Farklı Düzeylerde Beslemenin Köpeklerde Sindirilebilirlik Canlı ağırlık Vücut Kondüsyon Skoru ve Dışkı Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada farklı düzeylerde beslemenin sindirilebilirlik, canlı ağırlık(CA), vücut kondüsyon skoru(VKS) ve bazı dışkı parametreleri üzerine etkileri araştırıldı. Onbeş yetişkin Golden Retriever köpek 3 gruba ayrıldı. Mamanın ME içeriği ve köpeklerin ME gereksinimleri, modifiye Atwater faktörleri ve FEDIAF denklemi(95*CA0.75) ile belirlendi. Birinci grup günlük metabolik enerji ihtiyacından(MEİ) %50 daha az(1), ikinci grup ihtiyacın %100’ü(2) ve üçüncü grup MEİ(3)'dan %50 daha fazla olacak düzeyde beslendi. Deneme 15 gün sürdü. Çalışmanın son 4 gününde dışkı skorlaması yapıldı ve dışkı numuneleri alındı. Kuru madde(KMS) ve organik madde sindirilebilirliği(OMS) asitte çözünmeyen kül indikatör yöntemi ile belirlendi. CA ve VKS değerlerindeki değişimler 7. ve 15. günlerde belirlendi. Günler ve gruplar arasındaki CA ve VKS değişiklikleri önemsizdi(P>0.05). KMS ve OMS değerleri grup 1 ve 2'de en yüksekti(P<0.05). Grup 1 en yüksek dışkı skoruna sahipti(P<0.05). Her üç grubun dışkı KM düzeyleri arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktu(P>0.05). Sonuç olarak, 15 gün süren bu çalışma için modifiye Atwater faktörleri ve 95*CA0.75 formülü CA ve VKS’yi korumada yeterliydi. Köpeklerin enerji ihtiyaçlarını ve diyetlerindeki enerji içeriğini hesaplamada kullanılan farklı formüllerin karşılaştırılmalı olarak değerlendirildiği daha fazla çalışmaya ihtiyaç vardır. CA ve VKS’ye etkileri uzun süren denemelerle ortaya konulmalıdır. Formüllerle belirlenen günlük mama miktarının köpeklerde sindirilebilirlik ve sağlığa etkileri de araştırılmalıdır.

Keywords

• Atwater faktörleri
• köpek
• sindirilebilirlik
• metabolik enerji
• vücut kondisyon skoru

Effects of Feeding Different Levels on Digestibility Body Weight Body Condition Score and Stool Quality in Dogs

Abstract

In this study, effects of different levels of feeding on digestibility, body weight(BW), body condition score(BCS) and some stool parameters were investigated. Fifteen adult Golden Retriever dogs were divided into 3 groups. ME content of food and ME requirements of the dogs were determined by the modified Atwater factors and the FEDIAF equation(95*BW0.75). The first group was fed 50% less than daily metabolic energy requirement(MER)(1), second group was fed 100%(2) and the third group was fed 50% more than the MER(3). Trial lasted 15 days. Stools were scored and stool samples were taken in last 4 days of the study. Dry matter(DMD) and organic matter digestibilities(OMD) were determined by acid-insoluble ash indicator method. BW and BCS values were determined on the 7th and 15th days. Changes in BW and BCS between days and groups were insignificant(P>0.05). DMD and OMD values were the highest in groups 1 and 2(P<0.05). Group 1 had the highest stool score(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in stool DM levels between all groups(P>0.05). In conclusion, modified Atwater factors and formula 95*BW0.75 were sufficient to preserve BW and BCS for this 15-day study. More studies are needed to compare the different formulas used to calculate the energy needs of dogs and the energy content in their diets. BW and BCS changes should be demonstrated with long-term trials. Effects of daily amount of food determined by the formulas on digestibility and health of dogs should also be investigated.

Keywords

• Atwater factors
• body condition score
• digestibility
• dog
• metabolizable energy

