Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:27:57.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prebiotics affect nutrient digestibility but not faecal ammonia in dogs fed increased dietary protein levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Hesta ,
G. P. J. Janssens ,
S. Millet  and
R. De Wilde
M. Hesta*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
G. P. J. Janssens
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
R. De Wilde
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Heidestraat 19, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
*Corresponding Author: Dr M. Hesta, fax +32 9 264 78 48, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An increased protein content and less digestible protein sources in the diet can induce bad faecal odour. The present study investigated the effect of adding prebiotics to dog diets enriched with animal-derived protein sources on apparent digestibilities and faecal ammonia concentration. In three subsequent periods eight healthy beagle dogs were fed a commercial dog diet that was gradually supplemented by up to 50 % with meat and bone meal (MBM), greaves meal (GM) or poultry meal (PM) respectively. Afterwards, 3 % fructo-oligosaccharides or 3 % isomalto-oligosaccharides were substituted for 3 % of the total diet. Supplementation with animal-derived protein sources did not decrease the apparent N digestibility significantly but oligosaccharides did. On the other hand the bacterial N content (% DM) in the faeces was highest in the oligosaccharide groups followed by the protein-supplemented groups and lowest in the control groups. When the apparent N digestibility was corrected for bacterial N no significant differences were noted anymore except for the GM group where the corrected N digestibility was still lower after oligosaccharide supplementation. The amount of faecal ammonia was significantly increased by supplementing with protein or oligosaccharides in the MBM and GM groups but not in the PM group. When apparent N digestibility is interpreted, a correction for bacterial N should be taken into account, especially when prebiotics are added to the diet. Oligosaccharides did not reduce the faecal ammonia concentrations as expected.

Keywords

PrebioticsDogsDigestibilityAmmonia
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 90 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 1007 - 1014
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2003

