Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
thanks! rewrote vegetarian section
rewrote the vegetarian section so that it complies with NPOV, as in its previous form it was so long it placed undue emphasis on the section. Further it was structured more like a comment board discussion, rather than an encyclopedia article; there was back and forth contradictions instead of a succinct explanation of the issues. Also the way sources were used were problemenatic. All these problems were corrected as best as I could, and I documented tediously the process. PLEASE do not simply revert to that tragic text, or add anything of the sort back in. Please discuss here in talk before any editor wants to from the course I have laid out. Thanks for everyone's help with spelling punctuation and citation checks! Retran (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Choosing Cat Food Video
rewriting vege/vega cat food section
I'm fed up. This whole section is a major quality problem on an article rated of high importance. It's one giant WP:NPOV violation and we should be ashamed. Too much of this info is unsourced, (and has been so for too long so its being removed if its unsourced). Also, its absurdly long. Here it goes. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"...and is targeted primarily at vegan and vegetarian pet owners" seems problematic POV violation, as all cat food is marketed towards human pet owners. The natural implication of the statement as written would be the food would not exist if it were not for the demands of the owners for such a food. Again, that's true of ALL cat food (and all pet food). Its emphasis here seems to be a tricky way to single out vegetarian cat owners as buying a food for their own human purposes, rather than the pets. Yet all cat food is made for human buyers. Cats never purchase food.
The Wakefield et al. source.... While I'm happy to see peer reviewed material, I'm not happy to see it used like this. This is an encyclopedic entry regarding vegan cat food. I would argue that this article is not about the buyers of cat food and their existential differences with other cat food buyers. This section is just about vegan/vegeterian cat food. We describe it, profile its history, etc. A statement like this seems to be justifying its existence as if its in question. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The constant re-emphasis of cats being "obligate carnivors" could be a NPOV violation, as such I'm removing its constant referallal in this section. We already have been informed in the top of this article that cats are obligate carnivores, that they have evolves especially for prey-procurement and meat digestion. We could further go on to counter that by saying they've been subjigated and enslaved by humans so long that its not so important how they're classified, but that its just important they get proper nutrition. The nutrition alone of vegan/vegetarian cat food should be evaluated in this section. Re-emphasising the fact cats are carnivores (no matter how true it is, and perhaps relevant) in this section is therefore, in my opinion, another sneaky NPOV violation. (It's relevance has already been addressed). Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"companies attempt to correct these deficiencies by supplementing their products with synthetically produced nutrients"... Very much another NPOV violation i would argue. There is definitely normal meaty cat food which contains isolated nutrients applied during manufacture, just the same as vegan/vege. Also, the whole "synthetic" description is does not seem precise, as its nutrient isolation, and there's many ways to isolate nutrients to apply them to foods... not just synthesis. I suppose this could be a misreading of the mentioned source, or it could be a problematic source? Either way its an NPOV violation so the source doesn't matter. Its NPOV violation because its placing undue emphasis on the fact that vegatarian cat food contains isolated nutrients, when in fact nearly all marketed cat food does. Plus, look how it uses the word "attempt", when no such treatment is made of meaty cat food in this article, (and if it is that would be absurd, i'd have to change it, as it would be an NPOV violation in and of itself). The "attempt" term makes it seem as if the foods status as a valid cat diet is in question. That should be addressed in a controversy paragraph (if at all) and anywhere else in the vegetarian cat food info section. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"According to the National Research Council, "Cats require specific nutrients, not specific feedstuffs." This is just more arguing and bickering within the paragraph, and the issue of nutrients has been addressed. It seems to be a great source for the previous statement, but the sentence itself is redundant and/or seems to be making a case for vegan/vega cat food diet. Leaving the sentence there could be NPOV violation because by making a case, it would be invaliding the ethical reasoning for ever using meat-based cat food. I argue that the juxtaposed ethical reasonings belongs in our hypothetical controversy paragraph (if we ever get there). Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This statement is bizzare "To use the science of nutrition that is still in its infancy..." If nutritional Science is still in its "infancy" there's hosts of other sciences that are still in their "infancy". What i mean is that while this Dr is an expert in some regard, that's a sweeping value judement on Nutritional Science. I'm not making a call weather or not its "in its infancy" but the statement isn't pertinent to our description of vegan cat food. I can address the absurdity of trying to discredit a broad range of Science elsewhere. Its a big NPOV violation, no matter what. And its doubtful to be a notable enough of a man or statement to even make it into our still hypothetical controversy paragraph. