Talk:Cat food

message: Hello, I am with the ansc4560 class posting some information on senior and high activity cats under the above heading.Nmccarth2 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: High energy diets

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for totally gutting the section and the rest of the article. Given that no one gives a shit enough to stop you(or agree with you for that matter), I shan't either. --Dodo bird (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: thanks! rewrote vegetarian section

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewriting vege/vegan cat food section

message: 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)
thread_title: Drawing the line: Vegetarian cat food section

message: 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 • contribs) .
:A proper raw diet would consists of added vitamins and minerals too. How 'balanced and complete' it is would depend on the specific recipe that the home owner follows. Deciding if a certain recipe is 'trustworthy' is probably the key issue, but so is deciding if a certain pet food company 'got it right'. I think the general objection to dry food is that, the heat processing kills off enzymes/vitamins/nutrients etc(those are added back to the food as supplements), dry food contain a high proportion of plant material as compared to canned/raw/natural cat diet and that dry food may put extra strain on the digestive/excretory system.--Dodo bird 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is true at all.  Dry foods are not just formulated to include what a cat needs, they are formulated to do so cheaply and to be appetizing to a cat who otherwise would not think of eating a kibble, and also formulated to last a while.  A canned or raw food lasts hours (or a day or so if refridgerated).  A dry food lasts months or years.  While dry foods are typically tested to meet a minimum nutritional value for cats, many still contain formulations that can present serious problems later in life.  A high quality canned food might meet the statements above, but there is still the issue that canned foods are heat-processed and must be supplemented with the nutrients that get cooked out.  There is some evidence that cooking and then supplementing is not as nutritionally sound as not cooking in the first place.  A homemade diet certainly has many risks, not the least of which is the possibility of not being nutritionally complete. However, there are so many reputable sites with recipes that I would think the greater risk is simply in mishandling meat or not following the recipes properly.    TAsunder 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry foods 

message: 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 • contribs) .
:Opinions can't really be included in an article, per WP:NPOV, and any list of what is considered 'best' would invariably fall into that as no concensus could ever be agreed upon. That aside, I have a preference for Nature's Variety Prairie for my cats. -Dawson 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that NPOV would be violated if I stated my preferences, however I did try as much as possible to offer a compelling argument for wet food (canned or raw) in that the potential negatives of dry are certainly more debilitating and scary than the positives.  Unfortunately, many veterinarians still believe that dry food is best despite a rather large volume of evidence against this.  My mother's veterinarian, for example.  Many vets also disprove of raw diets, even though there is some evidence that they may be beneficial.  So to state with any certainty which form is best would be to trivialize a rather heated debate.  These are the brands I would recommend, each having different tastes, textures, and ingredients that the cat might enjoy.  In each case I would recommend the canned food.  The only dry food I recommend is Innova Evo, although I believe Nature's Variety also has a grain-free dry food.   For canned, I have had good results with Innova and Innova Evo, Nature's Variety Prarie, Addiction, Wellness, Merrick, and Petguard (which has by far the most calories of those listed).  If you are thinking of trying a raw diet, nature's variety makes an excellent pre-packaged form.  TAsunder 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the speedy response guys! I'll try some of what you have all suggested. 24.23.6.222 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section to help decide 

message: 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.
:Likely someone misinterpreting the addition of pepsin, I can find no sources that don't  point back to Wikipedia for the statement. -Dawson 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vomit? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Whoops, sorry, misread the history.  I should not be on wiki on a friday.  I also misread the user id who did the edit.  Ugh. TAsunder 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV violation 

message: * uk pet food statistics
* us pet food statistics
* 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)
thread_title:  Link dumps 

message: 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)
replies: text: I might take a stab at it.  It will be rather difficult to keep accurate information about it, though, because more information pours in each day and conflicting statements sometimes come from multiple reputable sources.  TAsunder 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recall  

