The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methods of prediction of the digestible energy content of dog foods from gross energy value, proximate analysis and digestive nutrient content
Abstract
The data from 106 digestibility trials with dogs were analysed with the objective of developing a predictive relationship between in vivo digestible energy (DE) content of foods and analytical components. The foods were commercial formulations arranged into three categories (wet, intermediate‐moisture and dry) on the basis of water content and ingredient profile. Mean (n=106) apparent crude protein, acid ether extract and nitrogen‐free extract digestibility coefficients were 0.81, 0.85 and 0.79, respectively. The use of modified Atwater factors to predict food metabolisable energy (ME) gave values 104, 99 and 109% of in‐vivo DE values for wet, intermediate‐moisture and dry foods and thus over‐estimated food energy value. Sixteen single function or multiple regression equations were generated predicting DE content of each dog food category from gross energy (GE), Atwater ME, proximate components and digestible nutrient content. The DE content of wet and intermediate‐moisture foods was estimated with high precision using the single function of GE. Coefficients of determination (R2) for significant (P< 0.001) linear regression equations were 0.96 and 0.89, respectively. Other useful multiple regression equations were identified between in‐vivo DE and combinations of total and digestible proximate components (R2 > 0.80). Less reliable relationships were obtained for the prediction of DE content of dry dog foods, probably because estimates of fibre content were not included; greatest precision (R2 = 0.60) was obtained for the linear regression between in‐vivo determined DE and analysed GE content.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The original factors in the equation described by Atwater [8] were modified by Kendall et al. [9] for dogs and Kendall et al. [5] for cats.”
From Using Gross Energy Improves Metabolizable Energy Predictive Equations for Pet Foods Whereas Undigested Protein and Fiber Content Predict Stool Quality (2013) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- National Research Council, 1974, Nutrient requirements of dogs, No. 8
- Payne P. R., 1965, Canine and Feline Nutritional Requirements, 19
- Nie R. H., 1975, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 321
- 10.1017/S0021859600071823 · doi:10.1017/s0021859600071823
- Van Es A. J. H., 1980, Methods of Analysis for Predicting the Energy and Protein Value of Feeds for Farm Animals, 33
- Morgan D. J., 1976, First International Symposium, Feed Composition, Animal Nutrient Requirements and Computerisation of Diets, 264
- 10.4141/cjas71-040 · DOI
- 10.1079/PNS19670034 · DOI
Cited by
Hall, J. A., Melendez, L. D., & Jewell, D. E. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054405 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Kendall, P. T., Holme, D. W., & Smith, P. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1982-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 823-831
- ISSN
- 0022-5142
- 1097-0010
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods of prediction of the digestible energy content of dog foods from gross energy value, proximate analysis and digestive nutrient content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jsfa.2740330903
- The paper
- Kendall, P. T., Holme, D. W., & Smith, P. M. (1982). Methods of prediction of the digestible energy content of dog foods from gross energy value, proximate analysis and digestive nutrient content. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740330903
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.