Friday, September 18, 2015

Error! Error!

It turns out that the calculations I made in my recent article about food were in error! How embarrassing. Most of the food I wrote about was treated correctly, though I have made minor adjustments due to rounding off fractions. This accounts as well for the fact that not all the percentages add up to one hundred.

It is in the matter of Merrick and Fancy Feast that the gravest mistakes were made. Though I am not adept at mathematics, it was more the fault of leaving out a step that resulted in higher percentages for carbohydrate-created calories than what should have been. Tales from the Foster Kittens suggested that my sums may have been off, and I am indebted to her for indicating so. I consulted with experts in mathematics (ie. someone who was not me) and came up with revised numbers. Merrick remains high but no where near as bad as I thought it was. Fancy Feast is lower as well.

I have provided the new totals below. This debacle simply demonstrates that the internet is good for entertainment but information derived from it should be verified, especially when it comes from someone whose principal interest is history and not numbers.

But as more than one comment rightly implied, the numbers matter not; it’s what the cats eat that counts. Very true.

Wellness Core (soft food)
39%    protein
55%    fat
6%     carbohydrates

Wellness Core (hard food)
39%    protein
38%    fat
23%    carbohydrates

Royal Canin Diabetic (hard food)
42%    protein
27%    fat
32%    carbohydrates        

Orijen (hard food)
37%    protein
45%    fat
18%    carbohydrates

Merrick Surf & Turf (soft food)
43%    protein
31%    fat
25%    carbohydrates

Fancy Feast Ocean Whitefish (soft food)
61%    protein
24%    fat
14%    carbohydrates


  1. "I consulted with experts in mathematics (ie. someone who was not me)..."

    LOL! I have no head for numbers, have a keen interest in human evolution and the nature of the universe, what we refer to as "god," etc. But math? Forget it. Never mind I work in a statistical analysis office. Anyway, the recalculations look good! I'm actually relieved FF turns out to be lower, since I feed it, among several other brands, to the boys.

    My immediate brain-freeze when it comes to any kind of calculation probably is why I've not even tried to do this for my own knowledge!

    1. Cammie eats only Fancy Feast for a soft-food, and the others like it, so I'm relieved, too. Tales from the Foster Kittens thinks the number for Fancy Feast should be even lower, and she's probably right.

  2. Well that is good. Looks like Fancy Feast is one of the best. That is what evreyone here eats and they are all fine. Thanks for doing all this research.

    1. Yes, I think Fancy Feast is just fine for soft-food fare, and considering it's the brand most here consistently like, we may be seeing more of it.

  3. 14% carbs on FF Ocean Whitefish seems high.. considering the ingredient list.

    And don't feel bad, it is such a learning experience when you first figure out you need to know these sorts of things. I grew up thinking the most I needed to know about cat food was if my cats wanted to eat canned or dry. (btw, I'm Connie, so nice to meet you)

    1. Hello, Connie. John here. You're probably right about the percentage for Fancy Feast. In any case, it seems to be something that is both good and enjoyable for cats.