Nutrient Digestibility and Fecal Quality in Beagle Dogs Fed Meat and Bone Meal Added to Dry Food

Abstract

Meat and bone meal (MBM) is one animal by-product used in pets. This study purposed to provide information on MBM including either coarsely (MBMc) or finely (MBMf) ground with regard to diet digestibility and fecal characteristics in dogs. Three different levels of MBM (6%, 12% and 24%) of each grinding form (MBM6, MBM12 and MBM24) were added to a basic diet. Six Beagle dogs (body weight 16.7 kg ± 0.42) participated in a Latin Square experiment. Each trial began with the animals adapting to the food for a five-day period, followed by five days of fecal collection. The feed particle size had no effect on the apparent digestibility of organic matter, crude protein and crude fat. The fecal score was significantly affected by the particle size × level interaction among treatments (p < 0.0001). It was noted that the different particle sizes or levels of MBM as main effects had no significant effect on the fecal fatty acid concentrations. These findings suggest that using coarse or fine grinding even including MBM up to 24% in dog diets does not affect the apparent digestibility of protein nor fecal quality negatively in our experimental study.

Impact of Animal By-Products on Diet Digestibility and Fecal Quality in Beagle Dogs

“…Interestingly, the particle size seemed to have no effect on the protein digestibility. A previous study by Abd El-Wahab et al [ 14 ] also reported that the particle size or degree of grinding of poultry by-product inclusion in dog food had no effect on the apparent digestibility of crude protein and crude fat. In the present work, when considering particle size, the ether extract was lower in the coarse diet compared to the fine and very fine diets (485 g/kg DM vs. 576 and 547 g/kg DM, respectively).…”

“…The coarse grinding may reduce nutrient exposure to digestive enzymes regarding protein digestibility [ 13 ]. Moreover, the degree of grinding could affect the fecal quality in dogs [ 14 ]. It is commonly known that grinding is a main concern during food processing [ 15 ].…”

Digestibility of a Lignocellulose Supplemented Diet and Fecal Quality in Beagle Dogs

“…In our study, LC2 and LC4 had significantly lower OM digestibility compared to LC0; however, only LC4 had significantly lower NFE digestibility compared to LC0 and LC2. Many factors can affect the diet digestibility, as well as nutrient quality and chemical composition [ 31 , 36 , 37 ]. Regarding the fiber content, Bednar et al [ 38 ] and Kienzle et al [ 39 ] found that digestibility of OM was lower for the diet containing a higher level of dietary fiber, which could possibly reduce nutrient digestibility.…”

“…The “food intake assessment” (palatability and speed of food intake) was divided into three scores in accordance with Abd El-Wahab et al [ 31 , 32 ]. Briefly, score 1 = lowest acceptance; score 2 = moderate acceptance; score 3 = maximum acceptance.…”

“…According to Abd El-Wahab et al [ 31 ], on the last day of the collecting phase, fresh feces were taken from each animal to measure fatty acids. Briefly, 1 g of feces was combined in a 1:5 ratio with purified water, vigorously agitated, then centrifuged at 2683 relative centrifugal force (rcf) for 15 min (Megafuge 1.0, Heraeus Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany).…”