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Again to the Wakefield et al. study. The problem is you cannot cite a single study and use that as a basis to pronounce a conclusion. Scientific method requires rigor and using a scientific paper like this to make a very specific conclusion is misusing science. The information is there, but without the rigor we cannot draw such a conclusion. Even stating that the authors paper came to that conclusion in the study would be an NPOV violation. I certainly wish I had access to this paper, but even without knowing its conclusions, I find the way its been used in this article problematic. All-though, very understandably well meaning. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay... on to more use of peer reviewed science! The Gray et. al. 2004 paper. When you begin your sentence with "The authors recommended" you've done something wrong. The author recommendation is analysis (not the rigor) of the actual science in the paper. While the authors conclusion is notable and significant in a scientific perspective to those interested in cat nutrition, inserting the conclusion is more about the controversy, not the actual data or info behind.... But the info. That's the nice thing in this article. They take a comparison of two vegan cat foods and see if it really meets the labeling. Perfect citable stuff. The only problem I have is what if that study was done to normal meaty cat foods? Were the vegan cat foods selected for the study notable in the vegan cat food market? And goodness, why only TWO. Those are problems i have with the study. But its perfectly citable here I would argue without violating NPOV because it states these facts and it seems in context. It all hinges on if the two foods in question are in fact notable, and if the facts surrounding the nutritional mislableing found in the study are timely. 2004, is that timely? Then notice in the next paragraph there is a response, yet enough time has passed that this does not need to be discussed in a current-event format. What i'm doing is saying this is a stale issue and removing all reference to it. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm committing my above noted changes right now. I've removed the whole intra-vegan/vegetarian treatment for the moment, I'm incorporating all of it into a new paragraph right now (see below). But I'm committing the changes separately because its a highly important article, and so they can be seen and discussed separately as well. Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing the text of "Cats require nutrients..." because that's obvious and an NPOV violation, its sufficiently known every animal has its own nutrient requirement. And is addressed in another sentence Retran (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) What I did was incorporated the singled out meaty nutrients, and removed B-12 because most every animal I know of has to get B-12 on from something else... (it is not a condition unique to cats to require premade B-12 from some other source). Retran (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Now on to the "Controversy" paragraph. Yes, I'm determined to limit it to one paragraph. What things would be notable to include in a controversy? Well, notable claims from notable organizations that are opposed to one another. It needs to set out that some folks feel vega diets are just fine, and others think its not okay. Then it needs to mention that vegan/vega community has no clear stance one way on the issue either (well if that's the case, it seems to be that way). Retran (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've cut it down to the chase. I listed the notable positions, it turns out there are notable groups/ind. who firmly advocate a vegan or vegetarian diet for cats, some who firmly advocate against the feeding, and some who take no firm position either way. I've removed the long quotes which detail or promote their point of view as it would seem to violate neutrality.. all sorts of stuff would need to be included in this section, and then its length would be so long as to make the whole section NPOV violation (see what I mean?). So here it is. And i'm having to redo the citations because I stupidly lost them in my last edit. Retran (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
drawing the line: Vegetarian cat food section
I am quite concerned about this section (the "vegan" one in the article)I have no passions on this matter whatsoever. My concerns are about a WP:NPOV violation that I'm seeing. The length of this section makes it appear as though Vegerian cat food is an extremely important topic in the world of cat food. I argue that is extremely important to a small (but perhaps growing) number of people. This does not make it notable in general as far as cat food goes. And if it is a bit notable, its not NEARLY as notable as the length of this section would have a reader of this page believe.
I'm disappointed that this section just gets longer and longer instead of being refined. It gets longer and longer because it is being edited with extremely passionate viewpoints juxtaposing themselves. Its quite frankly an absurd section as it currently reads, and hardly as understandable or clear as it should be. Its self-contradicting, to say the LEAST.
There should be NO links to cat food manufacturers directly to marketers of ANY cat food, vegetarian or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a Text Link Ad broker.
There needs to be a full rewrite (of the "vegan" section). And after the re-write, this section needs to be monitored by an editor to make sure more passionate folks with GREAT INTENTIONS don't ruin the quality of the article again. I've made a similar comment on this before. And it was largely entirely ignored to my fury.
