RU2441395C2 - Feedstuff composition (alternatives) and methods of decrease of defecation amount and odour - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: fodder production. ^ SUBSTANCE: this invention covers fodder production for domestic animals. Feedstuff composition for domestic animals with over 88% digestibility degree of dry substance includes: protein with over 90% digestibility degree, carbohydrates with over 90% digestibility degree, food fibre and fats of specific content. Feedstuff composition for domestic animals with over 88% digestibility degree of dry substance includes: brewing rice, eggs, cornflour, celiac maize meal, beet pulp, soy oil, flax seed and vitamin Bt of specific content. This invention also covers decreasing method of defecation amount and odour by domestic animals by their feeding with the composition specified. ^ EFFECT: decrease of defecation amount and odour. ^ 11 cl, 14 tbl, 5 ex

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to high-digest pet food compositions containing high-quality protein and high-digest carbohydrates, and to methods for reducing stool volume for a pet and stool odor of a pet by feeding the composition of the present invention to an animal.

State of the art

Pets give out stools, and bowel movements can occur in any number of places, for example, outside the home, in toilets for pets, or on a newspaper. Cleaning pet excrement is often unpleasant, and although there are many products on the market to make this work as enjoyable as possible, these products cannot solve the main problems of stool excretion, stool volume and stool unpleasant odors. It is well known that feed compositions can have a large effect on the quantity and characteristics of stool secreted by animals. Thus, it would be desirable to develop compositions and methods for reducing the amount of stool secreted by the animal, either by weight or volume, and to reduce the smell of stool.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a high-digest pet food composition that contains high-quality protein and high-digest carbohydrates, the digestion of which causes stool formation in an animal that has less volume and has less unpleasant odor compared to stool secreted under the action of animal feed compositions that contain lower amounts of high quality proteins and worse digestible carbohydrates. Thus, in one aspect, the present invention relates to a pet food composition comprising one or more high quality proteins and one or more high digestion carbohydrates. In certain embodiments, the compositions may include from about 15% to about 30% high quality protein and from about 25% to about 50% high digestion carbohydrates. Said high quality protein may have a true protein digestibility greater than about 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94% or 95%; said high digestion carbohydrates may have a digestibility greater than about 90%, 92%, 94%, 95%, or 96%. The compositions of the present invention may have a dry matter digestibility greater than about 88%, 90%, or 95%. In a specific embodiment, the composition of the present invention is a nutritionally complete pet food, more particularly a dog food.

In a specific embodiment, the present invention is directed to a composition comprising: 36% brewing rice, 16% eggs, 16% corn starch, 14.5% corn gluten meal, 2.5% beet pulp, 2.5% soybean oil, 2 % flaxseed, carnitine, one or more amino acids, minerals and vitamins. Specifically, said composition contains ≥88.0% dry matter, intrinsic protein, fat, carbohydrate, and energy digestibility.

In another aspect, the present invention is directed to methods for reducing the volume of stool secreted by an animal, comprising feeding the animal any of the high digestion compositions of the present invention.

In an additional aspect, the present invention is directed to methods for reducing the odor of stool secreted by an animal, comprising feeding the animal any of the high digestion compositions of the present invention.

In an additional aspect, the present invention is directed to the use of high quality proteins and carbohydrates with a high level of digestion, in the preparation of a feed composition for feeding animals to reduce the amount of stool secreted by the animal.

In another aspect, the present invention is directed to the use of high quality proteins and carbohydrates with a high level of digestion in the preparation of a feed composition for feeding an animal to reduce the odor of stool excreted by the animal.

Other embodiments of the present invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Not limited to any theories or specific modes of action of the invention, the present invention is based on the finding that certain compositions, when swallowed by an animal, can produce less stool and the stool released has a weaker smell. Typically, the compositions have a high level of digestion, contain one or more high quality proteins and carbohydrates with a high level of digestion. An increase in digestibility leads to a decrease in the amount of stool secreted. In addition, it is believed that a decrease in stool odor is caused by an increase in digestibility and a related decrease in the number of compounds containing sulfur in the stool excreted by the animal swallowing the compositions of the present invention.

As used herein and in the appended claims, the singular forms include the plural, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.

As used herein, “effective amount”, “amount, effective” and similar terms refer to that amount of compound, material or composition as described herein that can be effective to achieve a particular biological result, for example, to reduce stool volume and to reduce the smell of stool. Such a result can be achieved, for example, by administering the compositions of the present invention to an animal. An effective amount can be based on several factors, including the particular animal, its gender, age, weight and / or metabolizable energy of the composition. As suggested herein, the daily amount of feed compositions to be fed to animals is known to those skilled in the art.

