Talk:Cat food

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhu.nicole.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmccarth2. Peer reviewers: Nsventzo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

High energy diets

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)

Now adding some more information about high energy diets and pregnancy.

Adding more info regarding high energy diets and recovery and illness. Nmccarth2 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rewriting vege/vegan 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)

"Meat based catfood", if you are talking about commercial catfood has a lot of grain fillers. That's why they must also suppliment taurine. I don't see a POV problem. Cats can live on a vegan diet, and you could live in a 3X3X3 box, that doesn't mean either is a good idea. Cats are carnivorous animals. Some humans having a problem accepting that animals eat other animals in nature isn't a good reason to torture a cat. Gigs 14:40, 30 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.

Animal abuse, and I think a vegetarian diet for cats certainly qualifies, is an emotional issue for a lot of people. Here's a better analogy: Man can indeed live on bread alone, if it's supplemented with water and vitamin pills, but it's a treatment to which we do not subject even our most heinous criminals. --phh 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

Abuse is too strong a word. The issues with vegetarian cat diets are not significantly worse in my opinion than the issues with feeding a mass-produced dry food that has poor ingredients. The main difference being that a vegetarian diet must be examined carefully to ensure that it meets minimum sustainance requirements. In both cases, one should check up on their cat's vitas regularly, inlucing in the case of vegetarian diets pH levels of urine. A decent analysis that goes a bit more in depth than the link posted is available on Little Big Cat[1] but also seems to disfavor the idea (though offers ways to make it potentially work).TAsunder 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well my vet, for one. Furthermore, numerous vets ride the line by saying "they don't recommend it" which is different than recommending against it. I imagine you would also find that the veterinarians who tested the AAFCO-approved food would disagree, as would the vets involved in formulating the vegetarian pet foods. Until you can provide a source that ALL veterinarians disapprove of it, I think you should qualify the statement, as it seems excessively POV to me to indicate that every vet on the planet recommends against vegetarian pet food, which I find extremely unlikely.

You can have plenty of control over the protein source if you just read the can and look at the ingredients. If people do believe what you state, then they are misguided. Just look at the can. Seriously. If it says chicken, it has chicken in it. If it says lamb, it has lamb in it. What's so difficult about that? Cats are just as likely to be allergic to vegetables and grains as meat, and you have no control over the vegetables in a vegetarian food any more than you have over the meat in a meat-based food. Except with the latter you have an enormous number of options, and the former you have very few. The issue of food allergies has come up a few times with my vet, and each time he has never mentioned vegetarian pet food, and more commonly he mentions eliminating vegetables as much as possible and switching meat sources. Just switching meat sources alone is silly and illogical. If you can provide some additional insight into why someone would use a vegetarian food and supplement with meat over just switching to a different brand, please do. Until then perhaps you should just remove it, as it makes no logical sense unless you are accounting for the cost issue. TAsunder 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We can change it to "do not recommend/do not encourage". Using "recommend against unsupplemented vegetarian diets for cats" suggests that if it is supplemented, it is ok, which misrepresents the general opinion held by vets[[5]]. The only "vegetarian food is ok" sources I can find are from vegetarian pet food company and vegan organizations and The Vegetarian Society actually discourages it[6]. Do you have anything from neutral sources or statements/articles by vets who are neutral/ok with vegetarian cat food?

The useful studies I found are Field study on the nutrition of vegetarian dogs and cats in Europe and Taurine and cobalamin status of cats fed vegetarian diets.

As for AAFCO-approved food, the status is approved by either meeting a nutrient profile or passing a feeding test(see here for difference). Cat food manufacturers claiming to meet AAFCO standards[7][8] do it by the former. There is no vegetarian pet food with feeding tests-approved AAFCO certification. AAFCO trials last 26 weeks[9] while a feeding trial by one of the vegetarian cat food co. which met the AAFCO nutrient profile lasted 20 days[10]. If you look at the standards for the AAFCO feeding trials, it seems so simple and easy to meet, keep 6 out of 8 dogs healthy for 26 weeks, why has no vegetarian food company done it yet?

