부산대학교 도서관

Various methods of fiber analysis are currently used for dog and cat foods. There are usually good reasons for the choice of a particular method by different laboratories (ranging from legislation for labeling of pet foods to cost-effectiveness). To compare results from different methods, it is helpful to have systematic comparisons among several methods (crude fiber, detergent fiber, non-starch polysaccharides) for prepared dog and cat foods. Materials and methods. Prepared dog foods (n = 27, 15 dry and 12 moist) and 24 prepared cat foods (13 dry and 11 moist) were analyzed for proximates and fiber by several standard methods as follows: crude fiber (CF), acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin (ADF, ADL) by van Soest (1963), total, soluble and insoluble fiber (TFE, SFE, IFE) by Englyst and Cummings (1988), and total, soluble and insoluble fiber (TFP, SFP, IFP) by Prosky et al. (1985). All results were calculated on a dry matter basis. Simple linear regressions were calculated to test for correlations among dietary fiber methods. Results. The range of values (dry matter basis) obtained from analysis of the foods is shown in Table 1. Significant correlations (Table 2) were found among all methods of fiber determination that measured cellulose (Table 3). Figure 1 shows the relationship between CF and ADF. In Figure 2, cellulose (ADF-ADL) is plotted against IFp, IFE and CF. This indicates that cellulose is a major source of fiber in pet foods. SFE and SFP did not correlate significantly with other methods of fiber analysis. There was no significant relationship between the soluble fiber determination SFP and SFE (Fig. 3); however, this was due mainly to two foods (one canned cat food and one dry dog food) whose values differed considerably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]