We don't need to draw opinions, we, as editors, HAVE to be dispassionate and ignore our opinions when we write. If you can't handle that, you should spend your time writing blogs instead of ruining Wikipedia with weird stuff. Retran (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This topic on vegan/vegetarian cat food, I propose, should be no longer than two paragraphs. If an editor feels otherwise, I want to know the justification. Retran (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The info it should contain... should only be a brief outline that such a food exists and that it contains different amounts of vital ingredients similar to traditional cat food. And perhaps a couple sentences on PETA vs Humane-Society POV. But those sentences should refer to notable events/info regarding the information from reliable sources. There should be nothing written that does not have APPROPRIATE references. A ton of the stuff cited already in the section seems to be problematic. Retran (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
When editing wikipedia, you need to ignore your opinion on how much you hate people that feed their cats veggies, and how much you hate people that cause meat to be consumed. Its not encyclopedic. This article might have to be locked by an admin if the section gets re-added in its old form (or starts looking like it), or anyone on either side uses it for a way to support their side of this rant. Retran (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please cat-food editors of the world, let me know what you think! Retran (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I shall explain why the length of this section constitutes a WP:NPOV violation. Its length compared to the other sections places undue emphasis (NPOV violation), making it seem like this topic is more important than the others. Retran (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (see my section far below)
Vegetarian cat food.
It is interesting to see the hostility towards Vegetarian cat food.
Simply pointing out that Cattle and Chickens are not a natural cat diet seems to provoke reaction from some people.
What is not clear is why the additional Vegetarian cat food links were removed. Nor why the simple fact that meat based cat food *requires* supplementation with synthetic taurine was removed. (The taurine in vegan cat food is the exact same as the supplement used in meat based food) Removal was an extreme POV propaganda move.
The use of the term "danger" in the Vegetarian society link is a POV violation as well - the link itself refers to "concerns", not "danger"(a far more perjorative term) The current POV is heavily slanted against the simple fact that cats are able to live on vegan cat food, and that many do so. --67.81.74.136 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is it torture to feed a cat a diet that meets it's nutritional needs? Comparing a nutritious diet with imprisonment in "a 3X3X3 box" is obviously intended as an appeal to emotion, but the statements are not logically connected.
Just because you "think a vegetarian diet for cats certainly qualifies" as animal abuse is not proof of anything except your own belief. You have given no support for your belief except for throwing out a non sequitor.
There are a lot of other considerations for cat food that might be discussed in this article. There is a link to dry vs canned but no mention of the fact that these two distinct types of cat food even exist in the main article, nor any mention of the main characteristics of each. Another possibility is a bit of discussion on the fact that there are foods that fall in the lines between cat foods with by-products and home made raw diets. Some such foods are listed in the links, but the main article seems to indicate that the only choices are high-grain foods and homemade diets. I'll see if I can come up with some wording. TAsunder 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find a vet or article by a vet who "recommend against unsupplemented vegetarian diets for cats". Most vets straight out discourage vegetarian diets for cats[2][3] and only reccomend supplements as a last resort[4]. I'm changing it back to "Veterinarians recommend against vegetarian diets for cats...". --Dodo bird 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And the line on vegetarian food + meat being less expensive than single protein allergy products sounds POV/unecessary given the context. It can be included in another paragraph on cost of commercial vs homemade etc. The point on vege food + meat is to give the owner more control over what protein source goes into the food. --Dodo bird 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the claims about allergies? Because all the ones I find say it is more or less debunked. A few sites even note that plant protein is no more allergy-friendly than meat. And like I said, just because it is vegetarian does not mean it is non-allergenic. Foods specifically designed to have small amounts of foods commonly allergenic are a much safe bet. There is an enormous variety of foods with single meat sources and many foods that are specifically manufactured to have few allergenic ingredients. I find no logic behind the allergy argument whatsoever. I find it unlikely that you will have access to meat sources that are appropriate for cats that are not available in many different varieties of pet foods. There are at least a few that have venison, a couple with australian brushtail, etc. Not to mention the huge variety of turkey, chicken, lamb, beef, and duck.
