Those aren’t scientific studies. The vegans have scientific studies. You expect me to believe you know better than them, but you can’t show me sources of equal quality?
Cat food is food specifically formulated and designed for consumption by cats. As obligate carnivores, cats have specific requirements for their dietary nutrients, namely nutrients found only in meat or synthesised, such as taurine and Vitamin A.
Hey look, your Wikipedia link says the nutrients cats need from meat can be synthesised in literally the second sentence.
Vegetarian or vegan cat food has been available for many years, and is targeted primarily at vegan and vegetarian pet owners. While a small percentage of owners choose such a diet based on its perceived health benefits, the majority do so due to ethical concerns, such as about the large environmental impacts of animal agriculture.
You also put have the thing where it says they are obligate carnivores in the second sentence of the first paragraph that is cited. I did NOT make those claims just provided you with links for further reading.
It sounds like you aren’t very assured of the validity of your sources in backing up your claims. If you don’t believe in your own sources, why are you so confident in your opinions?
Hey look, your Wikipedia link says the nutrients cats need from meat can be synthesised in literally the second sentence.
This is what I was referring to.
I wasn’t making an argument either way. You asked for someone to help you with your homework and I gave you a place to start with the understanding that you were going to apply critical thinking and check source material after being shown a direction.
You want to bitch about having to think and do work? Stop getting into these types of discussions. I made no claims as to validity just that a quick search revealed many sources and articles that had info you were looking for.
Sure, Vitamin A and Taurine can easily be manufactured, but that’s not all a cat needs, and there are several necessary proteins that are just too expensive to manufacture at the scale needed for animal feed. but go ahead with your wikipedia scholarship, I’m sure you’ll go far in life on that I’m sure.
That’s not true. Wikipedia only accepts secondary sources. It’s one of their most well known rules. If you neither know Wikipedia’s rules nor read the source list for the article you cited, how can you expect to be taken seriously as a researcher?
A quick search reveals quite a few sources and articles to read. I hope this helps. Not an exhaustive list.
Those aren’t scientific studies. The vegans have scientific studies. You expect me to believe you know better than them, but you can’t show me sources of equal quality?
One of those is a Wikipedia link which gives you primary sources. 🤔
Hey look, your Wikipedia link says the nutrients cats need from meat can be synthesised in literally the second sentence.
You also put have the thing where it says they are obligate carnivores in the second sentence of the first paragraph that is cited. I did NOT make those claims just provided you with links for further reading.
Edit: spelling and grammar
It sounds like you aren’t very assured of the validity of your sources in backing up your claims. If you don’t believe in your own sources, why are you so confident in your opinions?
This is what I was referring to.
I wasn’t making an argument either way. You asked for someone to help you with your homework and I gave you a place to start with the understanding that you were going to apply critical thinking and check source material after being shown a direction.
You want to bitch about having to think and do work? Stop getting into these types of discussions. I made no claims as to validity just that a quick search revealed many sources and articles that had info you were looking for.
Edit: spelling and grammar.
Sure, Vitamin A and Taurine can easily be manufactured, but that’s not all a cat needs, and there are several necessary proteins that are just too expensive to manufacture at the scale needed for animal feed. but go ahead with your wikipedia scholarship, I’m sure you’ll go far in life on that I’m sure.
That’s not true. Wikipedia only accepts secondary sources. It’s one of their most well known rules. If you neither know Wikipedia’s rules nor read the source list for the article you cited, how can you expect to be taken seriously as a researcher?
Imma gonna need you to cite your source.
Edit: I only changed my comment after you removed your Wikipedia link. I was updating my comment to an appropriate response to your most current edit.
It’s still there fucko.