As used here, "high digestion feed" refers to feed that has digestibility equal to or greater than 88.0%. The term "nutrient digestibility" includes the digestibility of dry matter, protein, fat, carbohydrates and the digestibility of energy.

The present invention relates to any animal, preferably a mammal, more preferably a pet, that can benefit from feeding the compositions described herein. The term "pet" refers to any animal that lives in close proximity to humans and includes, but is not limited to, domestic animals of the canine and feline family of any breed. For example, it is intended here that this term may also encompass any animal whose feed can be controlled by humans and which can benefit from feeding the compositions described herein. These animals may include, for example, domesticated farm animals (eg, cattle, horses, pigs, and the like), as well as non-domesticated animals held in captivity, for example, in zoos and the like.

The present invention may be suitable for use in animals at various stages of life, including mother-fed, weaned, growing, adult, elderly and old. Preferably, the animal is an adult, elderly or old animal, preferably an adult animal.

Except where otherwise stated, all percentages used in this specification are percent by weight based on dry matter. The phrase "in relation to dry matter" means the concentration of the component in the composition after removing any moisture from the composition.

As mentioned here, a “high quality protein” is any protein or protein mixture that can be digested by “true protein digestibility” (as opposed to “visible protein digestibility”) greater than about 90%, preferably greater than about 95% more preferably greater than about 98%.

Methods for determining protein digestibility are known to those skilled in the art. For example, the protein content in the compositions can be determined using any set of methods known to those skilled in the art, for example, as published by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists in Official Methods of Analysis ("OMA"), method 988.05. Thus, in order to determine "apparent protein digestibility", one skilled in the art will need to determine the protein content in the composition and the protein content in the stool secreted by the animal after feeding the composition. The apparent digestibility of the protein is then calculated as follows:

Stool is known to contain many other sources of protein, such as bacterial proteins, enzymes produced during digestion, and bile. Thus, protein digestibility data may be distorted due to the presence of endogenous proteins in the stool. Thus, the apparent digestibility of a protein is often multiplied by a factor to take into account the presence of such endogenous proteins to determine the percentage of true protein digestibility. Depending on the amount of endogenous proteins present, the coefficient may be more or less. In the present invention, true protein digestibility is determined by multiplying the protein digestibility by a factor of 1,051. That is, the difference between the true protein digestibility and the apparent protein digestibility is 1,051, so that, for example, a visible protein digestibility of 88.5% will correspond to a true protein digestibility of 93.0%.

High quality protein sources for use in the present invention include plant sources, animal sources, or both. Animal sources include, for example, meat, meat offal, seafood, dairy products (including powdered milk), and eggs. Plant sources may include soy protein isolate. High quality proteins can be intact, almost completely hydrolyzed, partially hydrolyzed proteins or isolates. Preferably, the high quality protein is an egg, for example a chicken egg, essentially without shell. Other high quality protein sources include egg white, casein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, milk whey protein, egg albumin and lactalbumin. As contemplated herein, the compositions of the present invention may include any high quality protein mixture. The compositions of the present invention may contain from about 15-30% high quality protein.

As mentioned here, “high digestion carbohydrates” are those carbohydrates that can be digested by an animal, such as a dog, by more than about 90%, more than about 93%, preferably more than about 95% or more than 96%. High digestion carbohydrates can be supplied by any of a variety of sources known to those skilled in the art, including corn, wheat, rice (e.g., brewing rice), starch (e.g., rice and corn starch), gluten corn flour, and dried bard. As suggested herein, the compositions of the present invention may contain any high digestion carbohydrate mixture. The compositions of the present invention may contain from about 25-50% carbohydrates with a high level of digestion.

Methods for determining the digestibility of carbohydrates are known to those skilled in the art. The percentage of carbohydrates can be calculated as nitrogen-free extract ("NPE"), which can be calculated as follows: NFE = 100% -% moisture -% protein -% fat -% ash -% crude fiber. Thus, to determine the digestibility of carbohydrates, one of skill in the art will need to determine the carbohydrate content of the composition and the carbohydrate content of the stool released after the composition is fed to the animal. Then the digestibility of carbohydrates is calculated using the following equation:

Dry matter digestibility (DMD) is the amount of substance that is digested by an animal relative to dry matter. Typically, digestibility is determined by measuring the swallowed content minus the content in excrement divided by the swallowed content. Methods for determining DMD are known in the art. For example, the mass of feed consumed relative to dry matter is determined, and the mass of stool (relative to dry matter) resulting from feed intake is also determined. Then calculate the DMD as follows:

Fat digestibility and energy digestibility can also be determined as described above, for example,

Determination of fat and energy in feed and stool can be carried out in accordance with conventional methods known to specialists in this field.