If the wording is going to be accurate, it should say something to the effect that vegetarian diets are generally discouraged, but when fed to cats despite this, most veterinarians encourage the cat owner to make sure that the meals are properly supplemented. Some vets even suggest that the cat should have regular examinations to make sure the pet is healthy, with urine ph being of particular importance. It is important to merely state the facts as what other people say and not use language that would indicate wikipedia is giving veterinary advice, which I think you were doing by implying that all veterinarians recommend against it without giving adequate and logical reasons. As I mentioned in my edit, all of the nutrients cats require can be added to vegetarian meals. TAsunder 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should be careful not to mix up dogs with cats. You refer to dog feeding trials which are completely irrelevant in an article about cats. The link you provided that shows an "analysis of vegetarian" pets does not meet any test of scientific validity I can think of. It is a survey given to owners who may or may not have done proper research or consulted with a veterinarian. From what I can gather, you have a strong anti-vegetarian bias. I would not feed my cats vegetarian food, nor would I feed them garbage like hill's science diet. But that does not mean that either sources are nutritionally inadequate, and certainly it is unlikely that a vegetarian diet is significantly more dangerous than junk cat foods. Nor is there any point in attempting to demonstrate that all vets disprove of vegetarian diets by providing a few examples. Like I said, stating that veterinarians do something without qualifying it is a dangerous blanket statement which is extremely unlikely to be true. Whether or not AAFCO's own vets were involved in the feeding trials, it is a requirement by the AAFCO to have animals tested by veterinarians, and those tests include taurine level monitoring. So there are at least a few vets who believe that the food was nutritionally sound, unless you wish to propopse a conspiracy theory. TAsunder 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that a vegetarian cat is a good idea either. In fact I would recommend against it (as I would recommend against cheap dry foods that you might find in a petco or petsmart). However, my main issue is that I did not want the article to express a bias which I am not certain is as strongly supported as was indicated. I find it likely that a properly formulated vegetarian diet would be adequate in the same way that a properly formulated non-vegetarian diet with a lot of vegetable filler is. TAsunder 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My cats eat plants in the garden and broccoli sticks that might fall of my plate, and my cat recommended feeding pasta to my cat after it had some of its teeth removed, would it be fair to call Cats omnivours?
I think it's both logical and reasonable for me to say that vegans should not own any obligate carnivore as a pet, unless they're willing to feed said obligate carnivore a diet with meat. Be it allowing them to hunt for mice, squirrels, birds, or whatnot, or providing them with the meat sources they need. Mr. Buck Mulligan up there did a good job of explaining why with his cow analogy.Theroguex (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dry foods
One would think that because commercial dry foods are "scientifically" tested and very "precise" in its ingredients as they are designed specifically for cats, that they are actually more healthy for a cat as opposed to the other types of feed (homemade or raw); dry foods just seem to be specifically made for cats, with the right ammount of everything they need, while home made cat foods require less ingredients (and therefore, is less deisgned for a cat). Wouldn't this make sense? Yet, most cat owners say that the dry type is the least healthy of the types.--This unsigned comment was added by 24.23.6.222 (talk o contribs) .
Section to Help Decide
As a recent cat owner; I was frustrated that the article didn't help me in choosing which brand of cat feed to purchase. It gave me a general idea of which TYPE of cat food I personally want to buy; but does not recommend which brands are often considered "the best".
I think it's a good idea to have a seperate section which lists what most vets / cat enthusiasts / cat nutritionists prefer in terms of the brands (or ingredients) for a type of food. For example, in this section, you could list all 4 of the cat food types generally fed (home made, dry type, wet type (canned), frozen raw); and under that type of cat food, you would write what cat enthusiasts/vets generally prefer and the reasons why (what brand they prefer; or, if it's homemade, what ingredients and the cooking method they prefer). If there isn't a consensus on one brand or recipe, then list the top recipes and brand.
Now, if this can't be done without disrupting the NPOV or whatever Wikipedia policy/guideline there is, can someone recommend for me on this discussion what they prefer and the reasons why (particularly for wet-canned type and dry type foods (I'm including wet-type because there are probably some places online where I could purchase in bulk for cheap)). But of course; if this can be done, I don't see how it can't be done in the article.--This unsigned comment was added by 24.23.6.222 (talk o contribs) .