What I meant was that the owner is not limited to a specific protein source that a manufacturer comes up with. Most manufacturers only come up with one line of allergy food. And there are not many single source protein pet food around. By using a vegetarian and meat mix, the owner is not limited to what few foods manufacturers offer but only limited by the protein sources the pet is allergic to. Apologies for my unclear language. Cats may be as likely to be allergic to veggies and grains, but that's not the point being made here. There are cats allergic to chicken/fish etc. and feeding single protein food, vegetarian mix or not, is useful to single out the culprit(assuming meat protein is the culprit). This product[11] may explain what I was trying to get at.--Dodo bird 22:03, 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)

I'm not disputing your claim that plant protein are more likely causes of allergy than meat protein.(I don't know much about that.) My original sentence on that, "Vegetarian cat food is also used by some pet owners to manage food allergies by adding a meat source that is non-allerginic to the specific animal to the cat food." certainly don't imply that. Using vegetarian cat food that way is as useful as single protein cat food is, only useful if meat protein is cause of allergy. Plant protein being more likely causes of allergy is not an issue in the statement. That issue can be touched upon elsewhere.

So you don't have a source for the allergy theory? It seems odd to me that you are willing to stipulate that it is a valid approach without any evidence but unwilling to stipulate that a vet exists somewhere on the planet that thinks vegetarian diets are ok. This is quite a double standard. When considering what information to place in this article, it is important to consider that some people might take way from the article that it is a GOOD idea to feed vegetarian plus some meat to combat allergies, something which I believe is false except in extreme circumstances. I find it rather unlikely that it will yield any noticeable benefit over simply switching brands except in the case of a cat who is allergic to chicken, turkey, beef, lamb, and duck, but no vegetables or vegetable proteins. If we are to keep it in the article, I think it would be wise to note that the approach is unnecessary except in extreme circumstances where very rare meat-based products (e.g. brushtail or venison products) are too expensive. TAsunder 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement is not claiming any noticable benifits over other single source food. The whole paragraph is about vegetarian cat food. And that statement just says vegetarian cat food can also be used this way. There is no allergy theory involved. I can't understand your objections. It really is not an important point. I'm removing it. -Dodo bird 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My worry is over a potential cat owner reading that and deciding to try a vegetarian diet with meat supplements. In particular I think of them cooking the meat and using an incomplete vegetarian meal, or making the situation worse by increasing allergenic vegetable matter. I don't believe that there is much reason to choose the course of vegetarian food + meat unless the cat is allergic to all common meat types but no vegetables and the owner can't afford to feed a rare-meat based product. This is rather uncommon. I also think that the idea of using vegetarian cat foods for this is actually something that might have first been proposed by the vegetarian manufacturers themselves to help market their foods, despite the fact that they do not include all hypo-allergenic foods. Comparing with Innova, for example, who specifically avoid all common allergenic ingredients (aside from turkey/chicken), I imagine that it is no more valuable. TAsunder 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the previous version misleading as it suggest vets consider vegetarian food ok if fed with supplements. My edits at that time were mainly to correct that rather than expand on the details. I do not see anything wrong with saying vets recommend against feeding vegetarian. I cited sources here in the talk page. I couldn't find opposing views by vets, not that I didn't try. The veterinarian position, as implied from the sources I found is "We discourage feeding vegetarian, but if you decide to ignore the recommendation, here are the steps to take...." While there are pet food company and vegan organizations and who are "pro" vegetarian, those are minority views and shouldn't be given undue weight. I'm all for expanding on the finer details, arguments and reasoning. --Dodo bird 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And I am saying that some vets DO consider it ok if fed with supplements and with proper veterinary examinations. I consider excluding a qualifier to be giving undue weight to the argument against vegetarian products. The rest of the article is worded with qualifiers, and to have this one statement be unqualified lends undue weight to its significance. "Most pet owners" "Many veterinarians" "Some pet owners", etc. If the rest of the article had not been written intentionally in this style, this would not be an issue. But the disparity between the statement and the rest of the article is likely to be misleading. Frankly, I find the obligate carnivore wording misleading as well. It is not because cats are obligate carnivores that vets recommend against it. It is because of the potential malnourishment. I don't know any veterinarian who bases their recommendations solely on what a cat would do in the forest. TAsunder 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken and qualifier added. A cat being an obligate carnivore is precisely the reason for potential malnourishment, isn't it? Not that herbivores can't get malnourished. --Dodo bird 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's hard to determine. I would say that the cat in the wild is an obligate carnivore because in the wild it offers the healthiest nutritional value of the dietary choices available. In the home, with an owner who is willing to closely care for the cat, I would guess that the cat doesn't necessarily need to be as carnivorous. Even non-vegetarian foods often have as primary ingredients numerous vegetables and filler ingredients, which obviously do not remotely match a standard in-the-wild diet. I read about a study where a lab vet who was previously feeding only cooked strips of meat to the cat tried an experiment with raw food, and noticed a lot of benefits. To the naked eye it would seem that cooked food leads to malnourishment in the same way that it seems that way with vegetarian food. However, as we know now, cooked strips of food lack adequate taurine and similar. Commercial cat foods, which cook the meat, must supplement with taurine anyway. If the market were really there for mass produced vegetarian food, I would guess that it would not lead to malnourishment as some of the existing brands might. TAsunder 13:22, 6 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)

