research study – Pain In The Bud

‘I Just Beat Your Cat Again. She Can’t Walk. We’re Done.’

This Caturday we look at how pets fare in domestic violence situations, plus a study about obesity in meat-eating and “vegan cats.”

The headline is a quote from a text a man allegedly sent to his girlfriend after abusing her cat so badly that the poor kitty had to be euthanized.

The story is grotesque, tragic, and sadly not uncommon. Between 75 and 89 percent of domestic violence victims who have pets report that their partners threatened, abused or killed their companion animals, according to research from the ASPCA and SafeHouse, a non-profit that provides direct support to victims of domestic violence.

In the incident referenced above, an Indianapolis man was arrested and charged with killing a domestic animal and torturing or mutilating an animal, both felonies. The suspect, Rashawn Bentley, originally tried to stage the violence as the result of a break-in, but was undone by his own menacing texts to his girlfriend as well as photos of the injured cat, according to the local NBC affiliate, WTHR.

Just so it’s abundantly clear how we feel about this issue: if you abuse, harm or kill a cat, you’re not a man. You’re a weak, despicable, cowardly facsimile of a man whose “flex” is taking your frustrations out on an innocent animal one twentieth your size.

You should be arrested, charged with the most severe penalties under the law – even if they’re not commensurate with the horror of the crime you’ve committed – and imprisoned for years. The other inmates should know you killed a cat. You should be removed from society, because if you think taking life is an acceptable way to vent your frustrations, there’s something clearly wrong with your brain and you are a danger to animal and human alike.

Close-up of a curious orange kitten with large, expressive eyes resting on a bed. — Credit: Mayara Caroline Mombelli/Pexels

Of course the majority of these attacks, especially targeting cats, are committed by men, but women aren’t off the hook here either. Some women do try to harm significant others by killing or abusing their cats, in straight relationships and relationships between women.

Ignore that study on supposedly healthy ‘vegan cats’

Headlines about a new study in Frontiers In Animal Science are trumpeting the supposed benefits of vegan diets for cats, who are obligate carnivores.

The media stories style the effort as a large-scale study involving more than 1,300 participants.

In reality it was an online survey that recruited cat caretakers from Facebook and recorded their subjective opinions about the health of their cats.

Everything, including reported weight, mobility, questions about potential physical problems, times fed per day, sex and neuter status, et al, was filtered through the self-selected respondents, not pulled from veterinary records. The respondents weren’t given reference illustrations or standardized criteria from which to base their subjective assessment of their cats’ weight.

There’s no way to determine if the people who participated were being honest, keeping records, guesstimating or just having a bit of fun.

To be clear, most of our criticism here is directed at the way online publications reported the results, not necessarily the authors of the survey, who chose a much more dry, cautious headline: “Impacts of a vegan diet on body weight and related health disorders in 1,305 cats: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.”

Obviously, even a jazzed-up version of that honest headline would never be used by click-chasing modern media.

Google search results showing articles about a study on lower rates of overweight among vegan-fed cats. — Notice the bottom right headline, which misinterprets a statistical analysis for “odds” of being overweight.

Ninety percent of the people who responded were female, and 71 percent were from the UK, according to the published paper.

Then the authors kneaded the data with the usual opaquely-named practices: “exploratory regression analysis” (a data-mining technique), regression models (AI-assisted statistical technique that involves comparing existing data with the result you predicted/hope to see), sensitivity analysis (changing variables to assess their impact on the overall findings), and so on.

When all was said and done, 4.1 percent of the meat-eating cats and 3.1 percent of the vegan cats were over their ideal weights, in their humans’ estimation. Meat-eating cats were also more likely to be underweight (2.3 percent) compared to vegan cats (0.8 percent).

The conclusion? The findings were “non-significant,” the researchers wrote, along with the obligatory call for more research on the topic.

We should also point out that in addition to their classification as obligate carnivores, cats require specific proteins and nutrients (taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamins A and B12) from meat-based diets that they cannot synthesize themselves and are not found in plant-based protein. “Vegan cat food” must have those proteins and nutrients added. If cats are deprived of them, they suffer slow, painful declines that result in organ shutdown and death.

Because of their evolutionary history, cats aren’t as adept at breaking down plant-based starches and their bodies don’t produce enough of a specific enzyme (amylase) that breaks down starch and complex carbohydrates.

Human ideas of morality aren’t applicable to cats. Feed them meat.

Open comments Caturday! Although not mentioned in the headlines, today’s the day for open comments: anything off-topic, marriage proposals or modeling contracts for Buddy, updates on your own cats, suggestions on stories to cover and whatever else is on your mind. Happy Caturday!