Veggie Food Redux (this will be short)
I was thinking, one reason why someone would feel that vegetarian cat food is torture for the cat is that although the food offers the same ammount of nutrients found in non-veg. cat food, the veg. cat food is not as appetizing for the cat. The "living on bread" alone analogy is a bad one; but, I could understand why someone would consider feeding veg. cat food to their pets as "torture" -- you're forcing the cat to eat something that POTENTIALLY (not sure if it does) taste crappy to the cat, because of your own beliefs. Perhaps a better analogy would be like feeding a human prison bread (with all the correct ammount of nutrients for a healthy life) and water. This is done as a punishment in some prisons, and actually works quite well -- prisoners hate eating bread, even if it is nutritious. Of course, this is all assuming cats don't LIKE veg. food. Not sure. I was also thinking that maybe products with meat inside it could be recognized by the cat; which would bring out a more "primal" side of the cat out -- sort of like feeding dogs dry food and fresh cooked chicken. TAsunder, you've mentioned that you personally wouldn't recommend feeding veg. cat food -- my question is, why? You seem to support it in that it has all the nutrients required. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.6.222 (talk o contribs)
Vomit?
This is the first time I've ever heard about "vomit" being added to cat food. Where is the supporting evidence of this assertion? It seems to me that it should be verified or removed.
Hm, it appears to be just flat out false. "Digest" is just rendered meat of some sort that has undergrone enzymatic hydrolysis. It is definitely not an appealing ingredient, but it does not appear to be vomit. TAsunder 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Citations
I find it very objectionable that the only genuinely objective information on vegetarian diet problems was removed because the section as a whole lacks a citation. I find this to be likely due to a strongly opinionated editor. Before hacking out large sections of an article that some of us spent time composing because you personally feel it comes off as opinion, especially when there is already a warning about citations, how about coming to discussion first and asking for a citation? The edits done by 63.110.51.145 to me come off as rather unproductive and malicious. I will be adding these back in along with citations where available. TAsunder 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
History
Can anyone contribute on the history of cat food? For example, there's an account by Henry Mayhew of the cats'-meat-men of Victorian London. They sold scraps of raw meat impaled kebab-like on skewers, specifically for the feeding of cats. Matthew Muggs the cats'-meat man is one Doctor Dolittle's circle... But when did branded, packaged foods come about? Malcolm Farmer 17:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, something into the history and cultural differences would be very interesting. My parents tell me that when they were growing up in China (c. Cultural Revolution time), the fishmongers would sell bags of fish guts and scraps, which they would fry up with rice and give to their cats! 69.86.189.171 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
POV Violation
The caption for the first image "Cat enjoying a mix of wet (canned) and dry cat food", how do we know the cat is enjoying it?
I take it you don't have a cat. Fussy little buggers. If it's eating, it likes it. If it doesn't like it, it'll let you know. Oh, yes. Malcolm Farmer 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Link dumps
- [16] uk pet food statistics
- [17] us pet food statistics
- [18] european pet food industries - section on production techniques
Some useful links with info that can be written into article. (or added as external links)--Dodo bird 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cat food is food manufactured for the consumption of cats." Hahaha. I hope not. Consumption BY cats. 12.135.58.53 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)scharles
Recall
You know the Meal Foods recall also inculdes cat food too, why not add that? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.176.176 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Food allergies: copy vio of journal abstract, which even so makes no sense
"Before the onset of clinical signs, the animals have been fed the offending food components for at least two years, although some animals are less than a year old." in food allergies section needs a rewrite by someone who has access to the entire journal article or it should be deleted as patent nonsense. In fact the whole section is taken word for word from an article abstract in the ref cited, with the order of some sentences changed. Edison 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cat food
Please explain why you are reverting perfectly valid edits to the article. --165.21.154.90 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Style problem - "Vegetarian or vegan food" section
This section is too long compared to the rest of the article. Since the article is about 'cat food', topics relevant to cat food should be covered to an extent proportional to their relative overall importance. To do otherwise is to violate WP:UNDUE. Therefore, the section must be cut down to a length that accurately reflects this. 213.67.163.232 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Do any of the normal contributors to this page have a plan for this problem? I noticed the same thing. I will take action soon on my own if I don't hear anything. Retran (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Food allergy
It appears that this section contradicts itself (as Wikipedia so often does), not just within the same article or section, but in the same sentence: "There is no breed, sex or age predilection, although some breeds are commonly affected." Maybe by some chance someone will defend this sentence as being non-contradictory through a weird analysis of pronouns and word-meanings, but it is not clear all the same. The first phrase of the sentence asserts "there is no breed...predilection" then followed by this phrase "but some breeds are commonly affected. ("predilection" apparently being a word for "favoring")
If the statement that a "breed is commonly affected" has to be able to be verified (this is an encyclopedia), that would mean the breed has some greater propensity of being affected ("favored" if you will).
