Can anyone convert 'as fed' values to lay-beans terms?

Can someone help me decipher this?

AS FED %:
Moisture- 76%
protein- 9.77
fat- 9.18
carb- 2.65
fiber .30
ash 1.60

DRY MATTER:
mositure 76%
Protein- 41.57
fat- 39.062
carb- 11.28
fiber- 1.28
ash- 6.81

per 100 Kcals/ME:
moisture 76%
protein 80.41
fat 75.56
carb 21.81
fiber 2.47
ash 13.17

Phosp - .27/ 1.15/ 2.22 respectively


DOES THIS FOOD HAVE 2.65 or 11.28% CARBS????????????????
9.77 or 41.57% protein?
None of the above and something else entirely?

I know this may be remedial- but looking at Janet/binky list i can't tell confidentally how to use this to get what I need- none match what is on the chart.
So either I am doing it wrong (most likely) or the information has changed. (also possible) OR BOTH.

I called the company to get updated info. & clarify if there was a formula change vs just a label/name change for a particular food I recenlty purchased.
None of the above numbers match the breakdown in janet/Binky chart.
Do I have to apply a formula to extrapolate out what I need?
Can someone interpret this?


I hope i didn't screw up a 2nd time. I had some opened in the fridge and just fed him some.

thanks!
betty

 

Some of the information does not make sense.
1. There should be no moisture values in the dry matter or the entry of per 100 Kcals/ME.
2. There should be no values for fiber, phosphorous and ash in the entries for per 100 Kcals/ME.
3. The protein, fat and carb values in the entries for per 100 Kcals/ME should add up to 100 but they vastly exceed 100.

 

Larry-
is it alright if I PM- send you this PDF they sent with the breakdowns. Sounds like you may know how to intepret. i was just noting in my post what I thought were the pertinents. Perhaps I screwed it up.

Do you know how to apply the formul into lay terms?


betty

 

Sure, PM it to me. You could also post it as an attachment for others to see too.

 

OK- i attached
They have recently changed the label/name saying only minor modification were made to meet new AAFCO guidleines..label oder, they lowered sodium and added potassium chloride. She said the basic formula otherwise unchanged.
i was not able to interpret this with any confidence.
How would this translate into how presented on the Janet/Bink list?

Bottom line-
how much protein%/fat%/carb% & phosphorous?

Anxious to hear what you come up with.

I tried to figure it out using the formula, but not sure iw as even using the correct numbers to plug in.

Thanks!

 

Using: http://www.scheyderweb.com/cats/catfood.html
I get 11.4% of calories is from carbs.

You did make some errors when you posed the first time. Besides including moisture in the last two entries, you forgot the "g/" and a "0" in the third entry for "g/Per 1000 kcal ME"

 

yes, I realize I had.


So, on janet's chart for this food is: chicken/lamb canned 37P/55f /8carb- 244 phosph 190 cals
Chicken & lamb 37 55 8 0.2 244 190

I confirmed this is the same Eagle pack Formula as before. (Eagle Pack- 'Holistic Select'- chicken and lamb) They have now just dropped the 'eagle pack' from the name and changed labels. They still have a premium DRY they will continue to use the name Eagle Pack on, as well as a Holistic Select version, but for the canned, THIS is the only one, and is same as before i was told.

This was also mentioned on Dr. Lisa's site as a 'good' food: http://www.catinfo.org/commercialcannedfoods.htm

AND is presented as being good for diabetics on the manufacturer's site:
Cats- ....our canned formula, with only 2-3% carbohydrates.

What you are getting approximates what is on the dry matter basis for the carbs.

So we have some contradicitons and discrepancy. And the question mark continues. NOT GOOD!

Would you go by this and ignore the other information on the manufacturer's site, Dr. Lisa's, AAND the Janet Binky list? i have in fact questioned if there were any formula changes, and told explicitly ONLY sodium was lowered, and Potassium Chloride added??


I remain unsure.

frustrating!

thanks for interpreting. What do you make of this?

 

I made a mistake. The % calories from carbs is about 75. Per the calculator, per 100 g there are 40 g of calories and 524 g total. 40/524 is about 7%. Thats close to J&Bs 7%

 

What EXACTLY are you plugging into the calculator?

She has the formula she uses here: http://binkyspage.tripod.com/foodfaq.html
but i couldn't make it work to get close to what her list says.
You can see my confusion. i fully expected to call the manufacture to find a formula change, but not the case. Now i feel fairly confident the food I bought IS IN FACT this same food on the list, with just a label makeover.

THE manufacturer states yet even lower carbs in their marketing info.

But ultimately i thought I must have been plugging in the wrong numbers or didn't fully understand how Janet worked the calcualtions. WHICH I DON'T.
(I start getting lost at #3)

Hank really likes it.... i just can't figure out if it has 11+%, 2-3 or 8? it also has good protein per the Janet list, which is another plus. Or does it?

Can you work her formula to make it add up with the Manufacturers Nutrient Profile i attached?

 

Yay!!!! Janet herself!

i like the one's on your chart better. 37P/55f /8carb ..specifically trying to find something a bit higher in protein AND low carb since I became aware recently that some of ours are low carb, but not as high i PROTEIN as I thought...just more fat. No wonder he likes it.

I received several Nutritional Analysis from them today i can forward to you. Not sure if they will be redundant.
Did you know the parent companies of Wellness and Eagle Pak merged?

So I have whatever the 'latest' is for Wellness, Core, Eagle Pak/Holisitc Select (several varieties) those are dated oct. '09
...the Wellness -March 06! I questioned and they said this was the latest. How much can that be relied on?

Let me know if they would be hlepful for updating and I'll forward.

So would you rely on this to be what's accurate then?... -vs- on the chart?



thanks!
betty

 

Betty, the as fed vales on Janet's charts represent what your cat is actually eating.

The weasel numbers on the labels represent the average of several industrial size batches of food in which not all the ingredients and ratios are constant. That's why the "guaranteed minimum" and "guaranteed maximum" language is used. The difference between a guaranteed minimum or maximum number and reality can be enormous. The as fed numbers are far less squishy.

 

In addition, let's just mention for the record that the "as fed" values are by mass or weight, and Janet's values are % of calories. Her formula shows how to convert one to the other.

Those are really different measurements so don't try to compare one to the other.

 

I'm trying to understand this too. I have similar charts from Felidae.

When Janet said:

was she using "PRODUCT - PROFILE FOR FELINE HOLISTIC SELECT CHICKEN & LAMB RECIPE" sub column "As fed basis %"? Because I get a slightly different value for protein and fat although the carb is the same.

 

Product profiles and can labels do not give as fed values so Janet can't use them. The manufacturers have the as fed values, some will give them to Janet,but for some reason many regard them as state secrets, raising the question "what are they hiding?"

 

Side question here: Has anyone succeeded in getting accurate content from Purina for the new-label Fancy Feast Tender Beef? I am convinced that the new stuff added 20 points to Kitty's BG (and derailed our first path to an OTJ trial at the last minute!).

I believe they changed the formula, but they claim they didn't.

And what do people know about "new AAFCO guidleines"? FF changed its label, no longer stating that the food is made in the US.

Thanks for the detective work, Betty. Those of us looking for a FF alternative appreciate it!