In addition to causing a decrease in stool volume, the compositions of the present invention cause a decrease in stool odor from animals swallowing said compositions. Methods for evaluating stool odor are known to those skilled in the art. For example, a qualitative assessment using human experts, as described in the examples provided here, can be used to evaluate stool odor. In addition, a quantitative measurement of odorous stool compounds can be used using, for example, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Odorous stool compounds quantified in excreta include compounds containing sulfur, phenols, heterocycles and indoles, carboxylic acid compounds and ketone compounds.

As contemplated herein, the compositions of the present invention are intended to encompass nutritionally complete pet food diets. A “nutritionally complete diet” is a diet that contains sufficient nutrients to maintain normal health in the intended animal receiving the diet (eg, a domestic cat or domestic dog), and is well known to those skilled in the art. For example, nutrients and ingredients such as those described herein, as well as other suitable animal feed compositions and their recommended amounts, can be found, for example, in Official Publication of Associate of American Feed Control Officials Inc., ("AAFCO" ), Nutrient Recuirements of Dogs and Cats, 2006.

The nutritionally complete pet food compositions described herein may contain fats. Fat sources for the compositions of the present invention can be supplied by any of various sources known to those skilled in the art, including meat, meat offal, fish oil, and plants. Plant sources of fat include wheat, flaxseed, rye, barley, rice, sorghum, corn, oats, millet, germinated wheat seeds, germinated corn seeds, soybeans, peanuts and cottonseed, as well as oils derived from these and other plant sources fats. As suggested here, the compositions of the present invention may contain from about 11% to 16% fat, preferably about 14% fat.

Vitamins and minerals can also be included in the compositions described in the present invention, in amounts known to those skilled in the art, to eliminate the deficiency and maintain health. For example, the National Research Council (NRC) provides recommended amounts of such ingredients for farm animals and AAFCO (eg, Official Publication of Associate of American Feed Control Officials Inc., ("AAFCO"), Nutrient Recuirements of Dogs and Cats, 2006) provides recommended amounts of such ingredients for the canine and feline families. Vitamins may include Vitamin A, Vitamin B ₁ , Vitamin B ₂ , Vitamin B ₆ , Vitamin B ₁₂ , Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Vitamin H (Biotin), Vitamin K, Folic Acid, Inositol, Niacin and Pantothenic Acid. Examples of minerals include, for example, calcium, phosphorus, dicalcium phosphate, potassium citrate, potassium chloride, calcium carbonate, sodium chloride or sodium, potassium, magnesium, manganese, calcium, chloride, copper, zinc, choline, phosphorus, iodine or selenium salts.

Fibers, including, but not limited to, fiber included in food can be included in the compositions of the present invention. Dietary fiber refers to plant components that are resistant to digestion by the action of digesting animal enzymes. The components of dietary fiber in feeds can be determined using any of a number of methods known to those skilled in the art, such as the OMA method 991.43 / 32.1.17 (1994). Dietary fiber generally includes soluble and insoluble fiber. Soluble fibers are fibers that are resistant to digestion and absorption in the small intestine, but undergo complete or partial fermentation in the large intestine. Sources of soluble fiber for use in the compositions described herein include, for example, beet pulp, guar gum, chicory smell, plantain, pectin, blueberries, cranberries, pumpkin, apples, oats, legumes, citrus fruits, barley or peas. Insoluble fibers are fibers that are not soluble in water and tend to increase the rate at which food passes through the gastrointestinal tract. Examples include, but are not limited to, cellulose, whole wheat products, oatmeal, corn bran, flaxseed, grapes, celery, green beans, cauliflower, potato peel, fruit peel, vegetable peel, peanut husk and soy fiber. As suggested herein, the compositions of the present invention may contain from about 3% to 6% of dietary fiber in general.

The compositions of the present invention may additionally contain amino acids in amounts known to those skilled in the art to eliminate the deficiency and maintain health. Preferably, the compositions of the present invention contain "essential amino acids." Essential amino acids are amino acids that cannot be synthesized by the body de novo or in sufficient quantities and thus must be supplied in food. Essential amino acids can vary from one species to another, depending on the metabolism of the body. For example, it is generally understood that essential amino acids for dogs and cats (and humans) are phenylalanine, leucine, methionine, lysine, isoleucine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, histidine, and arginine. In addition to this, taurine, although not technically an amino acid, but a derivative of cysteine, is an essential nutrient for cats and dogs.

The compositions of the present invention may additionally contain nutritional supplements, for example, carnitine and omega-3 or omega-6 fatty acids, in amounts known to those skilled in the art to eliminate the deficiency and maintain health. Carnitine or L-carnitine is a vitamin-like compound synthesized in the body from lysine and methionine. Carnitine may be present naturally in the ingredients of the present invention (e.g., flaxseed), or carnitine may be added to the composition.