There seems to be a lot of section hording by anonymous and emotional authors in this talk page, but encyclopedic content should dispassionate.Retran (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
A New Approach to the Vegan/vegetarian Cat Food Section
As I read it, the vegetarian cat food section seems like a forum where opposing ideas regarding the appropriateness of different cat feeding regimes are dukeing it out. It is very disjointed: its apparent where one contributor added in his/her "two cents" and another added theirs'. Then, it is internally inconsistent, and many paragraphs weakly rely on mere quotes in establishing the validity of an idea. From this section we get:
"Cats require specific nutrients, not specific feedstuffs." "no scientific reason why diets comprised entirely of plant, mineral and synthetically based ingredients...(cannot satisfy the nutrient requirements)" "To use the science of nutrition that is still in its infancy to support the feeding of vegetarian food to cats is to ignore the precautionary principle with regard to 'synthetically based ingredients', as well as the basic biology of the cat as a carnivore."
Whew. That's a lot of maxims in those quotes. And just in the first two paragraphs. The following eight paragraphs meander back and forth the same way, with most contradicting within themselves. I suppose I understand how it happened, and I don't think this is any one contributors' fault. We live in a time when it's long been culturally accepted that all animals should be treated humanely. If it's true that cats cannot subsist healthily on any conceivable vegetarian diet, no matter how well designed, those feeding cats a vegetarian diet are not being humane to the cats. If its true that cats can thrive on a vegetarian diet, those who feel that killing animals without reason is inhumane are wrong to assert vegetarian diets are bad for cats. But... whatever! We don't need to understand philosophical basis that led the previous contributors' passion for one opinion or the other to leak into this article. It shouldn't have leaked here in the first place (according to Wikipedia policy).
My point is: this section, as it's constructed, and its order of discussion of topics belongs in an article entitled something like "the philosophy and ethics of preparing food for house-cats" or perhaps "the philosophy and ethics of preparing food for pets". As currently organized it doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article on cat food; as its specifically written it has no place in any Wikipedia article whatsoever. The content would have to be changed to even be acceptable in my rhetorical article title examples.
To keep a neutral point of view, vegan and/or vegetarian cat food could be written about as a subsection in the Commercial Cat Food section with each paragraph succinctly describing a specific type of vegan and vegetarian food (vege-wet/vege-dry/vegan-wet/vegan-dry?? i dunno), and perhaps a history of each's use if it can be cited.
It seems it could be rather straightforward: vegetarian cat food is available for cat owners to purchase, vegan cat food is available for purchase. There is an X type of vegetarian cat food, there is a Y type of vegetarian cat food formulations. There is likewise X, Y, Z types of vegan food formulations. They are manufactured in such-and-such a away. (something similar to how the Commercial Cat Food section stands now)
The topic of the "vegetarian cat food diet controversy" *might* be so important that it should be mentioned in this article, or maybe even this section, but not in a way that compromises Wikipedia's goal of having a neutral point of view . In good Wikipedia articles, I have seen a controversy summed up with a single informative sentence linked to some relevant citation links that can take a reader on the journey of delving into the controversy's often protracted details. The (as-of-now) problematic quotes that are referenced now in the section could be reused as a way to establish that a controversy indeed exists. That's because the quotes come from authorities of different groups which are widely held to be representative of animal rights, and usually are on the same page about things animal related. For neutrality and clarity there should be no more than 2 or 3 sentences devoted to discussing this particular controversy, and definitely, most certainly, no more than 1 paragraph. Maybe the my fellow contributors' consensus is that the controversy is a niche topic, not well-known, and that its a niche discussion among a small group of fervent devotees on either side. I don't think that's the case, but it's possible I am mislead of its importance by it ending up on this Wikipedia article through happenstance.
I will further assert that this section *has* to be modified/redacted/moved in order for this article to adhere with WP:NPOV Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. This was already pointed out in a previous talk post that is now nearly 2 years old. The "Vegetarian or vegan food" section, as it stands right now, sticks out like a sore thumb, no matter how opinionated (if at all) the reader is on the diet topic.