Header image credit: Pexels

Caturday Open Comments: The Closer The Cat, The Happier The Human, Study Finds. PLUS: P-22’s $100m Legacy

Open comments, open topics!

Welcome to this week’s Caturday open comments and open topics. This is our second week running posts like this, so if you didn’t join us last week, you’re welcome to comment on anything, suggest stories, talk about your own cats, or describe the many ways in which Buddy is a dapper and diggity diggity dope feline, as DasEFX might say.

P-22’s lasting legacy: the world’s largest wildlife corridor

Three years after his death, the world’s most famous puma’s legacy continues to expand with the construction of the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing.

The crossing straddles 10 lanes of US 101 and a local road, stretching 210 feet to link the Santa Monica Mountains ecosystem to the Simi Hills. Along with restoring 13 acres of habitat, the $100 million project provides a safe way for mountain lions and other animals to travel between fragmented habitats.

Aerial view of a green space on top of a highway overpass, with construction workers in safety vests walking on a dirt path. Surrounding areas have rocky terrains and vegetation. — The wildlife crossing under construction. Credit: KTLA

It also recreates the route P-22 himself took when he migrated from the San Diego area to Los Angeles as a young puma. He settled in Los Angeles’ Griffith Park, an improbable home for a large wild predator, let alone a member of his often wide-ranging species.

The route is extremely perilous for mountain lions, already under threat from habitat fragmentation, hunting and ecological pressures. P-22’s remarkable resilience became the stuff of legend when researchers realized where he was born and the journey he’d taken to his final home.

The puma became iconic in Los Angeles, often appearing on Ring doorball cameras, spotted by hikers on the trails above Hollywood Hills, and even resting in the backyards of homes neighboring Griffith Park. Sightings were frequently posted to socials like Instagram and Facebook, where locals bonded over their admiration for P-22 and the rest of us admired him from afar.

Perhaps the most recognizable photograph of P-22 was the one captured by National Geographic’s Steve Winter, who snapped the striking cat passing in front of the Hollywood sign in the hills at night. (See header image.)

The Wallis Annenberg crossing will be opened on Dec. 2, ushering in a new era for wildlife in California.

Aerial view of a highway interchange with multiple lanes, surrounded by grass and trees, showing vehicles traveling in both directions. — A rendering of the complete Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing showing what it will look like when it’s complete. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Study: Physical proximity to your cat is associated with positive vibes

On the heels of research that found a link between having cats in the home and happiness, a brand new study finds positive mood benefits associated with being physically close to our feline overlords.

In this study, researchers visited cats and their humans in their homes rather than in a laboratory setting. They observed the cat-human interactions, how much time they spend in close proximity, and took urine samples to measure hormonal changes in the humans. Feline proximity was also tracked and logged via small Bluetooth collar attachments.

“I think many cat owners are familiar with the sense of comfort and peace they feel when their cat climbs onto their lap seeking affection, they start to pet it, and the cat begins purring contentedly,” study co-author Saho Takagi said. “Our findings suggest that this feeling may be partly reflected in the hormonal connection between cats and their owners, particularly through oxytocin, a hormone involved in the formation of parent-child bonds and social relationships.”

Since Bud seems to be attached to me by an invisible tether and spends hours each day in direct physical contact – napping in my lap, resting a paw on a leg or arm, sleeping while burrowed up snugly against my side – this study is affirmation of the calming effect the little dude has.

A gray cat peacefully sleeping on a cozy plaid blanket. — Bud sleeping on my legs on a cold day when I was wrapped up in a blanket. He doesn’t like being underneath the blanket, but he likes to sleep between my knees.

PITB will be operating out of a hotel this week

Or for several days at least. Contractors will be here working on the bathroom and kitchen, and apparently the work is going to put the bathroom out of commission for at least two nights, not the one night as I’d hoped. (Thanks to those who offered suggestions for staying in a hotel with a cat!)

I’ll still be around and hopefully will stick to a regular posting schedule – every other day, or more frequently if there are newsy cat stories that fall within this blog’s remit – but Photoshop is a real Pain In The Bud when using a laptop, I’ve found, so the Budster and I will be reliant entirely on Pexels, Wikimedia Commons (fair use) and that sort of thing. Hopefully Bud lets me work, ’cause I’m not supposed to leave him alone in the hotel room for longer than a few minutes at a time.

Big Buddy has been downgraded

…to The Slightly Larger Buddy. This momentous change is prompted by Little Buddy’s certainty that his growth spurt is imminent and he’s about to blossom into the fierce tiger he’s always known he’ll be.

When that happens, the gulf in Buddy height and weight will be significantly reduced, rendering me Slightly Larger.