The compositions of the present invention may additionally contain additives, stabilizers, fillers, thickening agents, perfumes, flavor enhancers and colorants in amounts and combinations known to those skilled in the art. Stabilizing agents can increase the shelf life of a composition in a package and are known to those skilled in the art.

As suggested herein, the compositions of the present invention may have a metabolizable energy content of from about 3,500 to about 4,500 kcal / kg. As mentioned here, "metabolizable energy" is the energy available to the animal when it consumes food (or composition) after subtracting the energy released in excrement, urine and combustible gases. Metabolized energy values can be determined by following protocols established by methods known to those skilled in the art, for example, in accordance with official guidelines developed by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).

As an example, but without limitation, it is assumed that the composition with a high level of digestion of the present invention, which leads to a decrease in stool volume and unpleasant stool odor, may contain: 36% brewing rice, 16% eggs, 16% corn starch, 14 , 5% corn gluten meal, 2.5% beet pulp, 2.5% soybean oil, 2% flaxseed, carnitine, one or more amino acids, minerals and vitamins, and one or more flavor enhancers. Specifically, this composition demonstrates the digestibility of dry matter, the true digestibility of protein, fats, carbohydrates and energy ≥88.0%.

Although compositions with any texture or moisture content are contemplated, preferably the compositions of the present invention can be, for example, a wet, semi-moist, or dry animal feed composition. A “wet” feed refers to a feed that has a moisture content of about 70 to 90%. “Semi-moist” food refers to a food that has a moisture content of about 15% to 40%. “Dry” food refers to compositions with a moisture content of about 5% to 15% and is often made in the form of small pieces or granules. Also contemplated herein are compositions that may contain components of varying consistencies, as well as components that may have several consistencies, for example, soft, chewy particles similar to meat, as well as granules having an external grain component and an internal creamy component, as described, for example, in US Pat. No. 6,517,877. The granules can then be dried and optionally coated with one or more external coatings known to those skilled in the art, for example, flavors, fats, oils , Powders, and the like.

It is intended that the present invention described herein is not limited to the particular methodology, protocols, and reagents described since they are subject to change. You must also understand that the terminology used here is intended to describe only specific embodiments, and is not intended to limit the scope of the present invention in any way. In addition, a detailed description of the embodiments is intended only to familiarize specialists in this field with the present invention, its principles and its practical application, so that other specialists in this field will be able to adapt and apply the present invention in its many forms, as they can best meet the requirements of a specific application. For this reason, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described herein, and may be modified in various ways.

Unless otherwise specified, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meanings as is commonly understood by those skilled in the art to which the present invention belongs. All patents, patent applications, publications, and other references cited or referenced herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes.

EXAMPLES

Example 1

The feeds from Table 1 are prepared and granulated in accordance with the Association of American Feed Control Officials 2005 Nutrient Guide for Dogs, balanced to meet the requirements for maintaining adult animals, and extruded in the form of dry granules in accordance with conventional methods. Both formulations are designed to meet or exceed AAFCO nutritional recommendations. Metabolizable energy is calculated in accordance with conventional methods, for example using the Atwater equation, and percentages are expressed relative to dry matter. The five most common ingredients are also listed (in descending order):

Table 1
Nutrient Analysis and Five Top Ingredients
Control A and Test Composition B Analyzed nutrient (relative to dry matter) Control A Test Composition B Crude protein,% 25 24 Crude fats,% 15,5 12,2 Calcium% 0.74 0.77 Phosphorus,% 0.67 0.5 Crude fiber,% 2.2 1,1 Metabolizable Energy (kcal / kg) 4035 3900 Lysine,% 1.14 1.37 Lysine: Calories 2,8 3,5 Ingredient one Corn Rice 2 Sorghum Egg 3 Wheat Corn starch four Chopped chicken Gluten Corn Meal 5 Chicken flour Beet pulp

Example 2

A digestibility study was carried out to determine the digestibility of the control and test feeds of Example 1. Two groups of five dogs were fed with the compositions of Example 1 for 14 days. One group of five dogs was fed with Control A, and a second group of five dogs was fed with Test Composition B for seven days. After seven days, animal feed is replaced. Days 1 and 2 are left to adapt to the feed, and on days 3-7, the total amounts of stool are collected and analyzed. On day eight, each group is fed a second feed, the first two days are left to adapt to the new feed, and stool samples are collected daily and analyzed for the rest of the study. Excrement is collected during the day and placed in sealed plastic bags (24 hours or before cleaning the cage the next morning). Packages are labeled with animal identification numbers, date and study number. Each stool sample requiring storage is cooled to 5 ° C. Feces are measured using a displacement method. A stool sample is weighed and then added to the top of the stool densitometer. The displaced water is collected and its volume is measured in a graduated cylinder. The density measurement (g / cm ³ ) is the following calculation: the mass of the sample (grams) is divided by the volume (ml) of displaced water. Data is analyzed using a common linear model procedure, SAS, to determine processing tools. All digestibility analyzes are carried out in accordance with conventional methods. The digestibility values and characteristics of the stool are shown in table 2.

