Chemical composition, protein quality, palatability, and digestibility of alternative protein sources for dogs.
The chemical composition and protein quality of 11 alternative protein sources (chicken products, blood products, enzyme-hydrolyzed fish protein concentrate, soybean meal, and spray-dried pork liver) were determined, and an experiment was conducted to determine palatability and digestibility of processed red blood cell-containing diets. Chicken protein sources differed in concentrations of CP, acid-hydrolyzed fat, and total AA (TAA) by 20, 31, and 24%, respectively, and GE by 1.7 kcal/g. Blood protein sources varied little in acid-hydrolyzed fat and GE concentrations, but concentrations of CP and TAA differed by 11 and 8%, respectively. Protein solubility of chicken and blood protein source categories averaged 57 and 69%, respectively. Protein solubility of enzyme-hydrolyzed fish protein concentrate, soybean meal, and spray-dried pork liver was 53, 67, and 26%, respectively. Based on calculations from immobilized digestive enzyme assay values, lysine digestibility averaged approximately 80.4 and 81.7% for blood and chicken protein sources, respectively. Lysine digestibility values for soybean meal and spray-dried pork liver were 89 and 77%, respectively. A chick protein efficiency ratio (PER) assay showed that chicken protein sources had high protein quality values, as the PER ranged from 2.7 to 5.3, whereas blood protein sources had poor protein quality (PER values less than 1.5). Enzyme-hydrolyzed fish protein concentrate, spray-dried pork liver, and soybean meal had high protein quality (PER values greater than 2.8). In the dog palatability and digestibility experiments, a corn and chicken-based diet supplemented with either 0 or 3% processed red blood cells was tested. The palatability test showed that dogs consumed more of the diet that contained 0% vs. 3% processed red blood cells. The intake ratio for the 3% processed red blood cells diet was 0.34. Nutrient digestibilities did not differ, except for CP, where the digestibility was greater (P = 0.01) for dogs consuming the 0% processed red blood cells diet. These data suggest that chemical composition and quality of alternative protein sources differ greatly among ingredients within the same category. Palatability data suggest that a processed red blood cells-containing diet is not highly palatable but, when this diet was offered as only one food, dogs demonstrated no aversion response but some decrease in protein digestion.
Dust
J M
JM
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 61801, USA.
Grieshop
C M
CM
Parsons
C M
CM
Karr-Lilienthal
L K
LK
Schasteen
C S
CS
Quigley
J D
JD
Merchen
N R
NR
Fahey
G C
GC
D000821:Animal Feed / Q000032:analysis; D000824:Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; D000818:Animals; D001798:Blood Proteins / Q000032:analysis; D002645:Chickens; D004032:Diet / Q000662:veterinary*; D004044:Dietary Proteins / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000592:standards*; D004063:Digestion / Q000502:physiology; D004285:Dogs / Q000378:metabolism*; D004912:Erythrocytes / Q000737:chemistry; D005243:Feces / Q000737:chemistry; D005260:Female; D029941:Fish Proteins / Q000032:analysis; D008099:Liver / Q000737:chemistry; D008297:Male; D013025:Glycine max / Q000737:chemistry; D013552:Swine
D001798:Blood Proteins; D004044:Dietary Proteins; D029941:Fish Proteins