Talk:Cat food: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 66: Line 66:

::::::::::::Page 18: ”’Calcium”’ ‘In dogs and puppies, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism; in kittens, bone rarefaction, especially of the pelvis and lumbar vertebrae; in cats, decreased bone density; in cats and kittens, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism.’

::::::::::::Page 18: ”’Calcium”’ ‘In dogs and puppies, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism; in kittens, bone rarefaction, especially of the pelvis and lumbar vertebrae; in cats, decreased bone density; in cats and kittens, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism.’

::::::::::::Page 152-153: Case report of nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism due to a homemade diet of raw meat and vegetables. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Page 152-153: Case report of nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism due to a homemade diet of raw meat and vegetables. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Off-topic. What does any of that have to do with vegan cat food or the text in question at page 196? Those pages are not in dispute, go ahead and add content from page 18 or pages 152 or 153 I doubt anyone would dispute it. The only thing in dispute was some off-topic content about dogs you added on page 196. [[User:Veg Historian|Veg Historian]] ([[User talk:Veg Historian|talk]]) 20:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Off-topic. What does any of that have to do with vegan cat food or the text in question at page 196? Those pages are not in dispute, go ahead and add content from page 18 or pages 152 or 153 I doubt anyone would dispute it. The only thing in dispute was some off-topic content about dogs you added page 196. [[User:Veg Historian|Veg Historian]] ([[User talk:Veg Historian|talk]]) 20:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

== Removal of Nutrient chart section – any objections? ==

== Removal of Nutrient chart section – any objections? ==

Disclosure: I am affiliated with Red Dog Blue Kat, a Canadian raw pet food manufacturer. Independent sources such as Food in Canada and Canadian Packaging cover the company’s operations and product launches.

In the section that discusses raw or alternative cat food diets, I suggest adding:
“Commercial producers of raw cat food include Red Dog Blue Kat, based in Canada.”

Would this be acceptable? HeleneM-Editor (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, this is not a place to namedrop or otherwise promote your company. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly recent research seems to point even stronger to the obligate carnivore idea and to the inadequacy still of commercial foods. Per one study, feral cats aim for energy intake of 52% protein, 46% fat, and just 2% carbs, with the carbs likely from eating the predigested stomach contents of prey. Info here and here. An interesting aspect is the use of a decidedly unusual flavor (orange) as a confounding factor, yet cats still ate that food to get toward the preferred nutrient profile. Another study gave domesticated cats a choice of foods, both wet and dry, with different profiles, and those cats self-selected to create a ~ 53/34/13% of energy intake from protein/fat/carbs. EggtoothLost (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make the link from self-selection to health outcomes? E.g. with humans it’s easy to see that what people pick is not a great predictor for what is healthy to them. And cats in the wild don’t have the same option as those in captivity, and vice versa. How do those link together?
Without sources linking these to the health outcomes, this risks violating WP:NOR. 2A01:4B00:BE02:3C00:D183:B466:1AF:960C (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ve made no edits to the text on this page, and I misunderstood the limits of what can be “talked” about in the talk section of an entry, so I edited the title and removed my thoughts on this subject. But to respond, the one study, as I mentioned, included orange flavoring in one food as a confounding factor for taste preferences, yet the food was still eaten when presented along with other foods with differing nutrient profiles so as to create the aforementioned protein/fat/carb intake. I think equating human to other animals food selections is difficult. Cats don’t read marketing copy, feel peer pressure (as far as we know), or follow this or that influencer fad on TikTok, etc. That the domesticated (non-feral) cats eat more carbs but still select for ~53% protein is interesting. EggtoothLost (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certain species such as ruminants can be ‘hungry’ for different nutrients but this isn’t observed in obligate carnivores because their diet consists of one main source that provides everything typically. Cats choose food based on smell and good smelling (but not necessarily healthiest) food will be preferred by the cat. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the studies I linked to in my original comment states differently. From the Abstract: “In two studies, in which animal and plant protein sources were used, respectively, the ratio and amounts of protein and fat intake were very consistent across all groups regardless of flavour combination, indicating regulation of both protein and fat intake. Our results suggest that macronutrient balancing rather than hedonistic rewards based on organoleptic properties of food is a primary driver of longer-term food selection and intake in domestic cats.” [1] Both of the studies I posted are worthwhile reading for cat lovers (as I am and have been for years). EggtoothLost (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

suggests is a hypothesis not a confirmation. Also we need a secondary source rather than a primary study (see WP:PRIMARY) Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Traumnovelle (and anyone interested)

You reverted the removal of a section on lack of calcium in plant-based cat food, stating its citation does apply to cats. Can you check the source is correctly entered for this, fix it, and explain how you draw this conclusion (WP:BURDEN). As it is right now the claim is not backed up by its source:

  1. Cats nor pets nor animals in general are mentioned on that page, while dogs in general and specific breeds (Labradors, Beagles, Great Danes, and more.) are mentioned a number of times. I.e. this reads clearly to be about dogs.
  2. The quote I think you rely on specifically for the claim refers to another study: Zafalon et al, 2020. This particular study tested a single vegan Brazilian cat food and found it within AAFCO guidelines (but outside FEDIAF’s, I just added that under concerns).