table 2
Digestibility Study Comparison of Control C with Test Composition B Research results Control A Test Composition B Digestibility of dry matter,% 86.2 89.5 True protein digestibility,% 89.2 93.8 Fat digestibility,% 94.5 94.2 Digestibility of carbohydrates,% 95.5 96.0 Assimilation of energy,% 88.6 92.4 The amount of stool (g / day) 119.2 87.8 The average weight of the chair (g) 95.3 64.0 Average stool volume (ml) 89.8 63.1 Average stool density (g / ml) 1.06 1.01 Average daily feed intake (g) 300 298

The results show that animals fed with Test Composition B excrete less stool (in terms of stool mass and volume) compared to dogs fed with Control A.

Example 3

Test composition C is prepared in accordance with the Association of American Feed Control Officials 2005 Nutrient Guide for Dogs, balanced to meet adult maintenance requirements, and extruded as dry granules in accordance with conventional methods. Metabolized energy is calculated using the Atwater equation. The four most common ingredients are rice, eggs, corn starch and corn gluten meal. The content of Test Composition C was analyzed using methods known in the art and are given below with respect to dry matter.

Table 3
Analyzed Nutrients Test Composition C Nutrient Test Composition C Crude protein,% 25.1 Crude fats,% 13.8 Calcium% 0.64 Ash% 5.1 Phosphorus,% 0.62 Crude fiber,% 0.90 NFE,% 55.1 Dietary fiber, in general,% 4.65 Metabolizable energy, kcal / kg 3978

Example 4

A digestibility study was carried out to compare Test Composition C of Example 3 with a commercially available dog food (Eukanuba® Adult Maintenance Small Bites (“EU-SB”)). Metabolized energy is calculated using the Atwater equation. The four most common EU-SB ingredients are chicken, chicken offal, cornmeal, and ground whole sorghum grains. The EU-SB composition is analyzed using methods known in the art, and they are shown in Table 4 along with the nutrient analysis of Test Composition C. The results of the digestibility study are presented in Table 5.

A digestibility study was carried out as described in Example 2. In this case, two groups of five dogs were fed either Test Composition C or EU-SB for 14 days. One group of five dogs was fed Composition C, and a second group of five dogs was fed EU-SB for seven days. After seven days, animal feed is replaced. Days 1 and 2 are left to adapt to feed, and on days 3-7, the total amount of stool is collected. On the eighth day, each group is fed a second feed, the first two days are left to adapt to the new feed. Stool samples were collected daily and analyzed for the rest of the study, as described in Example 2. With respect to each 7-day study period, stool collected during the first 3 days was used to measure stool volume, mass and density. These three stool measurements are evaluated daily and three daily averages are calculated. Additionally, in this study, stool collected over the past two days is used to measure the smell of feces. An average of two days is used to measure the smell of feces (see example 5, below). The study schedule is given below.

Research day Procedure Measurement Days 0-7 5 animals take Control feed; 5 animals take Test feed Feeding and Feces Assessment - Daily
Body Weight - Weekly 3-5 days Feces collection The volume, mass and density of feces Days 6-7 Feces collection The smell of feces Days 8-14 Switching animal diets; 5 days on control, 5 days on test feed Feeding and Feeding Assessment - Daily Days 10-12 Feces collection The volume, mass and density of feces Days 13-14 Feces collection The smell of feces

Table 4
Nutrient Formulations Analyzed Nutrient
(in relation to dry matter) Test Composition C EU-SB Crude protein,% 25.1 26.5 Crude fats,% 13.8 18.2 Ash% 5.1 7.7 Calcium% 0.64 1.35 Phosphorus,% 0.62 1,07 Crude fiber,% 0.90 2,35 NFE,% 55.1 45,2 Dietary fiber, in general,% 4.65 9.74 Metabolizable Energy (kcal / kg) 3978 4058

Table 5
Digestibility Study Comparison of Test Composition C and EU-SB Research results Test Composition C EU-SB Digestibility of dry matter,% 91.0 84.9 ^a True protein digestibility,% 98.2 89.9 ^a Fat digestibility,% 94.3 95.5 ^a Digestibility of carbohydrates,% 96.7 95.9 Assimilation of energy,% 92.7 89.1 ^a Stool Volume (ml) 54.7 90.1 Chair mass (g) 57.4 95.6 Chair Density (g / cm ³ ) 0.99 1.05 ^a P <0.05
^b P <0.10

The results show that when Test Composition C is fed to dogs, dogs produce less weight and stool than dogs fed EU-SB commercial food.

