I plucked this out of this pet food review; I think it’s interesting to be discussed, whether we are talking about pet food for our pets or even food for us humans.
Some people think that humans don’t fully understand how whole foods nourish the body. It’s impossible to break down food into macronutrients and micronutrients and assume that a synthetic reproduction and reassembly of those components will have the same benefits as the natural composition of a freshly-killed prey.
Another school of thought believes that foods are no more than the sum of the parts that humans understand. They are bundles of amino acids, fats, starches, minerals, trace metals. They can be broken down and recreated under controlled conditions. According to this thought system, an ingredient list isn’t where you get the important information about food. The nutrient analysis is what matters.
Which school of thought do you prescribe to?
For me, personally, I always think the first makes more sense and hence, we (meaning us humans and by extension, our pets and all animals) should be eating whole foods. We are told that the benefit of any one nutrient can only be obtained when it works synergistically with other nutrients in a whole food. For example, calcium is better absorbed along with magnesium, phosphorus, Vitamins D and K. So, eating leafly greens for calcium might be more effective than taking a calcium carbonate supplement from limestone. Or vitamin C from fruits and vegetables may be more bio-available than taking an ascorbic acid suppplement. What matters is the bio-availability (how much of the nutrient is absorbed by the body to have an effect) of the substance that we ingest.
On the other hand, with so much advancement in food technology, some food manufacturers claim that nutrients can be “bundled up” into a formulated food. Hence, we have so many ultra-processed foods with long lists of ingredients and impressive nutrient analysis to boot. Will eating these be as good as eating whole foods?
I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues ever since the Blondies started showing a preference for kibble. Before they did this, there was no doubt in my mind as all our cats were on a 100% raw diet. Now I have no choice because of the Blondies’ demand for their urban ultra-processed food! It’s either I give in to them or they starve – now, that’s a no-brainer. I was actually really sad because I had brought up the Blondies on a 100% raw diet, but Akira and Indra are rejecting it now and going for kibble.
And furthermore, now with Juno’s coccidia infection which the vet suspects came from raw food, I even have more reason to take a more open-minded stand.
I googled for a summary and found this:
Raw food is generally considered to be more nutritious for pets than kibble because it is less processed and contains more natural ingredients. However, raw food can pose a higher risk of foodborne illness, so it’s important to consider the pros and cons of each option when deciding what’s best for your pet.
This really sums it all up so well.
Even though our stomach pH is as low as 1, the stomach acid may not be able to destroy all pathogens, like coccidia in small animals (I’ve learnt the hard way).
So, it will be kibble for Juno until she is six months old, kibble for Akira and Indra if that is what they demand for and raw food for the rest (with the flexiblity of having canned and kibble as well for variety and satiety). But I still hope that one day, Juno, Akira and Indra will be able to go back to raw food as their staple diet again.
Let them decide and lead the way. Perhaps they know better than us?