Dry-food comparison

❄ Our view

This is our first choice. Purina is one of the manufacturers that carry out their own research and check the quality of their foods once made: what the label says is verified. The food is technically solid, far above the FEDIAF growth minimums, with DHA, colostrum at 0.10 % and high taurine.

Against Royal Canin, composition makes the difference. Chicken is the first ingredient (20 %), ahead of rice, whereas Royal Canin opens with rice. The protein rate is higher (40 % versus 36 %), and carbohydrates, published by the manufacturer, stay lower (25.5 % versus about 28 %).

The composition is not perfect for all that. Of the first ten ingredients, five are cereals or derivatives: rice, wheat gluten, maize, maize protein meal, maize starch — to which pea proteins are added. 25.5 % carbohydrates is a lot for a strict carnivore.

Part of the 40 % protein also comes from wheat and maize gluten, incomplete plant proteins devoid of taurine — hence the need to add it. The truly animal protein rate is therefore below the label figure.

The additive list is otherwise limited to vitamins A, D3, E and C and six trace elements, without the B group. For a food tested once manufactured, this matters less: it is the analyses of the finished product, not the additive list, that show the needs are covered.

❄ Our view

Second in our ranking, with the same guarantee as Pro Plan: Royal Canin carries out its own research and checks the quality of its foods once made. It comes after Pro Plan on composition: rice comes first, before any animal source, with less protein (36 % versus 40 %) and slightly more carbohydrates (about 28 % versus 25.5 %).

A complete, clinically formulated food that far exceeds the FEDIAF growth minimums (28 % protein and 9 % fat on dry matter): here we sit around 39 % protein and 20 % fat on dry. It also answers the kitten’s specific needs — DHA for brain and visual development, vitamins E and C for immunity, prebiotics (MOS) and highly digestible proteins for the microbiome.

The caveat lies in a very cereal-heavy list: rice, wheat gluten, maize flour, wheat flour and maize gluten all sit among the first eight ingredients. Hence a carbohydrate rate of about 28 % — moderate for a dry kibble (starch is needed to manufacture it), but high for a strict carnivore, which has no physiological need for carbohydrates. FEDIAF, incidentally, sets no maximum on this point.

Another consequence of those cereals: part of the displayed protein comes from wheat and maize gluten, plant proteins less complete than an animal protein and devoid of taurine. The truly animal protein rate is therefore below the announced 36 %.

❄ Our view

On paper, this is good work: grain-free, dehydrated chicken at 49 % heading the list, 89 % animal protein announced, and a 40/20 ratio exactly on target for a growing kitten. Carbohydrates hover around 20 %, the lowest rate on this page.

Our reservation bears on two points. First, “grain-free” does not mean “carb-free”: the potato and peas that replace the rice are still starch, and 20 % for a strict carnivore is not nothing. The marketing promise is a little more generous than the analytical reality.

Second, and this is what bothers us most, the additive list is short: vitamins A, D3, E and C, a few trace elements, taurine and L-carnitine. No B-group vitamin appears, nor biotin, nor folic acid, nor choline — all nutrients the FEDIAF guide lists for growth. They may be supplied by the raw materials, but nothing on the label allows it to be checked. It is a good kibble with things missing.

❄ Our view

On the label, this is the finest composition on this page: boneless chicken (30 %) and dehydrated chicken protein (28 %) at the top of the list, grain-free, 44 % protein and about 18 % carbohydrates. Farmina also publishes the most complete additive list of the comparison, and cultivates an image built around science, research and natural ingredients.

Put through WSAVA’s five questions, the brand meets only two. It owns its factories, and it formulates its recipes to AAFCO and FEDIAF nutrient profiles with an in-house scientific team: a veterinarian with a PhD in nutrition heading formulation, chemists, biologists, and a link with the University of Naples Federico II.

The other three are not met. Farmina does not employ a full-time board-certified veterinary nutritionist (DACVIM-Nutrition or ECVCN), unlike Royal Canin, Purina or Hill’s. Its recipes do not go through animal feeding trials following AAFCO procedures: the bags say “formulated to meet”, not “animal feeding tests”, whereas the Pro Plan Kitten bag does state “animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures”. Finally, the announced checks on the finished product (NIR analysis, batch traceability) remain internal, unpublished and without independent verification.

That is the key point. “Formulated to meet” guarantees the right amounts of nutrients, on paper. It says nothing about the real quality of the protein or its digestibility, which is precisely what can explain digestive problems with an otherwise comparable composition. Dr Pierre Bessière, veterinarian (DVM, PhD) at the Toulouse National Veterinary School (ENVT), does not recommend this brand: in his view, it is unable to prove its claims or to run serious checks on protein quality once the kibble is made. Hill’s, Pro Plan, Royal Canin, Advance, Virbac and Specific can.

Our own trial points the same way. For almost three months, from the end of July, our three cats ate Farmina N&D Ancestral Grain, and all three had persistent diarrhoea. In the two young ones, stools turned liquid again as soon as we removed the psyllium: we checked this three times. None of them had the problem on Pro Plan or Royal Canin. Stool tests are under way at the Toulouse National Veterinary School to rule out a parasitic cause. The brand’s sales representative, asked several times, never managed to give us an answer. We no longer use Farmina.

Then there is the price: €21.33/kg for this kitten range in a 1.5 kg bag, the dearest in the comparison. To get down to around €6/kg in a 10 kg bag, on a par with Pro Plan, you have to go through a sales representative who enters every order by hand: a cumbersome process that brought us no nutritional information. A food sold as premium, without the proof to match: we advise against it.

❄ Our view

Distinctly above the classic MultiFit, and it must be said: the list here opens with animal matter, not cereals, and 26 % chicken protein plus 5 % fresh poultry are identified — against 4 % on the standard version. The figures follow: 38 % protein, 17 % fat, about 26 % carbohydrates. It is a different product.

Cereals remain in second position, and the label “meat and animal by-products” still does not say which species are involved beyond the identified chicken. We stay, therefore, in partial transparency.

The real problem lies elsewhere, and it is serious: the additive list is limited to vitamin D3, taurine and four trace elements. No vitamin A, no vitamin E, no vitamin C, no B group, no DHA. On a growth food, that is very short — even granting that the raw materials supply part of it, nothing allows it to be verified.

Our verdict: at comparable prices in the budget segment, it is the better of the two MultiFits, and the value for money is real. It is still not what we would choose for a Ragdoll kitten, whose growth stretches over three to four years.

❄ Our view

We include it because the question comes up often, and the answer must be frank: it is the weakest of the comparison. The first ingredient is “cereals”, in the plural and without precision, followed by “meat and animal by-products” of which only 4 % chicken protein is identified. The rest of the animal origin is not named, which forbids any verification.

The announced 35 % protein must therefore be read with caution: without knowing what is animal and what is plant, the figure says little. Fat at 13 % is moreover low for a growing kitten, and carbohydrates hover around 33 % — the highest rate on this page.

The additive list boils down to vitamins A, D3 and E, taurine at 1,200 mg/kg and four trace elements. No vitamin C, no B group, no DHA.

It is not a dangerous food, and it ticks the regulatory minimums. It is simply the classic profile of a store brand: cheap, opaque. For a kitten in full growth — a fortiori a Ragdoll, which grows until three or four — we do not recommend it.