Example 5

Fecal odor analyzes were performed for the stool collected from the digestibility studies described in Example 4. All feces samples were kept refrigerated at 5 ° C until analysis. Samples are removed from the refrigerator and combined for each animal, if necessary, in plastic bags. Then the samples are mixed in a bag for grinding and mixing the material of feces. Then the feces material is loaded into a 10 ml polyethylene syringe and 5 g (+/- 0.01 g) is squeezed into a 20 ml gas analysis vial and closed with a cap on the thread for analysis. Squeezing out from the syringe serves to increase the surface area of the sample. This is critical for adequately balancing volatile components in stool samples. Sample preparation, therefore, also serves to "normalize" the shape of the samples in a gas analysis vial.

Samples are then loaded into a Leap Technologies Combi-PAL sample preparation device. The sample preparation device receives each sample, in turn, and incubates them at 30 ° C, and then prepares the samples using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fiber (Supelco, 1 cm × 75 μm Carboxen / PDMS). The fiber is exposed to the atmosphere in the vial for 30 minutes and then injected into an Agilent 6890 gas chromatograph / 5973N mass selective detector (GCMS). Separation is carried out on an Agilent DB-WAXETR column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). When the analysis ends, the data is processed to measure the peak area in relation to the ion (QIon), unique to each compound.

The total data for all peak areas are exported to the database, where each connection is determined in a certain category by its primary functional group. The peak areas of all compounds in each category are summed. Then these total values are analyzed using the mixed procedures of pairwise comparisons Proc, SAS.

Stool odor assessments are performed on study days 6, 7, 13, and 14 using the following procedures: fresh stool samples are collected and placed in plastic bags, which are randomly encoded using three-digit numbers. Eleven team members caring for a colony of animals participate in the evaluation of the samples. Samples evaluated within 1 hour after collection. Samples are given one at a time to each participant in random order. Participants evaluate samples by holding an open bag about 1 foot from their nose and smell them using a few sniffs. Participants attribute an odor intensity rating to each sample using a 5-point scale, where 1 = no odor at all and 5 = extremely strong odor. Estimates of odor intensity are recorded on the proposed forms. At the end of the study, the average value for each sample is calculated and compared using the General Linear Model (GLM) SAS procedure. The results of the analysis of feces are given below, in tables 6-14.

Table 6 Chair Ratings
EU-SB
Consumption Data: Average Stand. reject Min Max. Number of Discharges Feed intake 223.5 33.9 129 303 95 Chair 4.9 0.3 four 5 97

Data on the frequency of stool discharge: Chair Rating one 2 3 four 5 Number of Discharges 0 0 0 10 87 Percent 0,0 0,0 0,0 10.3 89.7

Test Composition C
Consumption Data: Average Stand. reject Min Max. Number of Discharges Feed intake 213.3 30,4 157 277 95 Chair 4.9 0.4 2 5 93

Data on the frequency of stool discharge: Chair Rating one 2 3 four 5 Number of Discharges 0 one one 5 86 Percent 0,0 1,1 1,1 5,4 92.5

EU-SB
Consumption Data: Average Stand. reject Min Max. Number of Discharges Feed intake 181.3 41.1 124 275 70 Chair 4.3 0.7 2 5 101

Data on the frequency of stool discharge: Chair Rating one 2 3 four 5 Number of Discharges 0 2 10 41 48 Percent 0,0 2.0 9.9 40.6 47.5

Test Composition C
Consumption Data: Average Stand. reject Min Max. Number of Discharges Feed intake 181.3 41.6 123 277 70 Chair 4.4 0.7 2 5 79

Data on the frequency of stool discharge: Chair Rating one 2 3 four 5 Number of Discharges 0 2 6 29th 42 Percent 0,0 2.5 7.6 36.7 53,2

Table 7
The average volume, weight and density of feces Feces weight (grams) Feces (ml) Density of feces (g / cm ³ ) EU-SB 95.60 90.10 1.05 Issled.
comp. C 57.40 54.70 0.99 P value <0.01 <0.01 0,03 % Differences -39.96% -39.29% -5.71%

Table 8
Fecal smell: Comparison of the total peak areas for classes of gaseous volatile substances from canine stools for dogs on Test Composition C and on EU-SB - based on total feed intake - (statistics using paired comparisons according to Proc Mixed) - Study 1 Test Composition C EU-SB The probability that> | t | Acids 20210973 38915911 0.177 Alcohols 14099355 14946040 0.849 Ketones 14278852 11038781 0.167 Aldehydes 793065 723638 0.654 Sulfur-containing * 2578798 7415707 0,084 Heterocyclic * 6164309 3963024 0,070 Furans # 1109634 587942 0.017 Esters 11642111 16152892 0.244 Indole 4542689 3017321 0.141 Phenol* 3748062 2047024 0,094 # Peak areas vary significantly at a confidence level of 95%
* Peak areas are conceivably different at a 90% confidence level
Peak areas are selected for sample masses