Do you mean this? The cat trials are on the bottom of the page. The two links I posted as useful studies are not intended as sources for any POV. I'm just saying those are the only vaguely scientific studies on effects of vegetarian cat food I found. I put it there for your, or any interested parties' reference. Yes, I have a bias, but I also understand the NPOV policy. It's justified to say that vets oppose feeding vegetarian when all my search for veterinarian opinion on it takes that position. Try finding a link/source/quote from a vet that takes the opposing position. Re: AAFCO, did you read the links I provided? A pet food claiming to meet the AAFCO nutrient profile do not need to have any animal tested by veterinarians. All it needs is a lab technician to analyse the nutrient content of the food. That's how the vegetarian pet food company do it. No feeding trials took place. No animals tested by vets under requirement by AAFCO. --Dodo bird 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You really think no veterinarian was ever involved in any process of manufacturing any vegetarian pet food? Really? So let's be clear here, is it your opinion that every single vet on the planet recommends against vegetarian cat food? Or is it that some vets probably do exist and are in the minority? From the wiki NPOV link I discern that assuming that all vets recommend against something is a more gross violation than assuming some vets do not. This link [12] quotes numerous veterinarians who find vegetarian pet foods ok. TAsunder 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, at that point you're stepping into the animal testing area, which is also another controversial subject when it comes to pet foods and I think you will find that many people who would choose a vegetarian cat food are also of the persuasion that animal testing should not be done, some may even choose such a food specifically for that reason. Anyway, I think a simple qualifier to say that -most- veterinarians recommend against feeding vegetarian diets should be enough to admit that there are studies and vets which argue otherwise, but the most vets don't agree - which is the case. Perhaps a clarifying line mentioning that cat owners should speak with their vet before starting any such diet would also be appropriate, so no one can get the idea that a wiki article is the definative resource, despite citations. -Dawson 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't, I just expect a source. I have to say I'm not convinced of the validity of the source. The quote by Davd H. Jagger is re: a book on cats and dogs and it gets truncated in parts(may be taken out of context?). And the other quote mentions pets in general, no specific mention of cats. Compare those quotes against specific articles refuting vegetarian diets for cats. But I agree it's fair to add the qualifier. --Dodo bird 06:16, 6 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'm guessing you mean to say that your vet, not your cat, recommended feeding your cat pasta. I couldn't say for sure about that, but your cat definitely shouldn't only be eating pasta. Your cats--like all cats--are obligate carnivors, which means that they are obliged to eat meat. This is because their digestive systems function in such a way that certain nutrients that other animals (like us) can get from plants, cats cannot, and so must get them from meat sources. (And for all you fanatical vegetarians out there who are slowly starving your cats to death on account of your misplaced idealism: This is no different from pointing out that cows can eat meat, but will die of malnourishment if they are fed nothing but meat. It's just how nature made them.) There's nothing wrong with your cat eating the odd bit of broccoli, but he needs meat to live and thrive. If he doesn't have any teeth, you can feed him canned food. BTW, as far as him grazing in your garden: don't let him anywhere near onions or garlic, which are highly toxic to cats (as they are to dogs). Buck Mulligan 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a cat that craved donuts and other sweet breads. He would routinely claw and chew his way into Nutrigrain bars, which are granola-type bars sealed in plastic/foil. He once managed to open a box of little powdered-sugar covered donuts and ate them. He even grabbed a bagel and we saw him walking into the living room holding it in his mouth, looking like a door knocker. He seemed health enough, but died unexpectedly when given anesthesia preperatory to a de-clawing operation after he started clawing the furniture in preference to his scratching post. Edison 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You were going to have your cat de-clawed? That's worse abuse than feeding it a vegan diet. If it was so bad, you should have adopted it to a different owner. De-clawing is NEVER the answer.Theroguex (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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 • 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[13].--Dodo bird 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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. [14] [15] TAsunder 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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 • 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)

