re: Pottinger's cats

I had an interesting discussion with Raymond Francis on that topic. He
said there was research showing the superiority of raw, and mentioned
Pottinger's cats - how the raw fed cats thrived, while the cooked fed
were unhealthy.

I pointed out the obvious: look around you, cats are everywhere, and they
are being fed cooked glop (commercial food) for generation after generation.
This raises serious questions re: the interpretation of the results of the
Pottinger's cats research. He retreated a bit, and said that the results of
Pottinger's cats may have been due to the limited diet (muscle meat) that
the cats were on. (Wild cats typically don't limit their consumption to muscle
meat of one species - their diet is raw, but varied - unlike the mono-diet
of Pottinger).

Additionally, commercial cat foods - as bad as they are - usually contain
a variety of types of flesh (organs and muscle), from multiple species.
Some manufacturers add supplements (like taurine), as well.

Others who are more familiar with Pottinger's work may wish to comment
further on this...

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]