Table 9
Fecal smell: comparing the total peak areas for classes of gaseous volatile substances from canine stools for dogs on Test Composition C and EU-SB - based on total feed intake - (statistics using paired comparisons according to Proc Mixed) - Study 2 Test Composition C EU-SB The probability that> | t | Acids * 27576089 54175201 0.0211 Alcohols # 9834550 7401144 0.0987 Aldehydes * 686314 171381 0.0020 Esters 10082059 12901126 0.2351 Furans 783506 624359 0.3247 Sulfur-containing * 3490767 2120497 0.0153 Heterocyclic * 165010 328482 0.0046 Indole * 3147117 1829258 0,0200 Ketones 11546838 15886302 0.5580 Phenol* 2484498 1253450 0,0334 Sugar Related * 769426 4875788 0.0079 Sulfur compounds 1073366 2497176 0.3220 * Peak areas vary significantly at a confidence level of 95%
# Peak areas vary significantly at a confidence level of 90%
Peak areas are selected for sample masses

Table 10
Comparison of the total peak areas between Studies (Studies 1 and 2); directional changes in peak areas for Study Composition C compared to EU-SB Study 1 Study 2 Acids ↓ ↓ Alcohols ↓ ↑ Aldehydes ↑ ↑ Esters ↓ ↓ Furans ↑ ↑ Heterocycles ↑ ↑ Indole ↑ ↑ Ketones ↑ ↓ Phenol ↑ ↑ Sulfur compounds ↓ ↓

Table 11
Fecal smell: Comparison of the total peak areas for classes of gaseous volatile substances from canine stools for dogs on test composition C and EU-SB - based on total feed intake - (statistics using paired comparisons according to Proc Mixed) - combined Study 1 and Study 2 Test Composition C EU-SB The probability that> | t | Acids * 23893531 46545556 0.0102 Alcohols 11966953 11173592 0.6598 Aldehydes # 739690 447510 0,0745 Esters # 10862085 14527009 0,0905 Furans * 946570 606151 0.0264 Heterocycles # 4827538 3041761 0,0525 Indole * 3844903 2423290 0,0455 Ketones 12912845 13462542 0.8854 Phenol* 3116280 1650237 0,0456 Sulfur compounds * 1826082 4956442 0.0490 * Peak areas vary significantly at a confidence level of 95%
# Peak areas vary significantly at a confidence level of 90%
Peak areas are selected for sample masses

Table 12
Human Fecal Assessment: Odor Intensity Estimates for Dogs Feeding Dry Food - Composition D and EU-SB Test Study - General Study (Study 2) Test Composition C EU-SB Odor intensity 2.92 ^a 3.19 ^b Distribution of odor ratings 1 = no smell at all 7% one% 2 = slight smell 31% 23% 3 = moderate odor 32% 39% 4 = strong smell eighteen% 24% 5 = extremely strong odor 10% eleven% ^a Mean values indicated by the same letter in the group are not significant at a confidence level of 95%

Table 13
Sensory evaluation of feces by humans: odor intensity estimates for dogs that are fed - Composition C and EU-SB tested - grouped according to food
(Study 2) Group 1 Group 2 Feeding sequence EU-SB first - Test composition C last Test composition C first - EU-SB last Feed Issled. comp. C EU-SB Issled. comp. C EU-SB Odor intensity 2.74 ^a 3.28 ^b 3.11 ^a 3.10 ^a Distribution of odor ratings No 9% one% 5% one% Light 37% 21% 25% 24% Moderate 32% 37% 32% 42% Strong eleven% 24% 25% 23% Extreme 7% fourteen% eleven% 7% ^{a The} average values indicated by the same letter in the group, which are indicated by the same letter, are not significant at a confidence level of 95%

Table 14
Sensory evaluation of human feces: estimates of odor intensity for dogs fed Composition C and EU-SB - grouped according to feeding sequence (Study 2) Group 1 Group 2 Feeding sequence EU-SB first -
Test composition C last Test composition C first - EU-SB last date of 3/1 2/22 3/2 2/23 2/22 3/1 2/23 3/2 Feed Study EU-SB Study EU-SB Study EU-SB Study EU-SB Odor intensity 2.73 ^a 3.33 ^b 2.76 ^a 3.24 ^b 2.98 ^a 3.02 ^a 3.24 ^a 3.20 ^a Distribution of odor ratings No 12% one% 6% one% 9% 3% one% - Light 34% fourteen% 40% 29% 25% 27% 25% 21% Moderate 32% 45% 32% 29% thirty% 40% thirty% 45% Strong 7% 25% 16% 23% 27% 21% 27% 25% Extreme 12% 12% 6% 16% 7% 7% 7% 7% ^{a The} average values indicated by the same letter in the group, which are indicated by the same letter, are not significant at a confidence level of 95%

The data presented in the tables above show that stool scores do not differ between Study Composition C and EU-SB (for example, 4.9 for both diets in Study 1; 4.3 compared to 4.4 for EU-SB and for Test composition C, respectively, in Study 2).