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)

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)

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 • contribs)

One could make the same palatability argument for any kind of kibble/dry food as most types rely on various added flavorings and scents to make them more palatable, and even colorings to make them look vaguely meat colored. Some companies use artificial ingredients, while some use natural ingredients to achieve the same effect, but in the end, its a dry, crunchy chunk, not tasty meat slices of real meat that a "normal" carnivore would be consuming. :) I think the fundamental issue comes down to is: Is diet merely the sum of the vitamins and other nutritional components or is there something else to it? We're just getting to the point where vegan pet diets have been in use long enough to get a proper statistical analysis. AMÍ Cat has been undergoing an extensive study with its vegan cat food since 2002, and intends to have the results sometime next year, which I think will clear up a lot of misconceptions. -Dawson 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. But at least dry food with meat in it actually retains some of that meat flavor; the veg. stuff needs to be completely reflavored for an even more unrealistic taste. It's sort of like eating immitation crab meat, which still uses "meat" from other animals; whereas imitation crab meat made of veg. products like tofu wouldn't be as appealing. But your description does make me not want to feed any of the dry crap to my cat... well, almost. Cat doesn't seem to care. One way to simply test this is to let the cat choose which it prefers (let it taste both kinds); hey, I'd bet the cat would go for the meat based dry food (as long as the cat hasn't gotten use to one or the other; maybe by using a cat who eats raw or wet-food all it's life). That "experiment" would basically test which of the 2 the cat finds most appealing and/or closest match to it's original diet (in this case, good wet nutritious meat). 24.23.6.222 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ---- I'd like to also note that the people who are doing research on the brand of vegan cat food are the people who made it to begin with. You know what could happen.

I'm pretty sure that the lack of bloody and meaty flavor in the food is not the main reason why opponents of veg cat food oppose it.

"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."

Well, that made me chuckle. I'm more familiar with the argument that goes "you are forcing the cat to go vegan because of your own beliefs". The important issue, like Dawson mentioned, is nutrition, not taste. --Dodo bird 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that future (foreseeable) advances in veterinary nutritional understanding and food processing science will fail to make a fully palatable and cat-nourishing cat food made entirely from plants? Who would have expected the successes of Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat and V-dog (articles removed from Wikipedia, for whatever idiosyncratic? reasons)? MaynardClark (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the common argument, yes; people will often state poor nutrition as a defense, or that a Vegan diet "just isn't natural" for the cat. I say B.S.; if nutrition-wise, we already know the cats are fed well; then what is there to complain about? That's the response that often comes up. So I brung up another reason why a Vegan diet (are there no vegetarian diets?) could be frowned upon; which may actually hold up a lot more than the previous argument (nutrition, which many say there is enough of). It's an important issue, I know; nutrition is afterall more important than taste. But what if nutrition is no longer an issue (some argue it isn't); it's important to look at the TASTE of what you're feeding a cat. You can't tell me that taste isn't an important factor (albeit not as important as nutrients)? Some would cite that if the cats are eating the veg. diet; that means they like it and accept it. I don't think the question is whether or not they like it; but whether or not it's as good as the "real" thing. If you're force to eat something, and there is no other food to eat; I'd bet I would enjoy that same food as well. Prisoner food is "good enough". But you really don't want to be treating your cat like a "prisoner". Or, maybe they DO like the food -- AS MUCH as they like the meaty taste of their original diets. I don't know. Just bringing it out there. If this is the case, then feed all the veg. food you want to the cats.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

Food allergies: copyvio 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)

Primarily because there has been a lot of vandalism, so I reverted backwards to a heavily viewed version to make sure there were no unseen stragglers. There were some minor changes lost that a bot will re-do and then these problematic changes:

Line 41, an OR tag.