References

1. AAFCO. Association of American Feed Control Officials. Official Publications of Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. 2008; AAFCO, Atlanta, GA, USA.
2. Abinaya P, Ally K, Ananth D, Purushothaman S, Gleeja VL. Effect of feeding diet with graded levels of energy on digestibility and dry matter intake in adult medium sized nondescript dogs. J Vet Anim Sci. 2020; 51(1): 61-64.
3. Alvarenga IC, Aldrich CG, Ou Z. Comparison of four digestibility markers to estimate fecal output of dogs. J Anım Sci. 2019; 97(3): 1036-1041.
4. AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Official Methods of Analysis. 2003; 15th ed.
5. Asaro NJ, Guevara MA, Berendt K, Zijlstra R, Shoveller AK. Digestibility is similar between commercial diets that provide ingredients with different perceived glycemic responses and the inaccuracy of using the modified atwater calculation to calculate metabolizable energy. Vet Sci. 2017; 4(4): 54.
6. Bermingham EN, Thomas DG, Cave NJ, Morris PJ, Butterwick RF, German AJ. Energy requirements of adult dogs: a meta-analysis. PloS one. 2014; 9(10): e109681.
7. Brambillasca S, Purtscher F, Britos A, Repetto JL, Cajarville C. Digestibility, fecal characteristics, and plasma glucose and urea in dogs fed a commercial dog food once or three times daily. Can Vet J. 2010; 51(2): 190.
8. Burrows CF, Kronfeld DS, Banta CA, Merritt AM. (1982). Effects of fiber on digestibility and transit time in dogs. J Nutr. 1982; 112(9): 1726-1732.