So as for the actual revision...things I would like to discuss with fellow wiki contributors before I or anyone else applies the above concerns to this article are this:
o Should this section be mostly rewritten from scratch from a sensible outline hitting the key points, limiting it to a couple paragraphs, and placed as a subsection in the "Commercial cat food" section?
o In the meantime, while the new vegan/vegetarian subsection is being written into the existing "Commercial cat food" should this existing section be deleted entirely (since its so bad)?
o Is the vegan/vegetarian/all-meat diet controversy itself noteworthy enough to mention as I discussed above (I suspect yes) and if so in what section? (If its in its own section, it will be prone to becoming a forum and/or placing undue importance on the topic.)
I realize that addressing the concerns I have listed will constitutes a major change in this article, but crucial to have this article achieve a degree of validity equal to its importance. Retran (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Nutrients and functions
The purpose of the enormously intrusive table in the section "Nutrients and functions" is to outline the nutritional profiles of cat foods. Many of the fields are blank, and ones that are not blank contain repetitive data. It contains extremely detailed information that is already enumerated in the source. The elaborate table gives so much specific information, and a lot of it seems like specialty data for animal nutritional experts. Which I can't even find the source, the source apparently used to create this table (or it was copied from) doesn't show up in the citation list, its link-rotted away. And if it is already there in the source, why is it being copied and pasted?
We could eliminate this table and keep the same information (provided the citation is found again) by summarizing the most important vitamins/minerals and what conditions they prevent/improve in a cat. Then, in the text of the article, make the primary source of the existing table prominent enough those needing to stare at a chart can do so. Retran (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
other NPOV probs
Found more NPOV problems. Ones is this misuse of a citaiton... "Critics[Who|date=May 2008] argue that due to the limitations of the trial and the gaps in knowledge within animal nutrition science, the term "complete and balanced" are inaccurate and even deceptive. An AAFCO panel expert has stated that "although the AAFCO profiles are better than nothing, they provide false securities. ""
As this "who" thing has been here since 2008, and as this is a highly opinionated sentence, (its one of those "weasel words" that can be used to make a statement seem superficially neutral when in fact its just a way to emphasize an opinion, and we have NO way of knowing if its notable... and we dont know if its appropriate in this context. I would argue its not, and in either case its not cited (so that over-rides the appropriate factor)Retran (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In the "Dry Food" section we read "Major brand-name dry cat food manufacturers often use primarily grain-based ingredients with animal protein by-products or animal digest to cut cost"... its stated as though its fact. Why assume its done to "cut cost"? Perhaps its to keep the food more stable? I dont know its NOT CITED. And furthermore, its weasely to use "often" and "primarily" togather as it makes the assertion that follows pointless, yet still bothers to make the statement (getting their "dig" in at this kind of food).Retran (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
NPOV fixups to "advantage" paragraph of "dry food" section.
Removing the whole back and forth about mad cow disease, and the citations to what kinds of dry food are most important. This needs a better treatment than a simple back and forth (comment board style) for encyclopedic quality. Its a major NPOV problem, and we might consider later writing a proper treatment on meat-meal vs grain-meal based food (or whatever it was talking about, it was hard to understand). Retran (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In "wet foods" section I'm removing negative connotations to Carbohydrates, as its not a given that its always bad, and its not cited if its supposed to be a given. I'm removing the "fish" reference as it gives the idea that only Wet food contains too much fish. "Many foods are made with fish, however an excessive consumption of fish (which contains high levels of unsaturated fatty acids) can cause yellow fat disease. This sentence might belong in a section of this article that treats food generally. Also, I'm removing the text regarding wet food being able to treat and/or prevent a disease. That's great they used a peer reviewed source. Only problem is when I read the source, it was referring to commercial cat food in general having added "magnesium" and I have no reason to believe from reading the source that the feeding of wet food is recomended (not even written in the study!!). So an editor posted new information backed by an interpretation of source, it wasn't information IN the source! (http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00125.htm) Besides, much of this might belong in either a new section in this article titled something like "food complications" or a cat disease article. Retran (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaving in the info on water as it seems to me to be very straitforward. Just need to find the vet source for that or else it'll have to be thrown out eventually. The bit on "pop-top containers" is also staying as that's supported by good scientific rigor, and is sourced by experts analysis of peer reviewed material (not an editors original analysis of a scientific paper) Retran (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC) But I trimmed it down to a single sentence that still retains all info and gets the point across with emphasis that is due (no less no more hopefully) Retran (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation
What about a link to the article of food made out of cats?129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Misinformation Galore...