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1984) Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed., Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Beynen, AC, Kappert, HJ & Yu, S (2001) Dietary lactulose decreases apparent calcium and magnesium absorption in healthy dogs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 85, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkhalter, TM, Merchen, NR, Bauer, LL, et al. (2001) The ratio of insoluble to soluble fiber components in soybean hulls affects ileal and total tract nutrient digestibilities and fecal characteristics of dogs. J Nutr 131, 1978–1985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diez, M, Hornick, J, Baldwin, P & Istasse, L (1997) Influence of a blend of fructo-oligosaccharides and sugar beet fibre on nutrients digestibility and plasma metabolites concentration in healthy Beagles. Am J Vet Res 58, 1238–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diez, M, Hornick, J, Baldwin, P, Van Eenaeme, C & Istasse, L (1998) The influence of sugar-beet fibre, guar gum and inulin on nutrient digestibility, water consumption and plasma metabolites in healthy beagle dogs. Res Vet Sci 64, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flickinger, EA, Wolf, BW, Garleb, KA, et al. (2000) Glucose-based oligosaccharides exhibit different in vitro fermentation patterns and affect in vivo apparent nutrient digestibility and microbial populations in dogs. J Nutr 130, 1267–1273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, GR & Roberfroid, MB (1995) Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J Nutr 125, 1401–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griess, D & Enjalbert, F (1992) Relation entre l'alimentation, le pathologie digestive non infectieuse et la consistance des fèces chez le chien (Relationship between food, non-infectious digestive pathology and the consistency of faeces in the dog). Rev Med Vet 134, 251–254.Google Scholar
Guilford, WG & Strombeck, DR (1996) Classification, pathophysiology and symptomatic treatment of diarrheal diseases. In Strombecks Small Animal Gastroenterology, Third ed., p. 351 [Guilford, W, Center, S, Strombeck, D, Williams, D and Meyer, D, editors]. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Hesta, M, Janssens, GPJ, Debraekeleer, J & De Wilde, R (2001) The effect of oligofructose and inulin on faecal characteristics and nutrient digestibility in healthy cats. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 85, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houdijk, J (1998) Effects of non-digestible oligosaccharides in young pig diets. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands, December 22, p. 144.Google Scholar
Howard, MD, Kerley, MS, Sunvold, GD & Reinhart, GA (2000) Source of dietary fiber fed to dogs affects nitrogen and energy balance and intestinal microflora populations. Nutr Res 20, 1473–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussein, H, Flickinger, E & Fahey, G (1999) Petfood applications of inulin and oligofructose. J Nutr 129, 1454S–1456S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussein, HS & Sunvold, GD (2000) Dietary strategies to decrease dog and cat fecal odor components. In Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, vol. 3, Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings, pp. 153–168 [Reihart, G and Carey, D, editors]. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press.Google Scholar
Kotb, AR & Luckey, TD (1972) Markers in nutrition. Nutr Abstr Rev 42, 813–845.Google ScholarPubMed
Lupton, JR & Marchant, LJ (1989) Independent effects of fiber and protein on colonic luminal ammonia concentration. J Nutr 119, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, GT & Cummings, JH (1991) The colonic flora, fermentation and large bowel digestive function. In The Large Intestine: Physiology, Pathophysiology and Disease, pp. 51–92 [Phillips, SF, Pemberton, JH and Shorter, RG, editors]. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Martineau, B & Laflamme, DP (2002) Effect of diet on markers of intestinal health in dogs. Res Vet Sci 72, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, V (1969) Some observations on the distribution and origin of nitrogen in sheep faeces. J Agric Sci 73, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastall, RA, Fuller, R, Gaskins, HR & Gibson, GR (2000) Colonic functional foods. In Functional Foods: Concept to Product, p. 78 [Gibson, GR and Williams, CM, editors]. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Reinhart, G, Moxley, R & Clemens, E (1994) Source of dietary fiber and its effect on colonic microstructure, function and histopathology of beagle dogs. J Nutr 124, 2701S–2703S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhart, G & Sunvold, G (1998) New methods for managing canine chronic renal failure. In Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition, vol. 2, Iams Nutrition Symposium Proceedings, pp. 395–404 [Reihart, G and Carey, D, editors]. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press.Google Scholar
Roberfroid, M & Delzenne, N (1998) Dietary fructans. Annu Rev Nutr 18, 117–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneeman, B (1999) Fiber, inulin and oligofructose: similarities and differences. J Nutr 129, 1424S–1427S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silvio, J, Harmon, D, Gross, K & McLeod, K (2000) Influence of fiber fermentability on nutrient digestion in the dog. Nutrition 16, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strickling, J, Harmon, D, Dawson, K & Gross, K (2000) Evaluation of oligosaccharide addition to dog diets: influences on nutrient digestion and microbial populations. Anim Feed Sci Technol 86, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunvold, GD, Fahey, GC Jr, Merchen, NR, et al. (1995) Dietary fiber for dogs: in vitro fermentation of selected fiber sources by dog fecal inoculum and in vivo digestion and metabolism of fiber-supplemented diets. J Anim Sci 73, 1099–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, KS, Grieshop, CM, Flickinger, EA, Merchen, NR & Fahey, GC Jr (2002) Effects of supplemental fructooligosaccharides and mannanoligosaccharides on colonic microbial populations, immune function and fecal odor components in the canine. J Nutr 132, 1717S–1719S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terada, A, Hara, H, Kataoka, M & Mitsuoka, T (1992) Effect of dietary lactosucrose on fecal flora and fecal metabolites of dogs. Microb Ecol Health Dis 5, 43–50.Google Scholar
Zentek, J (2000) Bacterienflora des caninen Intestinaltrakts (Bacterial flora of canine digestive tracts). Kleintierpraxis 45, 523–534.Google Scholar
Zentek, J, Marquart, B & Pietrzak, T (2002) Intestinal effects of mannanoligosaccharides, transgalactooligosaccharides, lactose and lactulose in dogs. J Nutr 132, 1682S–1684S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinn, R & Owens, F (1986) A rapid procedure for purine measurement and its use for estimating net ruminal protein synthesis. Can J Anim Sci 66, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar