The effects of inulin supplementation of diets with or without hydrolysed protein sources on digestibility, faecal characteristics, haematology and immunoglobulins in dogs

Abstract

Dogs with food allergy are often treated by giving a diet with hydrolysed protein sources. Prebiotics might also be successful in prevention and treatment of allergic disease through their effect on the colonic microflora, analogous to studies on probiotics in allergic children. The present study was set up to investigate the effect of supplementing inulin (IN) to commercial hypoallergenic dog diets on apparent nutrient digestibility, faecal characteristics, haematology and Ig in dogs. Supplementation of 3 % IN did not affect faecal pH, food and water intake and urine production. Compared with the intact protein diet with a limited number of ingredients (L), the diet with a hydrolysed protein source (H) resulted in an increased water intake (P,0·001), which could be due to the osmotic effect of free amino acids. Faeces production was increased by IN due to increased faecal moisture content. Increased faeces production on the H diet was mainly due to a higher DM excretion. Subsequently, the apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of DM was lower in the H diet group. A similar result was noted for ADC of diethyl ether extract and crude ash. The ADC of crude protein was higher in the H diet group, whereas IN decreased the ADC of crude protein. Differences in the ADC of crude protein among the different diets disappeared after correction for a higher faecal biomass, except for the dogs fed the L þ IN diet. Total faecal IgA concentrations were lower in the H group (P, 0·05) because of lower antigenic stimulation of hydrolysed protein, which implies that hydrolysed protein is really hypoallergenic. The present study indicates that the use of hydrolysed protein diets for canine food allergy treatment can affect digestibility and that combination with IN affected apparent protein digestibility but not IgA response.

Effects of inulin supplementation on selected faecal characteristics and health of neonatal Saanen kids sucking milk from their dams

“…As inulin has a higher degree of polymerization compared with OF, Hesta et al (2001) suggested a slower fermentation of inulin in the relatively short colon of cats. Verlinden et al (2006) also reported that inulin supplementation did not affect faecal pH in adult dogs. We suggested that inulin supplementation had no consistent effect on faecal pH in the current study as there was no difference in faecal pH on day 21 between groups, whereas EG had a lower faecal pH than CG on day 14 and 28 ( Table 2).…”

“…This effect is strictly related to dose of fructans (Saavedra, 2005). Verlinden et al (2006) reported that inulin supplementation lowered faecal score (loose faeces) in adult dogs but the decrease in faecal score had no clinical importance because it remained in an acceptable range and was not associated with diarrhoea. In our study, a lower faecal score would indicate formation of softer faeces and the dose of inulin supplemented to the kids in EG did not adversely affect faecal score.…”

“…An electronic pH meter (PT-10, Sartorius AG, Goettingen, Germany) fitted with a glass electrode was used to determine faecal pH. Each faecal sample was placed in a 50 ml glass beaker and diluted 10-fold with distilled water as described by Verlinden et al (2006). The mixture of faecal sample and distilled water was homogenized and pH was measured.…”

“…Prebiotics have been used in nutrition research with canines (Verlinden et al, 2006;Apanavicius et al, 2007), felines (Hesta et al, 2005), poultry (Xu et al, 2003), swine (Yasuda et al, 2007), horses (Bailey et al, 2007), young ruminants (Kaufhold et al, 2000;Heinrichs et al, 2003) and adult ruminants (Franklin et al, 2005). Although some prebiotics such as scFOS, OF, inulin, mannanoligosaccharides (MOS) and galactooligosaccharides have been supplemented to cows (Mwenya et al, 2005), calves (Masanetz et al, 2011) and lambs (Thayne, 2007) and some information is available on the effects of feeding prebiotics in selected species mentioned above (Swanson et al, 2002a), there is no information on the effects of supplemental inulin in kids.…”

“…The increase in blood lymphocyte concentration may be useful because of the increased level of protection from re-infection of a pathogen, whereas the decrease in blood neutrophil concentration may be a negative outcome of feeding prebiotics as neutrophils play a key role in the first line of defense against infectious organisms (Swanson et al, 2002b;Davis et al, 2004). Verlinden et al (2006) reported that 3% inulin added to the diet did not change blood neutrophil, lymphocyte and monocyte concentrations and haematocrit value in dogs. Masanetz et al (2011) reported no change in the total WBC count, blood neutrophil, lymphocyte and monocyte concentrations of calves fed the diet containing 2% inulin.…”