In addition, the rest puts WP:UNDUE weight on this topic by highlighting additional calcium deficiency outcomes, imho. These outcomes are not sourced themselves either. Sklabb (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a textbook on small animal nutrition, if the content only applied to dogs it’d specify that such as ‘The form of diabetes that affects the majority of dogs most closely resembles human type I’
‘Calcium is required for biological processes and for skeletal mineralization’ is a general phrase that applies to both cats and dogs where as ‘the calcium requirement for growing dogs ranges between 0.33% and 1.2% calcium’ is a specific claim so specifies dogs.
The relevant parts here are ‘Dietary calcium deficiency can be caused by
feeding … commercial vegan foods…’, which is a general phrase that applies to both cats and dogs. and the part after it referring to hyperparathyroidism, which I won’t quote in full as it’d be arguably a copyvio, but it is a general phrase again referring to the pathogenesis of calcium deficiency in small animals in general, the part after it ‘This explains the radiologic and pathologic findings in the skeleton of growing dogs’ is itself specific to dogs but that doesn’t mean the whole paragraph is specific to dogs.
I can’t see how a secondary source published by Wiley-Blackwell, written by a professor at the University of Utrecht, and edited by a UC Davis professor could possibly be undue here. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This citation, page 196 of the book turns out to be accessible on Google Books preview so anyone can verify: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tDHOEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Since this page doesn’t mention “cats” or “small animals”, I don’t agree you can read the general case as either. In addition, the general case is likely “dogs”, because the page does mention specific cases as “adult dogs”, “growing dogs”, and specific breeds like Great Danes. This leaves the issue with WP:BURDEN, which lies on the editor adding, or in this case, restoring information.
Let’s look at the full quote as well:
“Dietary calcium deficiency can be caused by feeding meat-based, home-prepared diets with insufficient supplementation of calcium salts, unbalanced commercially prepared diets as might be present in the Bones and Raw Food (BARF) diet (Mark and Kienzle 2016), commercial vegan foods (Zafalon et al. 2020a), or poor-quality diets with an excess of phytates that bind intestinal calcium as insoluble and non-absorbable complexes.”
You confirm the claim is based on a study where a single vegan cat food was tested and found to be within AAFCO guidelines on calcium (Zafalon et al. 2020a). See point 2 in my top comment. Sklabb (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source it cites is about cats and dogs, so I don’t see how the claim can only apply to dogs. It describes the basic pathophysiology of calcium deficiency. It doesn’t spell out that its for cats and dogs because its targetted towards a specialist audience who are already know that and the fact that the source only references a single study is irrelevant, there are sparse quality studies to work with but regardless we simply require reliable secondary sources and this source is absolutely one, more so than primary open-access studies. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to what to say without repeating myself. You claim this text that does not mention cats is about cats, while two other editors disagree, yet you persist.
I’ll remove it again now, there is no consensus to keep this, the opposite if anything. I’m happy to yield if this changes, e.g. if you can convince @TurboSuperA+. Sklabb (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is about cats and dogs, the chapter is about orthopaedics and nutrition in cats and dogs as mentioned at the start, general claims for both cats and dogs are not specified because the audience (specialists) are to understand that without it being needlessly spelt out every time. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to contact Herman Hazewinkel and he said that the chapter is based on cats and dogs, with some information being applicable more generally in veterinary medicine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is impressive detective work! However, it does not change the issue at hand, it even highlights that the source does not reflect the text it is supporting outright and needs additional explanation. Your interpretation of the source is WP:OR. Even if it’s the author’s (I assume) intention, this must be WP:PUBLISHED which your exchange of course is not. You also refer to the chapter, but sourced is only a single page. The requirement of WP:BURDEN remains and is not met with or without the author’s clarification to you.
To be sure I did not miss anything, I asked @Veg Historian for their opinion. They agree the whole chapter reads to be about dogs, and the text should be removed from the page. @TurboSuperA+ also confirms this reference to be about dogs, as I read it too.
