A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Liz's Food recommendations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 03, 02:25 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #4  
Old October 7th 03, 07:22 PM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #5  
Old October 7th 03, 07:22 PM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #6  
Old October 7th 03, 07:34 PM
Karen M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.


  #7  
Old October 7th 03, 07:34 PM
Karen M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.


  #8  
Old October 7th 03, 07:50 PM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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*.
  #9  
Old October 7th 03, 07:50 PM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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*.
  #10  
Old October 7th 03, 08:24 PM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before commercial cat food..... Kitten M Cat health & behaviour 716 October 18th 03 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.