Talk:Cat food

Proposal to add Red Dog Blue Kat

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on nutrient ratios in a cat's preferred diet

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

How do you make the link from self-selection to health outcomes? E.g. with humans it's easy to see that what people pick is not a great predictor for what is healthy to them. And cats in the wild don't have the same option as those in captivity, and vice versa. How do those link together?
Without sources linking these to the health outcomes, this risks violating WP:NOR. 2A01:4B00:BE02:3C00:D183:B466:1AF:960C (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made no edits to the text on this page, and I misunderstood the limits of what can be "talked" about in the talk section of an entry, so I edited the title and removed my thoughts on this subject. But to respond, the one study, as I mentioned, included orange flavoring in one food as a confounding factor for taste preferences, yet the food was still eaten when presented along with other foods with differing nutrient profiles so as to create the aforementioned protein/fat/carb intake. I think equating human to other animals food selections is difficult. Cats don't read marketing copy, feel peer pressure (as far as we know), or follow this or that influencer fad on TikTok, etc. That the domesticated (non-feral) cats eat more carbs but still select for ~53% protein is interesting. EggtoothLost (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certain species such as ruminants can be 'hungry' for different nutrients but this isn't observed in obligate carnivores because their diet consists of one main source that provides everything typically. Cats choose food based on smell and good smelling (but not necessarily healthiest) food will be preferred by the cat. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the studies I linked to in my original comment states differently. From the Abstract: "In two studies, in which animal and plant protein sources were used, respectively, the ratio and amounts of protein and fat intake were very consistent across all groups regardless of flavour combination, indicating regulation of both protein and fat intake. Our results suggest that macronutrient balancing rather than hedonistic rewards based on organoleptic properties of food is a primary driver of longer-term food selection and intake in domestic cats." [1] Both of the studies I posted are worthwhile reading for cat lovers (as I am and have been for years). EggtoothLost (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
suggests is a hypothesis not a confirmation. Also we need a secondary source rather than a primary study (see WP:PRIMARY) Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source check for revert by Traumnovelle - 19:13, 13 November 2025

Hi @Traumnovelle (and anyone interested)