In other words, there is consensus this source is about dogs and not cats, counter to your interpretation. Because this page is about cat food and not dogs, the source should be updated or the text removed. I will remove it now. It can be restored with a better source of course. I believe restoring it without a new reliable source is in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Sklabb (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle As far as I can see, that particular section is about dogs. I have the book in PDF form. If you email me, I can send it to you. This goes for you too, @Sklabb. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue can be very easily resolved. Just look up the individual references on page 196 of Applied Veterinary Clinical Nutrition. Traumnovelle is correct that the chapter “Nutritional Management of Orthopedic Diseases” includes coverage of both cats and dogs. However, pages 195 and 196 are on dogs. If you need verification of this just check the individual reference for the material cited on page 196 for the content in question about vegan cats foods and calcium deficiency. The content in question is this material that was added to the article “Commercial vegan cat foods may be insufficient in calcium. In cases of chronic calcium deficiency, bone resorption and mineralization are both significantly increased and (if there is a decrease in body growth) bone mineralization may cause hyperparathyroidism“ [2]. The references for this material are listed in the book. The references on page 196 for the above content are: Mack and Kienzle (2016), Zafalon et al 2020, Hazewinkel 1991 and Zab et al 1993.
Anyone can look up these references. Here is the Mack and Kienzle paper [3]. As you can all see this is a paper on Bernese Mountain Dog-puppies. Here is the Hazewinkel 1991 paper, as you can see it is on Great Dane dogs [4]. Here is the Zab et al paper on Dane puppies [5]. As for Zafalon et al 2020 this study is already cited on our Wikipedia article [6]. It’s true that this study does cover both vegan cat and dog foods. However if you read the study there is only one mention of “calcium deficiency” and it applies to dogs only “One vegan dog food (Food A) had a methionine and calcium deficiency according to the minimum recommendations by FEDIAF for adult dog maintenance”. In conclusion I believe this is WP:OR and what Sklabb is saying is correct. I would add that Herman Hazewinkel has not laid out his chapter very well. It should have been split into specific sub-sections for cats and dogs. Lastly, Hazewinkel is quite unreliable because he is using studies on puppies and trying to pass off such material for dogs in general (he even cited two of his own studies both with small sample sizes). In conclusion this is original research and poor research (in my opinion) that should be removed from Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss this further if need be. Veg Historian (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> Hazewinkel is quite unreliable because he is using studies on puppies and trying to pass off such material for dogs in general
Oh of course a professor at the University of Utrecht who specialises in orthopaedics is unreliable because of your opinion, yeah this is a joke I’m not engaging with this blatant POV-pushing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have individually checked out the references and put hard work into tracking them all down; they are on dogs. These are the references [7], [8], [9] for the cited text you added. Why are you adding content referenced to dogs for claims about cat food on this Wikipedia article? Instead of accusing other editors of POV you just should do the correct thing and admit you have made a mistake here. We all make mistakes. You have added some content but you never checked out the references.
We shouldn’t be citing content on Bernese Mountain Dog-puppies on a cat food Wikipedia article. As for Hazewinkel just because a man may work at a University does not make him infallible. He cites outdated studies for his claims, two of which he wrote himself and have a very small sample size. That is the definition of biased research and a self citation fallacy; anyone in academia would tell you that. The bottom line here is that even if this is a reliable source, the text you added is WP:OR. It doesn’t apply to cats. If you find another WP:RS for that content you can re-add it back in but as it stands the content you added is off-topic and this is violation of Wikipedia policy. Veg Historian (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page 18: Calcium ‘In dogs and puppies, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism; in kittens, bone rarefaction, especially of the pelvis and lumbar vertebrae; in cats, decreased bone density; in cats and kittens, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism.’
Page 152-153: Case report of nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism due to a homemade diet of raw meat and vegetables. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic. What does any of that have to do with vegan cat food or the text in question at page 196? Those pages are not in dispute, go ahead and add content from page 18 or pages 152 or 153 I doubt anyone would dispute it. The only thing in dispute was some off-topic content about dogs you added from page 196. Veg Historian (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article is a nutrient table. Someone has put a lot of work into that and I appreciate that a lot. However, I think the article would be better if this nutrient table is removed, and replaced by a “See also” link to the source document.

Imho, this table doesn’t really add much here, and seems to be more of a copy of the original. Linking to the source will make updates easy (e.g. to the 2023 one). The page is on the large side already and this is an easy place to reduce I think (WP:TOOBIG).

I’m happy to hear your opinion before making such a big change. Sklabb (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, nutrient chart removed and replaced with link to the original (and updated 2023 version) in See also section. Sklabb (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top