This paragraph has a reference at the end. I am unsure what the person who added the tag means by it. In the rest of that section, there is a single fact tag behind a sentence which probably doesn't need it and two references. This section doesn't need an OR header, it needs more fact tags and talk page explanations of what the problems are.

Vegetarian cat food section

I recently re-wrote this section, which had been a previous battleground and was full of tags asking for citations and fact checks. You'll note it has a reference on almost every sentence, sometimes a reference after every presentation of a statement within the sentence. Your edits don't.

First, edit adds original research: "...who are uncomfortable with feeding animal products to their pets." We don't know why people choose it. Maybe, out of ignorance, they think it's healthier. Maybe they have no discomfort but do it strictly as being in-line with their own beliefs, which might be ethical, political, dietary, hygenic, or medical. There are plenty of reasons why people might do this, and it is not our job to speculate.

Second, sentence addition: "Vegetarian pet food companies attempt to correct these deficiencies by supplementing their products with synthetically produced nutrients." Which is being presented as a 100% true fact, but is sadly not entirely true. I can walk into a local co-op grocery and buy commercially prepared vegetarian cat food that proudly advertises that it is not supplemented.

Third, sentence removal: "Animal rights organizations that advocate vegan diets for people have differing suggestions." This is an important sentence. When I wrote this, I had the opinions of four or five different AR groups to choose from, all slightly different. This sentence highlights the disagreements and is an critical lead to the next six sentences, which reference the opinions of two representative AR groups.

Fourth, removal of a highly referenced sentence from Purina: "Purina, the pet food company, unequivocally says, "never feed your cat an exclusively vegetarian diet." This is wrong for two reasons. One, Purina is a mainstream pet food company which makes their viewpoint important. People who read this and see differing opinions from animal rights groups are going to ask "those are activist political groups, what do mainstream pet food companies say? What does the science say?" Purina, as a large company, has an R&D budget and the following reference is impeccable about citing research, not politics. Their view is important, both as a counter to the POV of activist groups and because they back it up.

Fifth, addition of a laundry list: IVU, Vegan Society, PETA. Our goal is to provide a representative sample of opinions, not a laundry list of them. I used the ASPCA and Vegetarian Society because there views were backed up well as good references. The ASPCA recommends it for dogs, not cats, which is a nice nuance to represent. The Vegetarian Society provides excellent advice and resources. Laundry lists have a side effect of attracting laundry lists of opposing opinions as well, just thrown at the article without regard to how important or how good the actual reference is. ASPCA, Vegetarian Society, and Purina were all excellent representative opinions with excellent references behind them.

Sixth, addition of two uncited sentences: "Vegan pet food companies claim a great deal of successful instances of vegetarian-fed cats, especially females,{{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}} and ague that many of the problems arising in vegetarian-fed cats are likely to be caused by uninformed practices due to the lack of knowledge on the part of the owner.{{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}}" These sentences already have tags which state they don't make sense. They are unreferenced, unreferenced material should be removed from articles when it is challenged.

I hope that adequately explains why it was reverted. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The OR tag was for the whole propylene glycol section. There is no reliable source that says that PG is common in raw meat and no reliable sources that says that animals fed raw meat containing PG is at risk. Most of the edits you have a problem with are added by another ip editor. I merely reworded them and added fact tags to give the editor a chance to back up those claims.

1. The statement "who are uncomfortable with feeding animal products to their pets." is qualified by "is targeted primarily at". I think it's pretty obvious that people who feed vegan/vegetarian cat food do so mostly for ethical concerns. You are right that I don't have a source, but your statement that it is targeted at vegans and vegetarians don't have a source either.