Close-up of a tiger's face with distinctive orange and black stripes, looking intently at a plant in the foreground. — Buddy of the future after he has his growth/orange spurt. Credit: Joel Simeon/Pexels

Which is fine by me, but what of Little Buddy? Will he be Moderately Sized Buddy? Super Buddy? Buddy In A Transitional State? The latter sounds vaguely culture war-ish, as if Fox News is about to run a story any moment now about the girls Buddy has replaced on the track and field and swimming teams, which of course would be preposterous. He’s too lazy to run and too terrified by water to swim. I could, however, envision him as an accomplished deadlifter. Those huge meowscles would be put to excellent use!

Pet Cats Lead To ‘More Mental Health Problems’ For Kids, Authors Of New Study Claim

Not all pets are created equal, but not all studies are either.

A new study claims we’ve gotten it wrong all these years, that pet cats and dogs aren’t good for young children, while kids who grow up with pet fish, turtles and hamsters learn empathy and develop better mental balance.

The authors of the study claim cats are “the only common pet linked to more mental health problems in children.”

Furthermore, the authors claim, pets like turtles, fish and hamsters are “linked to” positive mental health in children, while data shows dogs have no effect.

To understand what we’re dealing with here, we’ve got to break down “study,” “linked to” and “data” in relation to the report by researchers at the University of Valencia in Spain.

“Study” here means a meta-analysis of data collected by the INMA Project, a collaboration of universities, biomedical institutes and medical conglomerates in Spain. INMA is primarily concerned with researching the impact of environmental pollutants on early childhood development.

The INMA data was not collected specifically for this new study dealing with pets.

Secondly, while INMA did “track” some 1,900 participants from birth through six or seven years old, the “data” itself primarily consists of subjective reports by the parents of the children along with “environmental measurements and clinical tests.”

It’s not clear if the original data collection effort had anything to do with the presence of pets in the homes, or if that was just one of many data points gathered in a larger assessment. For example, the INMA questionnaires may have simply asked if the families have pets and what kind of pets they have without any further elaboration or information about whether, or how often, the children interact with the pets. There can be enormous variation in that area alone.

Then there’s “linked to,” a very specific choice of words by the authors. They’re using “linked to” instead of “caused by” because the data they have – if you can appropriately use the word data to describe the results of self-reported questionnaires based on subjective feelings – cannot distinguish between correlation and causation and really says nothing at all except certain animals were present in the homes of young children.

In all, 8.7 percent of the children lived in homes with a cat, which works out to a sample size of 165, all from Spain.

So we’re already on really shaky ground here. I don’t think there’s any real scientific value in information that comes from questionnaires distributed to parents, and certainly not when it comes to topics like mental health and behavioral problems.

The definition of bad behavior varies widely between parents in different families and even mothers and fathers in the same family. Was there a baseline? Did the participants receive instructions on how to describe their assessments so they’d at least roughly resemble uniform reports? Were there other commonalities among the children who lived in homes with cats? We don’t know the answers to these questions.

What we do know is that, putting all other concerns aside, the report claims that 165 children live in homes that have cats, or had cats at one time, and some of them have varying degrees of behavioral problems.

That the conclusions are vaporous becomes even more obvious when the authors go on to speculate, with no data, why children who live with, or previously lived with, cats are allegedly more likely to suffer behavioral issues.

They repeat common misconceptions about felines being aloof, claiming the nature of cats “limits emotional bonding” compared to other companion animals.

“Having fish, turtles and hamsters on a constant basis does seem to protect children from mental health problems,” the authors concluded, although again the reasons are pure guesswork.

I’m not sure how anyone can say feline behavior “limits emotional bonding,” then in the very next paragraph claim fish and turtles, animals with which there can be very little or no real interaction, “protect” kids from mental health issues. Not even “help protect,” but full on “protect.”

The authors also point to a common boogeyman, toxoplasma gondii. The parasite can be transmitted to humans dozens and potentially hundreds of different ways, including contaminated water and undercooked meat, but cats are blamed because they’re easily infected by it and can pass it to humans.

To be clear, toxoplasma gondii does not figure anywhere in the data and the researchers did not test the children for infection.

But the bit that sets off the most alarm bells in my mind is the claim that dogs have no impact on the mental health of children.

That should have immediately prompted the research team to go back and figure out where their analysis went funky.

There are so many studies linking cats and dogs, and especially dogs, to tangible improvements in mental health and mood that anyone who claims the opposite has a lot of work ahead of them to demonstrate why their findings are accurate and the abundance of studies that concluded the opposite are flawed. (Dogs are better studied than cats because they’re easier to control, so the abundance of studies on dogs shouldn’t be confused for a stronger impact on human health.)