Too much to sift through, so I'll start at the top. it's difficult to cite, since most of my sources are books in front of me. My apologies.
I am a veterinary technician, and any of the vets I've worked with definitely agree that it is dangerous to feed a cat vegetarian food. I fully respect the vegetarian viewpoint, and am friends with many vegans, but a cat is a cat and no amount of belief is going to change that. To address the quote on the front page: a fish, given intellect, may realize that it is cruel to keep one's children underwater for days, but it does not make it wise for the fish to do so. Humans are humans, cats are cats, fish are fish. Let's not anthropomorphize. The front page quote, as well as the arguments pro-vegetarian food for cats, are missing important parts of the story.
The fact that cats are "obligate carnivores" is mentioned so many times because anyone who still thinks vegetarian diets are OK for cats must not know what that actually means. The body of a cat is not designed in any way to absorb plants in any way, starting right from their saliva.
Plants are nutritionally poor and require a great deal of digestion and fermentation in order to be metabolically useful. That is why herbivores spend most of their time eating and digesting, and why herbivores have GI tracts many times longer and more complex than a carnivores. This is why plant digestion starts right from in the mouth, especially to break down tough complex carbohydrates. Cats lack these enzymes.
Plants must be fermented to extract enough energy to live off them (this is why cows have large chambered stomachs and chew cud all the time), and cats have no ability to do this. Their food stays in their GI tracts for only a couple hours, whereas those used to non-meat sources digest for several hours or more, and again, they lack enzymes here as well to digest carbohydrates well. The ability of a cat to maintain blood-glucose levels and urea levels are significantly lower than herbivores, as there is no need to do this with a meat diet. The high-carb content also gives the pet a MUCH higher risk of cavities. Because they are usually on a high-protein diet, the incidence of cavities is usually less than 1% for most pets. Proteins break down into urea, which is an acid. The urine of carnivores tends to alkalize when put on vegetarian diets, which predisposes pets to risk of urolithiasis (bladder stones/crystals. Something that cats are already hugely prone to!
Once you have everything digested, you still have issues! The liver of a cat is not well able to use energy from non-protein sources. This makes cats very prone to various disease processes. A good example is hepatic lipidosis. In the absence of meat, the cats body will try to burn other things for energy, but it is not good at doing so. The liver becomes overloaded attempting to compensate, and shuts down. This is most common with overweight cats who become ill and go off food, but I have seen in happen in many, many other cases, including an attempted switch to a vegetarian diet. Though treated early, he did not survive. The damage to his liver was too much for him. I am not saying the food alone killed him, but it was the initial cause of his problems, and if he had not been switched, he would still be alive.
There are ways to make a vegetarian diet work, but it should only be done in dire circumstances. Please make sure to only ask qualified veterinarians on these matters, please don't be afraid to ask lots of questions, and please, PLEASE talk to your vet first before switching to an extreme diet like this. It could save your pet's life. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.112.184 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised that the word carnivore was not in the article at all. After reading this little edit war exchange it seems clear that it should be put in but probably just once. The way this article reads, it gives the false impression that the cats are living off the grains in the processed cat food, but that's not really the case, its filler that must be supplimented with added vitamins and protein in order to replicate a carnivore diet cheaply and conviently. If you go the dog food article for instance they call it filler, and frankly its more true for cats than dogs. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Referenced info added to Vegan and Vegetarian Diets section. Slight changes made to introductory section and Malnutrition.
OK, I've (hopefully) improved the vegan/vegetarian diet section with some information provided by veterinary expert Andrew Knight. I know this has been very contentious, but it seems like the information is important to a lot of people, so even if the size seems disproportionate, clarifying the issues for those who care about them would seem to justify the in-depth detail. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Yintov (talk o contribs) 11:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Cat food is food intended for consumption by dogs."
Huh? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.22.23 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cat food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060625233223/http://www.fda.gov:80/cvm/petfood.htm to http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petfood.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Cheers.--cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
What types of meat for cat food
Which is common for in cat food? It is usually beef, poultry, pork, seafood -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.141.26 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Pork
Have they really ever use pork in the ingredients for cat food? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F02:F076:9180:27F:13FF:783D (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Ash in cat food
No mention of it. Why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon