Evaluation of dried apple pomace on digestibility and palatability of diets for cats

Brito, Cleusa Bernardete Marcon de; Lima, Daniele Cristina de; Souza, Camilla Mariane Menezes; Vasconcellos, Ricardo Souza; Oliveira, Simone Gisele de; Félix, Ananda Portella

doi:10.37496/rbz4920190219

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, SDF had no effect on nutrient digestibility in dogs. In addition, nutrient digestibility, fiber content, DM intake, and fat tolerance can affect the fecal quality [31,32]. Even though the basal diet was the same for both groups in the present study, SDF resulted in softer stools and a higher diarrhea ratio than DF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Effects of Softening Dry Food with Water on Stress Response, Intestinal Microbiome, and Metabolic Profile in Beagle Dogs

Zhang

Yang²,

Jian³

et al. 2022

Metabolites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Softening dry food with water is believed to be more beneficial to the intestinal health and nutrients absorption of dogs by some owners, but there appears to be little scientific basis for this belief. Thus, this study aimed to compare feeding dry food (DF) and water-softened dry food (SDF) on stress response, intestinal microbiome, and metabolic profile in dogs. Twenty healthy 5-month-old beagle dogs were selected and divided into two groups according to their gender and body weight using a completely randomized block design. Both groups were fed the same basal diet, with one group fed DF and the other fed SDF. The trial lasted for 21 days. The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients, inflammatory cytokines, stress hormones, heat shock protein-70 (HSP-70), fecal microbiota, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), branch-chain fatty acids (BCFAs), and metabolomics were measured. Results showed that there was no significant difference in body weight, ATTD, and SCFAs between the DF and SDF groups (p > 0.05), whereas feeding with SDF caused a significant increase in serum cortisol level (p < 0.05) and tended to have higher interleukin-2 (p = 0.062) and HSP-70 (p = 0.097) levels. Fecal 16S rRNA gene sequencing found that the SDF group had higher alpha diversity indices (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the SDF group had higher levels of Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and Escherichia_Shigella, and lower levels of Faecalibacterium (p < 0.05). Serum and fecal metabolomics further showed that feeding with SDF significantly influenced the purine metabolism, riboflavin metabolism, and arginine and proline metabolism (p < 0.05). Overall, feeding with SDF caused higher cortisol level and generated effects of higher intestinal microbial diversity in dogs, but it caused an increase in some pathogenic bacteria, which may result in intestinal microbiome disturbance and metabolic disorder in dogs. In conclusion, feeding with SDF did not provide digestive benefits but caused some stress and posed a potential threat to the intestinal health of dogs. Thus, SDF is not recommended in the feeding of dogs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%