Masses and volumes of stool are statistically different between Test Composition C and EU-SB. In both studies (Study 1 and Study 2), dogs fed the study diet had significantly lower stool weight (57.4 compared to 95.6 g, respectively) and lower stool volume (54.7 compared to 90.1 ml, respectively) compared to dogs fed with EU-SB. The density of feces is not different (0.99 compared to 1.05 g / cm ³ ). The numbers shown are average values for two studies.

The smell of feces is evaluated using a gaseous product analysis of stool odor. The results of pooled studies show that dogs fed the test diet produce 63% lower levels of sulfur-containing compounds compared to dogs fed the EU-SB product (P <0.05). This is important data, since sulfur compounds have a very low olfactory odor threshold, so reducing the content of these compounds should lead to an improvement in stool odor. Dogs fed the test diet also have significantly lower acid levels (e.g., reduced by 49%; (P <0.05)). Dogs fed the EU-SB diet (the numbers shown come from a pooled study) have significantly lower levels of phenols (P <0.05), indoles (P <0.05) and furans (P <0.05).

A panel for sensory evaluations, consisting of 11 participants, is used to assess the intensity of stool odor in stool samples collected from studies of 2 stool samples. These analyzes show that dogs fed the test diet have a lower faecal odor score than dogs fed the EU-SB product (2.92 versus 3.19; P <0.05). Thus, if you look at the results in general (for example, the results of analyzes of gaseous substances together with the results of sensory analyzes), they suggest that a decrease in the content of sulfur and possibly acidic compounds may be more important than a decrease in the content of some other compounds (e.g. furans, phenols and indoles).

As shown, a dog diet based on Test Composition C is a high digestion composition.

Dry matter digestibility, true protein digestibility and energy digestibility are 91.0, 98.2 and 92.7%, respectively. An increase in digestibility not only reduces the mass and volume of the stool, but also the smell of feces (both analytical and sensory studies evaluate) also decreases.

Claims (11)

1. The composition of the pet food, which has a digestibility of dry matter greater than 88%, containing:
(a) from 15% to 30% protein with a digestibility greater than 90% selected from meat, meat offal, seafood, dairy products, eggs and mixtures thereof;
(b) from 25% to 50% carbohydrates with a digestion rate greater than 90%, where carbohydrates are selected from corn, wheat, dried stillage, corn starch, rice, corn gluten flour and mixtures thereof;
(c) from 3% to 6% of dietary fiber in general; and
(d) 11% to 16% fat. 2. The pet food composition of claim 1, wherein the pet food composition has a metabolizable energy content of from about 3,500 to 4,500 kcal / kg. 3. The pet food composition of claim 1, further comprising a mineral selected from sodium, potassium, magnesium, manganese, calcium, chloride, copper, zinc, choline, iron, phosphorus, iodine and selenium. 4. The pet food composition of claim 1, further comprising a vitamin selected from vitamin A, vitamin B ₁ , vitamin B ₂ , vitamin B ₆ , vitamin B ₁₂ , vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin H, vitamin K, folic acid, inositol, niacin and pantothenic acid. 5. The pet food composition of claim 1, further comprising carnitine. 6. The pet food composition of claim 1, further comprising an amino acid selected from phenylalanine, leucine, methionine, lysine, isoleucine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, histidine, and arginine. 7. A pet food composition that has a dry matter digestibility of greater than 88%, comprising:
(a) 36% brewing rice;
(b) 16% of eggs;
(c) 16% corn starch;
(d) 14.5% corn gluten meal;
(e) 2.5% beet pulp;
(f) 2.5% soybean oil;
(g) 2.0% flaxseed and
(h) carnitine. 8. The pet food composition of claim 7, having a dry matter digestibility for a dog of greater than 88%. 9. The pet food composition of claim 7, wherein said pet food has a true protein digestibility of greater than 90%. 10. The pet food composition of claim 7, wherein said pet food has a carbohydrate digestibility greater than 90%. 11. A method of reducing the volume of stool secreted by an animal, including feeding the animal any of the compositions according to claim 1 or 7.