ArticlePloS one2022
In vitro digestion and microbial fermentation of dried food residues, a potential "new" component for pet food, and different non-digestible carbohydrate sources.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vitro fermentation characteristics of dietary fibers using fecal inoculum from dogs consuming commercial or grain kefir.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food residues are often fed to dogs in private households and might also be a potential "new" ingredient for pet food in the future. As food residues might contain not only digestible, but also fermentable substrates, an effect on the intestinal microbiota can be assumed. In the present study, two batches of dried food residues (DFR) collected from hotels in Crete were microbially fermented in an in vitro batch culture system with canine fecal inoculum: non-sterile DFR including meat (DFRm), sterile DFR including meat (DFRms) and sterile DFR without meat (DFRwms). Different non-digestible carbohydrate sources (beet pulp, wheat bran, inulin, carrot pomace, brewer´s spent grains, cellulose and lignocellulose) were included for comparison. Inulin, cellulose and lignocellulose were only used as raw materials, while the other test substrates were incubated as raw and enzymatically pre-digested substrates. After incubation for 24 hours, the raw food residues markedly increased the concentrations of bacterial metabolites in the fermenters, although smaller effects were observed for the DFRwms. When the enzymatically pre-digested food residues were incubated, the effects were more pronounced for the DFRms and DFRwms. In general, when compared with the other test substrates, the food residues were microbially fermented to a comparable or partly higher extent. Interestingly, high n-butyrate concentrations were measured in the inocula, both after incubation of the raw and pre-digested food residues. In conclusion, the food residues contained enzymatically digestible and microbially fermentable substrates. If considered as a potential future ingredient for pet food, a standardization of the collection and processing of food residues might be necessary in order to reduce compositional variability and varying effects on the intestinal microbiota.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.