ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Effects of chicken slurry inclusion on apparent total tract macronutrient digestibility, palatability, and fecal characteristics, microbiota, and metabolites of healthy adult dogs.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Premium" pet foods are often formulated with meat slurries. Meat slurries are believed to be of higher quality than rendered meals, but inadequate research has been performed to test how their inclusion affects palatability, digestibility, or indicators of gastrointestinal health. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how chicken slurry inclusion affected the palatability and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dog foods and to assess their effects on the fecal characteristics, metabolites, and microbiota of dogs. A replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design digestibility study was conducted using 9 healthy adult dogs (age = 5.44 ± 0.53 yr) to test diets containing 0% (control; CON), 8% (low inclusion; LOW), and 16% (high inclusion; HIGH) chicken slurry. The experiment comprised three 21-d experimental periods (14 d of adaptation, 5 d of total fecal collection (used for ATTD calculations), and 2 d of blood collection). On the first day of fecal collections, one fresh sample was collected for measurement of pH, dry matter (DM) content, fermentative metabolite concentrations, and microbiota populations. A 2-d palatability study (n = 20 dogs) was also conducted to compare CON vs. HIGH. Data were analyzed statistically by Mixed Models using SAS 9.4, with P < 0.05 being significant. In the palatability study, dogs were shown to prefer (P < 0.05) the HIGH diet by a ratio of 2:1. In the digestibility study, fecal output, scores, pH, and DM percentage were not different among diets. The ATTD of protein was higher (P < 0.05) for the HIGH diet (84.6%) than for the LOW (82.7%) or CON (82.6%) diets. The ATTD of other nutrients and energy were not different among diets (all over 80%). Fecal propionate, butyrate, and total short-chain fatty acid concentrations were higher (P < 0.05) in dogs fed the LOW diet (122.0, 67.4, and 408.2 μmol/g, respectively) than those fed the HIGH diet (89.0, 46.9, and 338.2 μmol/g, respectively). The other fecal metabolites (acetate, branched-chain fatty acids, ammonia, phenol, and indole) were not different among treatments. Few changes to the fecal microbiota were noted. However, the relative abundance of fecal Fusobacterium was higher (P < 0.05) in dogs fed the CON diet than those fed the HIGH diet (25.7% vs. 20.0% relative abundance). In summary, chicken slurry inclusion improved palatability but had minimal effects on nutrient digestibility and fecal characteristics, metabolites, and 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.