• 1. CODEX Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Report of the 30th Session of the CODEX Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Cape Town, South Africa: WHO/FAO, 2008;46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. BeMiller JN. Solubility. In: Carbohydrate chemistry for food scientists. 2nd ed. Saint Paul: AACC International, 2007;306310.

  • 3. BeMiller JN. Oligosaccharides. In: Carbohydrate chemistry for food scientists. 2nd ed. Saint Paul: AACC International, 2007;6975.

  • 4. Swanson KS, Grieshop CM, Clapper GM, et al. Fruit and vegetable fiber fermentation by gut microflora from canines. J Anim Sci 2001; 79: 919926.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Sunvold GD, Fahey GC Jr, Merchen NR, et al. Fermentability of selected fibrous substrates by dog fecal microflora as influenced by diet. J Nutr 1994; 124: 2719S2720S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Herrmann J, Hermes R, Breves G. Transepithelial transport and in-traepithelial metabolism of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) in the porcine proximal colon are influenced by SCFA concentration and luminal pH. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2011; 158: 169176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Verbrugghe A, Hesta M, Daminet S, et al. Propionate absorbed from the colon acts as gluconeogenic substrate in a strict carnivore, the domestic cat (Felis catus). J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2012; 96: 10541064.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Van Soest PJ, McQueen RW. The chemistry and estimation of fibre. Proc Nutr Soc 1973; 32: 123130.

  • 9. Kienzle E, Schrag I, Butterwick R, et al. Calculation of gross energy in pet foods: new data on heat combustion and fibre analysis in a selection of foods for dogs and cats. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2001; 85: 148157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Brunt K. Pitfall in the determination of the dietary fibre content and nutritional value of food products. Qual Assur Saf Crops Foods 2009; 1: 225230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. McCleary BV, DeVries JW, Rader JI, et al. Determination of total dietary fiber (CODEX definition) by enzymatic-gravimetric method and liquid chromatography: collaborative study. J AOAC Int 2010; 93: 221233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Lewis LD, Magerkurth JH, Roudebush P, et al. Stool characteristics, gastrointestinal transit time and nutrient digestibility in dogs fed different fiber sources. J Nutr 1994; 124: 2716S2718S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Hill RC, Burrows CF, Ellison GW, et al. The effect of texturized vegetable protein from soy on nutrient digestibility compared to beef in cannulated dogs. J Anim Sci 2001; 79: 21622171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Wichert B, Schuster S, Hofmann M, et al. Influence of different cellulose types on feces quality of dogs. J Nutr 2002; 132: 1728S1729S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Opitz B, Smith PM, Kienzle E, et al. Comparison of various methods of fiber analysis in pet foods. J Nutr 1998; 128: 2795S2797S.

  • 16. Kienzle E, Biourge V, Schonmeier A. Prediction of energy digestibility in complete dry foods for dogs and cats by total dietary fiber. J Nutr 2006; 136: 2041S2044S.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. de-Oliveira LD, Takakura FS, Kienzle E, et al. Fibre analysis and fibre digestibility in pet foods—a comparison of total dietary fibre, neutral and acid detergent fibre and crude fibre. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2012; 96: 895906.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Hill RC, Choate CJ, Scott KC, et al. Comparison of the guaranteed analysis with the measured nutrient composition of commercial pet foods. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009; 234: 347351.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. AOAC official method 962.09 fiber (crude) in animal feed and pet food. In: Horowitz W, Latimer GW Jr, eds. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. Gaithersburg, Md: AOAC International, 2005;4447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. AOAC official method 991.43 total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fiber in foods enzymatic-gravimetric method, MES-TRIS buffer. In: Horowitz W, Latimer GW Jr, eds. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. Gaithersburg, Md: AOAC International, 2005;710.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. AOAC official method 930.15 loss on drying (moisture) for feeds. In: Horowitz W, Latimer GW Jr, eds. Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. Gaithersburg, Md: AOAC International, 2005;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Association of American Feed Control Officials. Regulation PF9. Statements of calorie content. In: 2011 official publication. Oxford, Ind: Association of American Feed Control Officials, 2011;141142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Association of American Feed Control Officials. Analytical variations (AV) based on AAFCO Check Sample Program. In: 2011 official publication. Oxford, Ind: Association of American Feed Control Officials, 2011;298300.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Cutrignelli MI, Bovera F, Tudisco R, et al. In vitro fermentation characteristics of different carbohydrate sources in two dog breeds (German Shepherd and Neapolitan Mastiff). J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2009; 93: 305312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Evaluation of fiber concentration in dry and canned commercial diets formulated for adult maintenance or all life stages of dogs by use of crude fiber and total dietary fiber methods

