture level is 10%
Subtract from 100%
Equals 90%

Now divide any nutrient level by the 90% value.
As Fed analysis protein is 20% divide by 90% (90% equals 0.90)
equals 22.22% protein on a DMb basis.

Canned foods make this more interesting.
Moisture level is 75%
Subtract from 100%
Equals 25%

As Fed protein level of 8% divided by 25% (.25) equals 32% protein on a
DMB basis.

kaeli wrote:
The current AAFCO nutrient levels (which manufactures must adhere
to)
established for cats and dogs for various nutrients dates back to
National Research Council data from 1973. We've learned a lot since
then. There was a move to change the AAFCO levels and update them
late
last year but it still hasn't been done.

That explains a great deal.
Anyone I can write to and complain?

Your state AAFCO official - usually somebody in the agriculture
department or the consumer affairs department.

In article , zuzu22
@webtv.net enlightened us with...

You go on and on and use the "excessive phosphorus" catch phrase ad
nauseum, yet you still have provided NO proof that phosphorus causes
kidney disease in healthy cats or is harmful in other ways. Over and
over again you avoid doing so, but you can't have it both ways.

He didn't say it causes it.
He said it is harmful to cats who are already diseased. Which it is and
that's a proven fact.
The point he was trying to make (that I also missed until it was clarified)
was that, as a kitty guardian, there is no way for us to know if our cats
have kidney disease until it is too late. So, since there is no benefit to
higher levels of phosphorus in the diet, and IF the cat is diseased (which at
only, say, 30%, we can't yet tell) it can hurt the cat, then why take the
chance?

At least, that's what I got out of it. YMMV, I suppose.

--
--
~kaeli~
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace