? Kirkland (Costco) brand pate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jenny&Tux

Member
Hi all!

Has anyone tried the Kirkland brand pate food?

Using an online carb calculator, it says the carbs are between 4% and 5%, depending on the flavor (chicken, turkey, or salmon).

Seems like an appropriate option if the carb calculator is accurate.

lQmtWIj.jpg
geVM6DA.png
 
Curious if anyone is using the Kirkland Pate and have any input? Did it get your fur-babies stamp of approval? My new (OLD - 25 years) non-diabetic cat can be picky yet eats tons. He mostly likes the Fancy Feast Herman gets but seems to get bored.... looking for options that wouldn't be a problem for Herman if he were to get into them.
 
Curious if anyone is using the Kirkland Pate and have any input? Did it get your fur-babies stamp of approval? My new (OLD - 25 years) non-diabetic cat can be picky yet eats tons. He mostly likes the Fancy Feast Herman gets but seems to get bored.... looking for options that wouldn't be a problem for Herman if he were to get into them.
Tux didn’t like it - I returned it
 
It's about 4% AS IS, which includes the 80% moisture (water). When you consider ONLY the actual food part, the "dry matter", it's 20% carbs. So not low carb.
Another way to just estimate, that 4% is just under half the protein amount (9%), and equal to the fat amount (4%), on the as-is basis. If the estimated carb numbers match up with the protein or fat, it isn't going to be low carb. You would want the % carbs, on the as-is basis, to be much lower than the fat or protein percentages.
 
It's about 4% AS IS, which includes the 80% moisture (water). When you consider ONLY the actual food part, the "dry matter", it's 20% carbs. So not low carb.
Another way to just estimate, that 4% is just under half the protein amount (9%), and equal to the fat amount (4%), on the as-is basis. If the estimated carb numbers match up with the protein or fat, it isn't going to be low carb. You would want the % carbs, on the as-is basis, to be much lower than the fat or protein percentages.
My brain struggles with math stuff….but sounds like not low carb either way! I’ll take your word for it! Based on this and a thumbs down from Tux @Jenny&Tux …definitely giving it a pass!
 
Without explaining all the math, because math just isn't everybody's thing, here's the ideas that lead to all that math:
If you put a tablespoon of sugar into a glass, you have 100% sugar in the glass. The contents are completely sugar, 100%.
If you put a tablespoon of sugar into a glass, then add a whole bunch of water, the contents are mostly water and only a little bit of sugar, right? So you might have only 2% sugar in the glass, and the other 98% is water. So now you have a low-sugar, low-carb drink, according to the math, right?
If you pour it into a bigger glass, and add more water, you might now only have 1% sugar, so now it's even lower, right?
EXCEPT....no matter how much water you added, you still have a tablespoon of sugar in that glass, and you are still consuming a tablespoon of sugar.
Wet cat food is usually about 80% water, which makes the food content numbers, especially the carbs, look low. All the math you see on calculations takes out the water, and then evaluates the food that's left, as if it were dry and only the food part. And that's why you can't just read the numbers off the can, they include all the water in the mix, which kind of hides how much of each nutrient is actually in there, just like adding more water to your glass of sugar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top