Whenever I write something like this, I always worry I’m contributing to the anti-science positions of some people who view the entirety of science with suspicion.

Science is nothing more than a formal process for learning about the natural world. It doesn’t have an agenda. It’s important for us to separate our qualms with the methods and standards of particular studies from the idea of science itself. A study may be flawed, but the scientific method remains the best, most time-honored way to expand human knowledge we’ve managed to come up with.

There are also major differences between “soft” sciences like psychology and hard sciences like physics and chemistry. The latter are primarily black and white, true or untrue, while the former deal with uncountable shades in between. It’s hard to quantify human feelings, thoughts and behaviors.

I’m sure the researchers involved in this project mean well, but unless we begin to see other studies placing fish, turtles and hamsters atop the pet hierarchy for their impact on mental health, I think we can file it as an anomaly and move on.

Study: Cats Have Figured Out How To Weaponize An Otherwise Friendly Behavior

Species: felis catus. Super powers: Teleporting, conscripting humans into their service, cuteness, being annoying.

Cats can be selfish jerks, but the fact that they’re willing to groom each other shows they have a selfless side too.

Doesn’t it?

Not so fast, say two scientists from Belgium’s Ghent University.

While allogrooming — animals socially grooming each other — is a sign of community, alliance and social bonds in other species, apparently cats have found a way to weaponize it.

By analyzing footage of cats grooming each other, the Belgian team confirmed cats groom the way other animals do, signaling closeness, trust and all that good stuff…most of the time.

But they also use it to seriously piss each other off, usually to take possession of territory they covet.

“I saw these weird grooming patterns in my own cats where I thought, ‘This is not super friendly at all,’” Morgane Van Belle, a cat behaviorist and co-author of the new study, told the New York Times. “Sometimes one cat would lay on the blanket near the window and the other cat would come up and start licking it — but in an annoying way.”

The aggressor cat is hoping the other feline will get so annoyed with the invasive grooming that they’ll abandon their prize spot, whether it’s a sun puddle or a particularly comfortable spot on the couch.

The study’s authors believe there’s more to learn about this behavior, and understanding it can help people mitigate conflict among their feline overlords.

For readers who have multiple cats, have you witnessed this behavior?

For what it’s worth, allogrooming between cats and humans is a thing too. For example, I brush the Budster, and he grooms my hair when I’m in bed.

Some people find that gross, but I try to take it was the compliment it is. Thankfully I have not been subject to weaponized hair grooming, but I’ve seen examples of the behavior the Belgian researchers have identified, and once you realize what you’re looking at, it makes perfect sense. Taking a normal behavior and turning it into an instrument of annoyance is also a very feline thing to do.

Cats show great ingenuity, so we’re fortunate they’re extremely lazy. If sufficiently motivated, they could undoubtedly rule the world.

Study: Dogs And Toddlers Help Caregivers Find Missing Items While Cats Don’t Lift A Paw

“Can’t find your keys, human? That’s terrible. I don’t know where they are, but perhaps I could recall that information if, say, there were treats involved. Take your time, I’m in no rush even if you are.”

A new study shows dogs and human toddlers are eager to help when their adult caregivers are looking for a missing item, but cats don’t seem to care.

The study, which involved running the same experiment for young children, dogs and cats in their own homes, made it clear cats were fully aware of what was happening and understood their humans were looking for the missing object.

They just didn’t care.

There was one notable exception, of course. If the missing items were important to the cat — a favorite toy, for instance, or a bag of treats — the felines were motivated to help search or direct their humans to the missing objects, the research team from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary found.

But at all other times, feline observers were content to hang back and watch, even when they understood their humans were getting frustrated.

By contrast, young children and dogs actively tried to help and signaled to adults when they thought they’d found the object.

“Lookin’ for something? No, I’ll just watch, thank you. Warm, warmer…oh! Cold…colder…that direction doesn’t look promising, human.” Credit: Gord Maclean/Pexels

So does this mean cats are jerks? Probably. Are we surprised by the results? Not at all.

We still love our furry friends, who do have their own unique ways of demonstrating they care about their humans beyond seeing them as providers of food, shelter, and safety, as well as playmates, minions and servants.

Besides, testing whether dogs or cats were helpful or not wasn’t the point. As the authors note, “[t]hese three species provide an important comparison because they share a similar anthropogenic environment but differ in their ecological and evolutionary backgrounds.”

In other words, they’re interested in figuring out how evolution plays a part in how species behave in particular situations. Although it’s yet to be conclusively proven for this behavior, a likely reason is because domestic cats are the descendants of a mostly solitary wildcat species, whereas we humans and our canine friends have long evolutionary histories of living in social groups and cooperating with each other.

The study is included in the March 2026 issue of Animal Behavior.