9. Calvez J, Biourge V, Weber M. Metabolizable energy in dry dog food is best predicted by NRC 2006 equation. 2012a; 97: In: 12 AAVN Clinical Nutrition and Research Symposium.
10. Carciofi AC, de-Oliveira LD, Vale´rio AG, Borges LL, de Carvalho FM, Brunetto MA, Vasconcellos RS. Comparison of micronized whole soybeans to common protein sources in dry dog and cat diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2009; 151: 251-260.
11. Cameron KM, Morris PJ, Hackett RM, Speakman JR. The effects of increasing water content to reduce the energy density of the diet on body mass changes following caloric restriction in domestic cats. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2011; 95(3): 399-408.
12. Case LP, Hayeg MG, Daristotle L, Raasch MF. A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals, in: Canine and Feline Nutrition, 3rd ed., Missouri, Mosby 2011; pp. 120-129.
13. Castrillo C, Hervera M, Baucells MD. Methods for predicting the energy value of pet foods. Rev Bras de Zootec. 2009; 38: 1-14.
14. Chandler M. Strategies for management of obesity in dogs and cats. Vet Times. 2011; 41(41), 22-24.
15. Colliard L, Ancel J, Benet JJ, Paragon BM, Blanchard G. Risk factors for obesity in dogs in France. J Nutr. 2006; 136, 1951-1954.
16. Courcier EA, Thomson RM, Mellor DJ, Yam PS. An epidemiological study of environmental factors associated with canine obesity. J Small Anim Pract. 2010; 51: 362-367.
17. De Godoy MR, Kerr KR, Fahey Jr GC. Alternative dietary fiber sources in companion animal nutrition. Nutrients. 2013; 5(8): 3099-3117.
18. Duque-Saldarriaga JC, Posada-Ochoa SL; Agudelo-Trujillo JH. Assessment of energy content in dog foods. Arch Zootec. 2017; 66(254): 279-286
19. El-Wahab AA, Wilke V, Grone R, Visscher C. Nutrient Digestibility of a Vegetarian Diet with or without the Supplementation of Feather Meal and Either Corn Meal, Fermented Rye or Rye and Its Effect on Fecal Quality in Dogs. Anim. 2021; 11: 496.
20. German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. J Nutr. 2006; 136: 1940S-1946S.
21. Hall JA, Melendez LD, Jewell DE. Using Gross Energy Improves Metabolizable Energy Predictive Equations for Pet Foods Whereas Undigested Protein and Fiber Content Predict Stool Quality. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(1): e54405.
22. Hervera M, Baucells MD, Blanch F, Castrillo C. Prediction of digestible energy content of extruded dog food by in vitro analyses. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2007; 91(5-6): 205-209.
23. Hill RC. Challenges in measuring energy expenditure in companion animals: a clinician's perspective. J Nutr. 2006; 136(7): 1967-1972.
24. Hodgkinson SM, Ibáñez OL, Alvarez C, Alomar D. Evaluation of the amount of metabolizable energy in the dog food quantities recommended by the manufacturers to be fed daily to dogs, in relation to their energy requirements. Arch Med Vet. 2008; 40: 251-258.
25. FEDIAF. Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food for Cats and Dogs. 2020. (Fédération Européenne de l’Industrie des Aliments pour Animaux Familiers, 2020)
26. Inal F, Alataş MS, Kahraman O, İnal Ş, Uludağ M, Gürbüz E, Polat ES. Barley as an alternative to rice in dog food. Turkish J Vet Anim Sci. 2017; 41(6): 770-774.
27. Kahraman O, İnal F, İnanç ZS, Pirinç A, Kucur MA. Farklı sürelerde pişirilen dengeli toz mamanın köpeklerde tercih, sindirilebilirlik ve dışkı kalitesi üzerine etkileri. Eurasian J Vet Sci. 2021; 37(1): 41-48.
28. Kealy RD, Lawler DF, Ballam JM, Mantz SL, Biery DN, Greeley EH, Stowe HD. Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2020; 220(9): 1315-1320.
29. Laflamme DP. Development and validation of a body condition score system for dogs. Canine Pract. 1997; 22:10-15.
30. Laflamme DP. Determining metabolizable energy content in commercial pet foods. . J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2001; 85(7‐8): 222-230.
31. Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, Klausner JS. Prevalence and risk factors for obesity in adult cats from private US veterinary practices. Int J Appl Res Vet Med. 2005; 3: 88-96.
32. Malca S, Lucas O, Arbaiza T, Carcelén F, San Martín F. Comparación de dos técnicas para determinar la digestibilidad proteica de insumo y alimentos comerciales para caninos. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2006; 17: 96-103.
33. Meyer H, Zentek, J, Habernoll H, Maskell I. Digestibility and compatibility of mixed diets and faecal consistency in different breeds of dog. J Vet Med A. 1999; 46(3): 155-166.
34. Meyer H, Zentek J. Energie und Nährstoffe- Stoffwechsel und Bedarf. In: Ernährung des Hundes. 5th ed. P. Parey Verlag. 2005; pp. 49-96.
35. NRC. Energy. In: National Research Council, editor.Nutrient requirements of dogs and cats.2006; Washingtion DC: National Academic Press. pp.22–48
36. Nuttall D, Butterwick R, Strauhs K, McGenity P. Comparison of measured and predicted energy density of an oral care chew for dogs. J. Nutr. Sci. 2017: 6.
37. Oba PM, Utterback PL, Parsons CM, Swanson KS. True nutrient and amino acid digestibility of dog foods made with human-grade ingredients using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay. Transl Anim Sci. 2020; 4(1): 442-451.
38. Pappas TN, Melendez RL, Debas HT. Gastric distension isa physiologic satiety signal in the dog. Dig Dis Sci. 1989; 34:1489-1493.
39. Pond WG, Church DC, Pond, KR. Basic animal nutrition and feeding. 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. 2005; USA. pp. 608.
40. Prola L, Dobenecker B, Mussa PP, Kienzle, E. Influence of cellulose fibre length on faecal quality, mineral excretion and nutrient digestibility in cat. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2010; 94(3): 362-367.
41. Sa FC, Vasconcellos RS, Brunetto MA, Filho FOR, Gomes MOS, Carciofi AC. Enzyme use in kibble diets formulated with wheat bran for dogs: effects on processing and digestibility. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2013; 97: 51-59.
42. Saker KE, Remillard RL. Performance of a canine weight-loss program in clinical practice. Vet Ther. 2005; 6(4): 291.
43. Strickling JA, Harmon DL, Dawson KA, Gross KL. Evaluation of oligosaccharide addition to dog diets: influences on nutrient digestion and microbial populations. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2000; 86(3-4): 205-219.
44. Sunvold GD, Fahey GC jr, Merchen NR, Titgemeyer EC, Bourquin LD, Bauer LL, Reinhart GA. Dietary fibre for dogs: IV. In vitro fermentation of selected fibre sources by dog fecal inoculum and in vivo digestion and metabolism of fiber-supplemented diets. J Anim Sci. 1995b; 73: 1099-1109.
45. Tanprasertsuk J, Perry LAM, Tate DE, Honaker RW, Shmalberg J. Apparent total tract nutrient digestibility and metabolizable energy estimation in commercial fresh and extruded dry kibble dog foods. 2021; Transl Anim Sci. 2021; 5(3):1-9.
46. Weber MP, Martin LJ, Dumon HJ, Biourge VC, Nguyen PG. Influence of age and body size of intestinal permeability and absorption in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res. 2002; 63: 1323-1328.
47. Wichert B, Schuster S, Hofmann M, Dobenecker B, Kienzle E. Influence of different cellulose types on feces quality of dogs. J Nutr. 2002; 132(6): 1728-1729.
48. Yamka RM, Frantz NZ, Friesen KG. Effects of 3 canine weight loss foods on body composition and obesity markers. Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2007; 5(3): 125.
49. Zanatta CP, Gabeloni LR, Félix AP, Brito CBMD, Oliveira SGD, Maiorka A. Methodology for determination of digestibility of diets containing vegetable or animal protein sources in dogs. Ciênc Rural. 2013; 43: 696-701.