Amy K. Farcas DVM, DACVN1, Jennifer A. Larsen DVM, PhD, DACVN2, and Andrea J. Fascetti VMD, PhD, DACVN, DACVIM3
View More View Less
  • 1 Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 2 Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Abstract

Objective—To assess differences among reported maximum crude fiber (CF), measured CF, and measured total dietary fiber (TDF) concentrations, and determine fiber composition in dry and canned nontherapeutic diets formulated for adult maintenance or all life stages of dogs.

Design—Prospective cross-sectional study.

Sample—Dry (n = 20) and canned (20) nontherapeutic canine diets.

Procedures—Reported maximum CF concentrations were obtained from product labels. Concentrations of CF and TDF were measured in samples of the diets for comparison. For each diet, percentages of TDF represented by insoluble dietary fiber (IDF) and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) were determined.

Results—For dry or canned diets, the median reported maximum CF concentration was significantly greater than the median measured value. Measured CF concentration was significantly lower than measured TDF concentration for all diets. Median percentage of TDF (dry-matter basis) in dry and canned diets was 10.3% and 6.5%, respectively (overall range, 3.9% to 25.8%). Fiber composition in dry and canned diets differed; median percentage of TDF provided by IDF (dry-matter basis) was 83.4% in dry diets and 63.6% in canned diets.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Among the evaluated diets, measured CF concentration underrepresented measured TDF concentration. Diets provided a wide range of TDF concentration, and proportions of IDF and SDF were variable. In the absence of information regarding TDF concentration, neither reported maximum nor measured CF concentration appears to be a particularly reliable indicator of fiber concentration and composition of a given canine diet.

Abstract

Objective—To assess differences among reported maximum crude fiber (CF), measured CF, and measured total dietary fiber (TDF) concentrations, and determine fiber composition in dry and canned nontherapeutic diets formulated for adult maintenance or all life stages of dogs.

Design—Prospective cross-sectional study.

Sample—Dry (n = 20) and canned (20) nontherapeutic canine diets.

Procedures—Reported maximum CF concentrations were obtained from product labels. Concentrations of CF and TDF were measured in samples of the diets for comparison. For each diet, percentages of TDF represented by insoluble dietary fiber (IDF) and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) were determined.

Results—For dry or canned diets, the median reported maximum CF concentration was significantly greater than the median measured value. Measured CF concentration was significantly lower than measured TDF concentration for all diets. Median percentage of TDF (dry-matter basis) in dry and canned diets was 10.3% and 6.5%, respectively (overall range, 3.9% to 25.8%). Fiber composition in dry and canned diets differed; median percentage of TDF provided by IDF (dry-matter basis) was 83.4% in dry diets and 63.6% in canned diets.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Among the evaluated diets, measured CF concentration underrepresented measured TDF concentration. Diets provided a wide range of TDF concentration, and proportions of IDF and SDF were variable. In the absence of information regarding TDF concentration, neither reported maximum nor measured CF concentration appears to be a particularly reliable indicator of fiber concentration and composition of a given canine diet.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Farcas' present address is the Department of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

Supported in part by the Center for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis and the Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. Dr. Farcas was supported by an educational grant from the Nestlé Purina PetCare Co.

Address correspondence to Dr. Fascetti (ajfascetti@ucdavis.edu).