2. Do you have a source that shows that there are unsupplemented veg*n cat food out there presenting itself as nutritionally balanced?

3. This sentence follows the previous sentence claim that "animal nutrition scientists do not recommend unsupplemented vegetarian diets." Can you see how it might give the impression that animal rights organizations rejects this position?

4. Oh, come on. It's a consumer pamphlet, not info from a nutrition symposium. Here's the full quote on the text that concerns a vegetarian diet: "Because of their need for high levels of protein and other nutrients, never feed your cat an exclusively vegetarian diet" That's it. Despite your claim of impeccability and "highly referenced" material, the 48 page consumer guide does not cite a single study. Damn right readers will ask what the science say? And they probably won't be satisfied with such an answer from Purina. How about an AVMA position?(I can't find any on their site) There is a good position statement by AVAR rejecting vegetarian cat food. You might argue the POV of the source, but that even an animal rights veterinarian group rejects veg cat food just makes their position stronger.

5. I'm sorry, but excluding purina, your three so called representative views from animal rights/welfare organizations consist of two that advise caution and one that rejects it outright. My addition shows that there are veg*n organizations that accepts veg*n cat food. A position that was not represented.

6. As I mentioned above, not added by me.

--165.21.154.94 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You should login with a username.

I don't see the need.

You certainly don't need to set up a Wiki account (and I always find nonsequitur demands that anons sign up come across as extremely snobby), but it _would_ be helpful if you'd sign your comments. Just put four tildes at the end of your comment, and the software will tack on your ISP and the time and date. With no signature at all, it's sometimes difficult to tell where your comment ends and the next begins. 216.52.69.217 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

the propylene glycol section is very well referenced. Any search about PG and cats will find easy references. There was one fact tag, about PG being in human food. I referenced it to the DFA data sheet about additives, which mentions PG in several sections. The rest of the text in that section also explained how PG gets in human food, even unlabeled, and already had references. This cannot be removed as OR.

Your reference says PG is poisonous in cats and that PG can be added to fresh food without labeling. It does not say that PG is added to fresh food or that PG in fresh food is a concern for owners who feed homemade. Neither does it give examples of cats poisoned by PG due to eating PG contaminated fresh food. It's clear cut WP:SYN.

point 1, that is a pissing match. I'm not going to argue it. As is point 2.

Guess who started the pissing? That people feed vegan food because of ethical concerns is as self evident as saying that people who feed vegan food are vegans and vegetarians. This study concludes that "Vegetarian diets are fed to cats primarily for ethical considerations". Do you think saying that people who feed vegan pet food are "uncomfortable with feeding animal products to their pets." is an accurate summary of that point? Point 2 is a serious question. You say that vegan pet food companies are touting their unsupplemented diet as nutritionally complete. Please back it up as I find that very hard to believe and non of the vegan companies I come across does this.

Point 3, you are objecting to a linking sentence. The previous sentence talks about nutrition scientists, the following sentences show how AR groups advocate providing supplemented food or deciding not to go vegetarian. Do you want to propose a change to that sentence instead of deleting it? Do that here on the talk page.

My proposal is to delete it. It's confusing and unneeded. Just say that organization X and Y believes Z while on the other hand, A and B reccomends C, or something to that effect.

point 4, the Purina source is a small book, not a pamphlet. It's from the Purina Pet Institute, which does R&D and consumer outreach. It's a good source written by a reputable company in pet foods from the part of their company that does this kind of research.

Oh for !@#$ sakes, read the bloody quote. "Because of their need for high levels of protein and other nutrients, never feed your cat an exclusively vegetarian diet". It's absurd to claim that as a scientific opinion on vegetarian cat food. Just because Purina does nutrition research doesn't make that lame sentence noteworthy on a topic regarding vegetarian cat food.

point 5, when I revised this section a few months ago, I had probably twenty browser tabs open to various groups opinion about this. I chose the AR groups, hoping for representative samples, that backed up their statements to make the best references. If you think there is a POV missing here, present it. Don't just delete existing text and references.

