Nutritional composition and evaluation of different methodologies for fat determination in wet feed for dogs and cats
As a consequence of the increasing number of dog and cat owners, the pet food industry is expanding the range of pet food products in the market. In order to obtain more necessary information about the wet food segment for dogs and cats, the aim of this study was to determine the nutritional composition, to evaluate the information declared on the labels, and to compare the composition with the FEDIAF recommendations for protein and fat. Furthermore, three different methodologies of fat analysis were compared: crude fat (CFa), crude fat after acid hydrolysis (CFAH), and fat content obtained with Ankom XT15 (ANKOM) to determine the most adequate method for fat determination in wet foods. Twenty-five wet food products were evaluated, 13 wet foods for dogs and 12 for cats. Centesimal composition analyses obtained in this study were compared with guaranteed analysis declared on the label and with FEDIAF minimum recommended requirements for each species. The results of the nutritional composition and the values described on the label and the evaluation of the three fat determination methods were compared using the mixed model test with repeated measurements in the same samples, respectively (p < 0.05) in the SAS program, evaluation of protein adequacy and fat content were analyzed by mathematical calculations of difference and proportion. No difference was observed between nutritional composition of wet foods and the values declared on the labels for the majority of the diets analyzed, and there was a predominance of products that exceeded FEDIAF minimum recommendations of protein and fat for both species. No difference was observed between the three methods of fat content evaluation (p = 0.68). It was concluded that wet foods evaluated in this study match the label information and FEDIAF nutrient requirement recommendations, considering recommended calorie intake. All three fat determination methodologies evaluated were similar, justifying the choice of the easiest or cheapest method.
The journal content is authorized under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license (summary of the license: https://