Comparison of the guaranteed analysis with the measured nutrient composition of commercial pet foods

Richard C. Hill Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.

Search for other papers by Richard C. Hill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 VetMB, PhD, DACVIM, DACVN
,
Christina J. Choate Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.

Search for other papers by Christina J. Choate in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Karen C. Scott Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610.

Search for other papers by Karen C. Scott in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
Geert Molenberghs Center for Statistics, Universiteit Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Biostatistical Centre, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Search for other papers by Geert Molenberghs in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD

Abstract

Objective—To compare guaranteed and measured concentrations of nutrients in commercial pet foods.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Sample Population—Annual inspection reports of pet food analyses from 5 states.

Procedures—Guaranteed and measured concentrations of crude protein (CP), crude fat (CF), crude fiber (CFb), moisture, and ash in pet foods were compared. The concentration difference for each nutrient was compared among types of food, target species, target life stages, manufacturers, and laboratories.

Results—The guaranteed and measured concentrations of nutrients were significantly different. For all foods, mean concentration differences were as follows: CP, 1.5%; CF, 1.0%; CFb, −0.7%; moisture, −4.0%; and ash, −0.5%. Crude protein difference for treats was significantly larger than differences for dry and canned foods. Crude fat difference for dry foods was significantly less than differences for canned foods and treats. Crude fiber and moisture differences for canned foods were significantly less than the corresponding differences for dry foods and treats. Only CFb differences differed among target species, life stages, manufacturers, or laboratories.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Addition of 1.5% and 1% to the guaranteed minimums for CP and CF, respectively; subtraction of 0.7%, 4%, and 0.5% from the guaranteed maximums for CFb, moisture, and ash, respectively; and addition of 0.23 kcal/g to the asfed metabolizable energy value calculated by use of modified Atwater factors from guaranteed analyses provides a more accurate estimate of the nutrient and metabolizable energy content of commercial pet foods. Nevertheless, the actual composition of a food should be determined whenever possible.

Abstract

Objective—To compare guaranteed and measured concentrations of nutrients in commercial pet foods.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Sample Population—Annual inspection reports of pet food analyses from 5 states.

Procedures—Guaranteed and measured concentrations of crude protein (CP), crude fat (CF), crude fiber (CFb), moisture, and ash in pet foods were compared. The concentration difference for each nutrient was compared among types of food, target species, target life stages, manufacturers, and laboratories.

Results—The guaranteed and measured concentrations of nutrients were significantly different. For all foods, mean concentration differences were as follows: CP, 1.5%; CF, 1.0%; CFb, −0.7%; moisture, −4.0%; and ash, −0.5%. Crude protein difference for treats was significantly larger than differences for dry and canned foods. Crude fat difference for dry foods was significantly less than differences for canned foods and treats. Crude fiber and moisture differences for canned foods were significantly less than the corresponding differences for dry foods and treats. Only CFb differences differed among target species, life stages, manufacturers, or laboratories.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Addition of 1.5% and 1% to the guaranteed minimums for CP and CF, respectively; subtraction of 0.7%, 4%, and 0.5% from the guaranteed maximums for CFb, moisture, and ash, respectively; and addition of 0.23 kcal/g to the asfed metabolizable energy value calculated by use of modified Atwater factors from guaranteed analyses provides a more accurate estimate of the nutrient and metabolizable energy content of commercial pet foods. Nevertheless, the actual composition of a food should be determined whenever possible.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 612 0 0
Full Text Views 2088 1274 79
PDF Downloads 1125 569 53
Advertisement