Oh, I think I presented it. But you called it a laundry list, remember? If you don't like a particular edit, change it, do not use reverting as an editing tool.

point 6, the answer to that is to login with a username.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No, the answer to that is for you to stop assuming all ip editors are the same person.--165.21.155.116 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I waited a few days to review this, and I've reverted this again. There is no synthesis problem in the presentation that propylene glycol is lethal for cats, nor that it can be found, unlabeled, in human foods. There is also no failed citation for the National Academy of Sciences book. It's on one of the first pages, and lists probably a dozen serious health problems cats on a vegetarian diet will develop without adequate supplementation.

If you don't want to login, then do not be unhappy that other people cannot tell your edits apart from other IP addresses. Your IP changes with every edit.

You edit very aggressively. If you want to argue this further, then reach out to WP:RfC and let other editors opine. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Perhaps not as aggressive as your reverts. Please back up the claim that there is no synthesis problem. Find a source that says PG in raw meat is a problem for pets fed homemade diet. "Strict vegetarian diets are not appropriate for cats unless supplemented with nutrients essential for cats that are not found in plants." "Unsupplemented vegetarian diets can results in harmful deficiencies of certain essential amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins." Tell me how those two sentences back up the statement that "Even when adequately supplemented, vegetarian diets present other risks, such as urine acidity problems and harmful deficiencies of certain essential amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins, which are less common in meat-based foods." If you want to argue further, you would have to back up your reverts with more than "I don't like it" and "because I say so". 165.21.154.91 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PG is bad for cats (referenced). PG is found in human foods (referenced). Making homemade cat food from human foods can be bad for cats. That is a plain and simple deduction, not a novel synthesis. Wikipedia is a not a publisher of original thought, and so Wikipedia's problems with synthesis is novelty, not the synthesis itself. This is a plain deduction, not a synthesis. This is also not novel. Googling "propylene glycol" homemade "cat food" comes up with plenty of warnings, I'm sure one of which is a reliable source if it is that much of a concern for you.

Urine acidity problems in vegetarian/vegan cats, even on supplemented diets, is also well-documented. I will move references around at some later point. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Non of the first ten hits on your google search mention the danger of propylene glycol in homemade cat food(except one that mirrors wikipedia text). I'm sure one of the 1000+ hits would be a reliable source that says what you want it to say, but you would have to dig it up yourself. Reference 12 says that PG is one of many permitted ingredients in human food. Not quite the same as saying that PG is added to many human foods(or more importantly, raw meat), is it? And reference 15 is supposed to back up the no labeling requirement when used on fresh meat. There is two mention of PG in the article. The first solution is used for Ready-to-eat products and standardized meat and poultry products(e.g. burgers), not fresh food. It has no labeling requirement. The second solution is used on fresh cuts of meat and poultry(among other products) "which permit ingredients of this type". In "single ingredient whole muscle cuts of meat and poultry" it "must be descriptively labeled." Once again, the reference doesn't back up the claim. I am sure there is a urine acidity problem in vegan cats and await your eventual documentation of the problem. But the second part of the sentence concerns harmful deficiencies. Surely you see the contradiction in stating that an adequately supplemented diet can contain harmful deficiencies.165.21.154.92 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this being a plain deduction. It's clear cut synthesis. At what level is PG bad for cats? Propylene glycol is bad for humans too but it requires a very high level. You're not going to convince me that a cat is going to die if it gets one 1 molecyle of propylene glycol. At what level is propylene glycol usually found in human food? How likely is it therefore that propylene glycol will be a problemw for cats? You can't answer this without a complicated analysis of the data. Indeed it 165 is true and the reference doesn't say anythiong about propylene glycol in raw meat and we're talking about raw meat, your example is even worse. If such is the case, I could make the argument that human food is bad for cats because it contains cocoa (well theobromine). In any case, You're welcome to take this to WP:OR/N if you disagree. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (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)

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)

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:
 • 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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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

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)

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) I'd be interested in finding out there's a consensus among vet science that vegetarian cat food is impractical except in extreme circumstances.Retran (talk) 07:35, 5 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)

Introductory, vegan/vegetarian diets, and malnutrition sections

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ash in cat food

No mention of it. Why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Bisphenol A

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)

Grain Free Cat Food

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)

"Meow Chow" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GabiTay (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GabiTay (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)