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

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

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

Its a textbook on small animal nutrition, if the content only applied to dogs it'd specify that such as 'The form of diabetes that affects the majority of dogs most closely resembles human type I'
'Calcium is required for biological processes and for skeletal mineralization' is a general phrase that applies to both cats and dogs where as 'the calcium requirement for growing dogs ranges between 0.33% and 1.2% calcium' is a specific claim so specifies dogs.
The relevant parts here are 'Dietary calcium deficiency can be caused by
feeding ... commercial vegan foods...', which is a general phrase that applies to both cats and dogs. and the part after it referring to hyperparathyroidism, which I won't quote in full as it'd be arguably a copyvio, but it is a general phrase again referring to the pathogenesis of calcium deficiency in small animals in general, the part after it 'This explains the radiologic and pathologic findings in the skeleton of growing dogs' is itself specific to dogs but that doesn't mean the whole paragraph is specific to dogs.
I can't see how a secondary source published by Wiley-Blackwell, written by a professor at the University of Utrecht, and edited by a UC Davis professor could possibly be undue here. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This citation, page 196 of the book turns out to be accessible on Google Books preview so anyone can verify: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tDHOEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Since this page doesn't mention "cats" or "small animals", I don't agree you can read the general case as either. In addition, the general case is likely "dogs", because the page does mention specific cases as "adult dogs", "growing dogs", and specific breeds like Great Danes. This leaves the issue with WP:BURDEN, which lies on the editor adding, or in this case, restoring information.
Let's look at the full quote as well:
"Dietary calcium deficiency can be caused by feeding meat-based, home-prepared diets with insufficient supplementation of calcium salts, unbalanced commercially prepared diets as might be present in the Bones and Raw Food (BARF) diet (Mark and Kienzle 2016), commercial vegan foods (Zafalon et al. 2020a), or poor-quality diets with an excess of phytates that bind intestinal calcium as insoluble and non-absorbable complexes."
You confirm the claim is based on a study where a single vegan cat food was tested and found to be within AAFCO guidelines on calcium (Zafalon et al. 2020a). See point 2 in my top comment. Sklabb (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source it cites is about cats and dogs, so I don't see how the claim can only apply to dogs. It describes the basic pathophysiology of calcium deficiency. It doesn't spell out that its for cats and dogs because its targetted towards a specialist audience who are already know that and the fact that the source only references a single study is irrelevant, there are sparse quality studies to work with but regardless we simply require reliable secondary sources and this source is absolutely one, more so than primary open-access studies. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss to what to say without repeating myself. You claim this text that does not mention cats is about cats, while two other editors disagree, yet you persist.
I'll remove it again now, there is no consensus to keep this, the opposite if anything. I'm happy to yield if this changes, e.g. if you can convince @TurboSuperA+. Sklabb (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is about cats and dogs, the chapter is about orthopaedics and nutrition in cats and dogs as mentioned at the start, general claims for both cats and dogs are not specified because the audience (specialists) are to understand that without it being needlessly spelt out every time. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to contact Herman Hazewinkel and he said that the chapter is based on cats and dogs, with some information being applicable more generally in veterinary medicine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is impressive detective work! However, it does not change the issue at hand, it even highlights that the source does not reflect the text it is supporting outright and needs additional explanation. Your interpretation of the source is WP:OR. Even if it's the author's (I assume) intention, this must be WP:PUBLISHED which your exchange of course is not. You also refer to the chapter, but sourced is only a single page. The requirement of WP:BURDEN remains and is not met with or without the author's clarification to you.
To be sure I did not miss anything, I asked @Veg Historian for their opinion. They agree the whole chapter reads to be about dogs, and the text should be removed from the page. @TurboSuperA+ also confirms this reference to be about dogs, as I read it too.
In other words, there is consensus this source is about dogs and not cats, counter to your interpretation. Because this page is about cat food and not dogs, the source should be updated or the text removed. I will remove it now. It can be restored with a better source of course. I believe restoring it without a new reliable source is in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Sklabb (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle As far as I can see, that particular section is about dogs. I have the book in PDF form. If you email me, I can send it to you. This goes for you too, @Sklabb. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue can be very easily resolved. Just look up the individual references on page 196 of Applied Veterinary Clinical Nutrition. Traumnovelle is correct that the chapter "Nutritional Management of Orthopedic Diseases" includes coverage of both cats and dogs. However, pages 195 and 196 are on dogs. If you need verification of this just check the individual reference for the material cited on page 196 for the content in question about vegan cats foods and calcium deficiency. The content in question is this material that was added to the article "Commercial vegan cat foods may be insufficient in calcium. In cases of chronic calcium deficiency, bone resorption and mineralization are both significantly increased and (if there is a decrease in body growth) bone mineralization may cause hyperparathyroidism" [2]. The references for this material are listed in the book. The references on page 196 for the above content are: Mack and Kienzle (2016), Zafalon et al 2020, Hazewinkel 1991 and Zab et al 1993.
