I did not say they were all equal. We feed mostly Eukanuba. It gets new features - omegas, dental health focus, etc. before the sister food IAMS. I am not at all sure it makes a nutritional or health difference and would not warn someone off of IAMS for that reason. The foods whose claim to fame is unproven theoretical advantages, human grade ingredients, avoidance of grains or creating an ingredient list whose order appeals to some shoppers do not attract me to try them. I think those are marketing and fad approaches and not much more. It is like the theories about choosing wet over dry. If the science backs up the benefit, then I would go to the trouble and expense (since there can be a fair amount of waste in wet food that is not quickly enough eaten). However, not before a consensus, or at least a developing consensus, on it. I believe allowing cats to graze throughout the day and night is a benefit to them, which one loses when feeding only wet.
I just want to point out that omegas, dental health focus, can also be considered marketing and fad approaches. You keep mentioning that all of this is theoretical. Theories of original diet is not a theory. It's a fact. Look at what cats in the wild eat, look at what normal domesticated cats catch to eat. Mice, voles, birds. They are meat. It's a scientific fact that cats are carnivores, not omnivores.
Of course, there is a fair share of marketing in those factors.
Cats can get perfectly good nutrition from non-meat sources and to believe otherwise is just to misunderstand what it means to be an obligate carnivore.
First of all, the CONTENT of an "original diet" is just a theory and because barn cats eat mice there are ridiculous speculation about whether or not mice had grain in the stomach and that makes a difference. It is not known when the genetics of digestion occurred (and it no doubt occurred over long periods of time) in the ancestors of the domestic cat and what was being eaten at that time. That is the first part that is theory and not confirmed fact. However, there is a more basic one and that is that the supposed "original diet" is beneficial to cats today, makes no difference or is a detriment to todays cats. That is what is needed to be researched if one wants to start with original diet as a positive rather than a negative assumption.
We know that cat's need taurine and do not have the enzymes to obtain it without having meat protein (the reason they are obligate carnivores) in the diet or supplements of it. That is understood to be because the enzymes were not needed and did not have a role in natural selection of the ancestors of the cat. However, one cannot go the OTHER direction and just assume that the "original diet" is the better diet. One needs to research that issue to find out what elements are better or not - and that is what is missing. There have been many years of study of cats eating foods OTHER THAN the original diet these missing ingredients have not been discovered. This is not to say it is impossible that discoveries will be made. It just has not been done yet.
Our cats eat asparagus, green beans, melon and any number of non meat foods that may be on a plate. Did the ancestors of the cats eat nothing but mice, or the ancestors of mice? How do you know that and how do you know other foods do not provide equal or even better nutrition. One finds out by scientific research.
The argument is like believing that the human original diet was from the savannas of Africa and nothing not a part of that diet is nutritious for humans. Do you believe that the ancestors of man always had fire? Does that mean the human diet should be all raw and proper nutrition cannot otherwise be obtained? These are theoretical constructs that are capable of being scientifically researched - and so far the theories about cats have not been researched to support these fringe approaches to cat food.
True, there may be other foods that can provide better or same nutrition, but don't you think cats would have been able to figure that out by themselves by now if they weren't doing well on a primarily meat diet through adaptation/evolution? Just as humans have evolved and figured out hmm, maybe we can get better nutrition if we eat this or prepare food this way. Clearly, cats have evolved to take into account somewhat the grains that they may ingest when consuming prey; however, they don't rely on grains as their main source of nutrition. Nor would the amount of grains they consume on a daily basis amount to the amount found in some pet food.
I think the point is why are researchers trying to find better and more nutritious foods when meat does just fine? Other than the fact that meat is expensive to produce and the pet food industry wants to make a profit using the most cost efficient ingredients while still keeping pets alive. I'm still not sure how corn is considered to be more expensive than meat. Last time I saw, corn was selling at 20 cents a piece, while chicken was selling $2/lb. It takes labor + water + land + seeds + fertilizer to produce corn. It takes whatever it takes to produce corn plus labor + land + other resources to produce chicken, thus resulting in a more expensive product.
And ok, I'm done. I don't think I can handle anymore of this, haha. Each to their own.
You are turning things on their heads. Cat ancestors did not need to adapt to not having meat so there was no die off of those who needed taurine and had to get it from non-meat sources when it became unavailable. Thus, they remain obligate carnivores. However, this has nothing to do with successfully eating other sources in addition. I know of only one commercial pet food company that offers meat only cat food - and it is a relatively small company. The reason is that there is no health or nutritional benefit to feeding cats a meat only diet.
Main or not main has nothing to do with it. If they get the taurine they need in part from meat and part from just supplemented taurine makes no difference for their health. As the rabbit raw meat diet study determined, cats can be on an all meat diet that is expected to have enough taurine and in fact die from it not being enough. So, an all meat protein diet may have insufficient taurine, which is the key issue from a nutritional and health perspective rather than how they get the taurine.
No, cats tend not to break down corn into its constituent products to provide versions geared to their health and nutrition before eating it. ; ) However, the good news is that we are willing to do it for them. As far as I know, cats have never even raised a crop of corn or wheat. They do not even raise mice, much less chickens! And correct, they do not cook their food. Which means it is also good we will do that for them rather than feeding them contaminated raw meat.
Your comment reminds me of the jokes about humans (and I suppose cats) not flying because we do not "naturally" have wings. ; )
Well in Europe you will find several brands that offer meat-only commercial cat food (Petnatur, Renske, Miamor, Tiger-Cat, Ropocat, Cat&Clean, etc.). They might not be that big but they do exist and offer a rather wide choice of wet food.
The question is also what is the health or nutritional benefit to feeding cats non-meat ingredients?
As far as I know the meat only commercial foods are supplemented to be as good as any other good food.
If you are asking why not just can meat and feed it to your cat or just get chicken breasts at the market and feed only that, the simple answer is that they may die, just as the raw rabbit study found that feeding only raw rabbit meat was killing the cats because available taurine levels were below expected levels (although taurine is in meat). So, I assume the meat only commercial foods are assured to have ALL of the minimum AAFCO ingredients and have AAFCO or the equivalent labels. In that case, I am sure they are fine foods. I believe most US sales are cats with allergies to some common cat food meat like chicken, because the meat only foods include things like duck and venison - meats to which allergic cats may not be allergic.
Yes, such foods can become popular and in the US one sees a lot of "natural" on labels for that reason these days. However, meat only offerings remain a very tiny part of cat food consumption and that is not what I would expect if it were proven to be more nutritious or healthy. It would be better if those feeding contaminated source raw meat would switch over to such products. That would be safer for their cats and would still be very close to their theory of feeding.
If anyone here feeds only meat foods it would be interesting to read their reasons.
You asked: "The question is also what is the health or nutritional benefit to feeding cats non-meat ingredients?"
None as long as the required nutrition is in some element of the food. The benefit of the ingredient, whatever it is, is to assure the presence of some nutritional or other benefit.