message: "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)
thread_title:  Food allergies: copyvio of journal abstract, which even so makes no sense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why claim to preferentially love some animals called 'pets' and feed those advantaged animals other animals that exploitative humans call 'pet food'?  Maybe we need an ethics section in the article; everything else in our social organization is being revisited and re-invented in terms of 'ethics' or putative 'ethics' - and there is no escaping the moral quandary when some stubborn humans prefer cats as pets and have no problem supporting an industry that destroys countless others out of all proportion to the number of cats they feed. MaynardClark (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style problem - "Vegetarian or vegan food" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food allergy 

message: 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:
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?
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)?
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)
thread_title:  A new approach to the vegan/vegetarian cat food section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nutrients and functions 

message: 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. "WSAVA 2001 – Alternative Feeding Practices"
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)
thread_title:  Other NPOV probs 

message: What about a link to the article of food made out of cats?129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your expert contribution to the discussion. What part of the article text specifically do you take issue with? The section dealing with vegetarian cat food does little more than note that it exists and is available. The second section dealing with vegetarian cat food notes how controversial it is, and notes the entities that are for and against vegetarian cat food. Retran (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: What information in the article specifically contains this "Misinformation Galore"Retran (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Would you recommend that text be added to the article which states how established it is that vegan food kills? We unfortunately can't cite the directly what you mentioned in the article b/c WP cannot include original research. Are there independent studies published that support what you have seen in the field/study in some way, or the books, are they books from reliable 3rd parties? Thanks for your help on this topic! Retran (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, would you have any insight on the strange vandalism we've experienced on the page a few edits ago? Heh, well I'm just pointing out there's obviously a lot of passion about this and I've tried hardest to include only the most notable and uncontentious descriptions of vegan/vegetarian cat food. But there's also an appropriate level of informing the reader as to the existence of the controversy. I've had to be vigilant about removing weird stuff and direct quotes from passionate activists on both sides of the issue, per WP:NPOV. We can't have quotes coming out. (We have to be really CAREFUL that quotes are relevant, notable, and don't contribute to undue weight/emphasis)Retran (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation galore 

message: 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 • contribs) 11:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Motivations for not feeding animals or humans on the remains of other sentient beings includes environmental impact of large-scale animal agriculture, feedlots as ecologically and physically harmful, moral arguments and equity among other animals in an increasingly 'egalitarian' society (or social cultures claiming egalitarianism as desirable moral principles, and equity among humans where 1st world consumption patterns could not be sustainable if universalized globally. MaynardClark (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory, vegan/vegetarian diets, and malnutrition sections 

message: Huh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.22.23 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cat food is food intended for consumption by dogs" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cellular agriculture as a source of 'meat' for cat food ought to be explored somewhere (in its own article?) then referenced here. MaynardClark (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What types of meat for cat food 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, many cat food producers use pork. It is less common than other protein sources, but can still be found if you take the time to look. Cats don't care what kind of meat it is. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pork 

message: No mention of it. Why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in cat food.  "Ash" in the nutritional analysis info means stuff with no nutritional value left over when the food analysis is complete. It doesn't mean ashes were added to the food.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be anecdotal, but I remember the frequent conversations during the 1970s about ash content in (cheaper?) cat food (as a risk factor for the cats' health). MaynardClark (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ash in cat food 

message: Bisphenol A
A 2004 study reported that food packaged in cans coated with bisphenol A is correlated with the development of hyperthyroidism in cats.[115]''
The report only states that the results of the study SUGGEST there MAY be a correlation.  Please note also that no cans are "coated with bisphenol A" - they are coated with a material that is produced via chemical reaction using bisphenol A as a raw material; the actual coating is not bisphenol A.  This is misleading as well as technically incorrect. It's like describing nylon stockings as "stockings made of terephthalic acid" - no, they’re made of nylon, which is a synthetic material that happens to have terephthalic acid as one of its raw materials. Precision, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.235.138 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisphenol A

message: Hello, 
I just added a new section to the page for Grain Free Cat Food a I believe this is an important topic to keep adding information about as it has become a bigger trend over the past few years and continues to be a topic highly debated. Would like any feedback! I know the section needs to continue to be edited and expanded and would love feedback on how to improve or add, or feedback on having the section in general. Sarah.mack18 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grain Free Cat Food  

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Meow Chow and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Meow Chow until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Meow Chow" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by GabiTay (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002