Anyone can look up these references. Here is the Mack and Kienzle paper [3]. As you can all see this is a paper on Bernese Mountain Dog-puppies. Here is the Hazewinkel 1991 paper, as you can see it is on Great Dane dogs [4]. Here is the Zab et al paper on Dane puppies [5]. As for Zafalon et al 2020 this study is already cited on our Wikipedia article [6]. It's true that this study does cover both vegan cat and dog foods. However if you read the study there is only one mention of "calcium deficiency" and it applies to dogs only "One vegan dog food (Food A) had a methionine and calcium deficiency according to the minimum recommendations by FEDIAF for adult dog maintenance". In conclusion I believe this is WP:OR and what Sklabb is saying is correct. I would add that Herman Hazewinkel has not laid out his chapter very well. It should have been split into specific sub-sections for cats and dogs. Lastly, Hazewinkel is quite unreliable because he is using studies on puppies and trying to pass off such material for dogs in general (he even cited two of his own studies both with small sample sizes). In conclusion this is original research and poor research (in my opinion) that should be removed from Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss this further if need be. Veg Historian (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Hazewinkel is quite unreliable because he is using studies on puppies and trying to pass off such material for dogs in general
Oh of course a professor at the University of Utrecht who specialises in orthopaedics is unreliable because of your opinion, yeah this is a joke I'm not engaging with this blatant POV-pushing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have individually checked out the references and put hard work into tracking them all down; they are on dogs. These are the references [7], [8], [9] for the cited text you added. Why are you adding content referenced to dogs for claims about cat food on this Wikipedia article? Instead of accusing other editors of POV you just should do the correct thing and admit you have made a mistake here. We all make mistakes. You have added some content but you never checked out the references.
We shouldn't be citing content on Bernese Mountain Dog-puppies on a cat food Wikipedia article. As for Hazewinkel just because a man may work at a University does not make him infallible. He cites outdated studies for his claims, two of which he wrote himself and have a very small sample size. That is the definition of biased research and a self citation fallacy; anyone in academia would tell you that. The bottom line here is that even if this is a reliable source, the text you added is WP:OR. It doesn't apply to cats. If you find another WP:RS for that content you can re-add it back in but as it stands the content you added is off-topic and this is violation of Wikipedia policy. Veg Historian (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page 18: Calcium 'In dogs and puppies, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism; in kittens, bone rarefaction, especially of the pelvis and lumbar vertebrae; in cats, decreased bone density; in cats and kittens, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism.'
Page 152-153: Case report of nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism due to a homemade diet of raw meat and vegetables. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic. What does any of that have to do with vegan cat food or the text in question at page 196? Those pages are not in dispute, go ahead and add content from page 18 or pages 152 or 153 I doubt anyone would dispute it. The only thing in dispute was some off-topic content about dogs you added from page 196. Veg Historian (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If @Veg Historian is correct (I am unable to check right now because I'm on phone) that the cited source is based on studies on dogs, we should definitely not be including that in this article. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources cited (Zafalon et al. 2020a) is about both cat and dog food. [10] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Zafalon study used a single Brazilian vegan cat food and several dog foods. This reference is already mentioned on the Wikipedia article in the section "concerns" as reference 72. "A 2020 study evaluated vegan pet foods including one for cats in the Brazilian market and found it had nutritional inadequacies when compared to AAFCO recommendations. It was found to be lacking in arachidonic acid, an essential fatty acid for cats, and low in potassium. Compared to the FEDIAF standards, it was additionally found to be low in arginine, calcium, Ca/P ratio, and too high in coper and zinc" This is accurate per the source. No user is disputing this content.
The Zafalon study does not mention calcium deficiency in reference to cats it found calcium deficiency in reference to one vegan dog food only. No user here is disputing calcium deficiency from an unbalanced diet can lead to secondary nutritional hyperparathyroidism in cats, however, this isn't supported by the sources in specific reference to vegan cat food that were cited. As explained above several of those sources are on dogs only.
The sentence that was added to the article "some commercial vegan cat foods may be insufficient in calcium" is original research. The Zafalon study did not look at commercial vegan cat foods, it looked at one commercial vegan cat food from Brazil. We have already cited the Zafalon study on the article. It would be odd for a user to edit war over this; some original research was added and now it was removed. Sklabb was correct in raising the issue. Veg Historian (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This study from 2004 [11], online in full [12] that looked at two vegan cat diets found that one had calcium concentrations below the minimum recommended level. We are already citing older studies from 2004 on the article so I have no objection if a user wants to add this study. Veg Historian (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what original research is at all. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The calcium deficiency issue is also mentioned under "Homemade" - looks like the article needs pretty significant restructuring not to just be a cat-owner guide but an encyclopedic article.
Regarding vegan cat food, I think there's a difference between a vegan diet and commercial food, and we can figure out how and whether veganism should be mentioned here. For now I support keeping the information about calcium deficiency eventually potentially leading to hyperparathyroidism. From a cursory search, there does seem to be evidence that cats get calcium from non-vegetarian sources.. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so all users can see page 196 of the source in question. You can read it in full here [13]. As you can see the entire page is about dogs (beagles, miniature poodles, great Danes, growing dogs etc). There is no mention of cats anywhere on the page. This is also being discussed at WP:ANI [14]. There is currently no consensus to include this material so until there is an agreed consensus this material should not be restored. We should wait until other users weigh in on this and offer their opinion about page 196. Veg Historian (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part that I am sourcing is 'dietary calcium deficiency...' to 'dietary-induced hyperparathyroidism', which finishes with 'thus bone turnover is significantly increased in animals with dietary hyperparathyroidism. The source would not say 'animals' if it only refers to a single species and that whole section does not mention a specific species once, indicating its generalised information, species specific information always mentions the species, such as in the other sections of the page. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The part you sourced was this: "In cases of chronic calcium deficiency, calcium resorption from bone and calcium accretion (i.e. skeletal mineralization) are both significantly increased (Hazewinkel 1991; Nap et al 1993b), with a subsequent increase in plasma alkaline phosphatase levels. Thus bone turnover is significantly increased in animals with dietary induced hyperparathyroidism". ----> Hazewinkel 1991 is a paper on Great Dane dogs [15] and Nap et al 1993 is also a paper co-written by Hazewinkel on miniature poodles [16]. If this material is on cats or all animals why are the only two cited studies for the text on dogs? As stated there is no mention on page 196 of cats anywhere, the entire page is about dogs. The text must specifically mention cats if it is to be included on this Wikipedia article otherwise we run into the problem of conducting original research. Veg Historian (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its common for sources on other animals being used to support a claim about a different species, there is no need for cats to be specifically mentioned. Secondary sources are allowed to make 'analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims' WP:SECONDARY. The requirement for a source to be explicit and understandable by any layman is a restriction only applied to primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that is true, the issue here is that the specific paragraph in question cites only two studies on great dane dogs and miniature poodles. We do not need any interpretation here, it is obvious what the text is referring to. I have not seen any other user agree with you in including this material so without a consensus the material should not be restored. Veg Historian (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph says 'animals', not dogs which indicates its a generalised statement not specific to a species. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle it's a problematic interpretation. "animals" could refer to dogs alone, or to more species. It cannot refer to all animals, not all animals have bones after all, which forces us to interpret the species involved. This source is at best ambiguous on which animals are included, which is not good enough for the encyclopedia. In addition, 4 editors agree this is about dogs, with the argument of the cited sources, and all animals specified being dogs.
Consider the ANI, please drop the stick. Sklabb (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes little sense to write 'animals' if it only refers to a single species. The chapter is about cats and dogs and that is what the information relates to, with specification when required e.g. 'Ergocalciferol, vitamin D2, and cholecalciferol, vitamin D3, appear to have similar potencies in the dog, but not in the cat, where vitamin D3 is metabolized more efficiently than vitamin D2' Traumnovelle (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Nutrient chart section - any objections?

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

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

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

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

Natural diet

This contains the bald statement: 'The natural diet of cats does not include any vegetable matter.' from ref [14]. What about the gut contents of the prey? Section Nutrients and supplements/Fiber says The addition of fiber at optimal levels in a diet is essential for the normal function and health of the gastrointestinal tract. Cats are to occasionally consume plant material, mainly leaves, in response to a diet deficient in fiber. Ref [14] advises 5% of vegetable matter to be added to a pure meat diet. Certain plants such as lilies and azaleas are known to be harmful to cats, so presumably there is a possibility of them being eaten. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14 is not a reliable source and should not have been included. I will look for another source for the claim. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cat_food