The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Determining metabolizable energy content in commercial pet foods
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the suitability of several equations for the estimation of metabolizable energy (ME) of pet foods. Sixteen canned and 31 dry cat foods and 24 dry dog foods representing the range of energy densities found in commercial adult, growth or all life stage products were evaluated in four separate experiments. In vivo ME was compared with estimates of ME generated by several previously published equations. The results indicated that the equation recommended by Association of American Feed Control Officials provided reasonable estimates of in vivo ME for both canned cat foods and dry dog foods, but proved unsuitable for dry cat foods. Better estimates were generated in each case using other published equations. Of the equations tested, the most accurate equations for estimating ME (kJ/g) without feeding trials were: for canned cat foods: [(16.32 × protein) + (32.22 × fat) + (12.55 × NFE)]; for dry cat foods: [((GE × 1.209) – 1.911) × 4.184] or [((0.075 × g fat) + 2.766) × 4.184] for dry dog foods: [GE=(24 × g protein) + (38 × g fat) + (17 × g NFE), then percentage energy digestibility=91.2 – (1.43 × percentage crude fibre in dry matter), then ME=(GE × percentage energy digestibility) – (4.34 × g protein)]. With the exception of high‐fibre weight‐management diets, the simple equation [((GE × 1.209)–1.911) × 4.184] also reliably predicted ME in dry dog foods.
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
“Because the same formula is used for both dogs and cat foods, irrespective of the relative fiber content or presumed digestibility, calculations may underestimate energy content of highly digestible foods and overestimate those of less digestible foods [2], [10].”
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 [10]
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: 4
- Hashimoto M. Funaba M. Ohshima S. Abe M. 1995:Exp. Anim.44 23–23. · doi:10.1295/kobunshi.44.23
- Kendall P. T. Burger I. H. Smith P. M. 1985:Fel. Pract.15 38–38. · doi:10.1177/004947558501500122
- Kienzle E. Opitz B. Earle K. E. Smith P. M. Maskell I. E. Iben C. 1998:J. Nutr.128(Suppl.) 2806S–2806S. · DOI · Paper page
- Ohshima S. Fukuma Y. Suzuki T. Abe M. 1993:Exp. Anim.42 571–571. · 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
- Laflamme, D. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 7-8
- Pages
- 222-230
- ISSN
- 0931-2439
- 1439-0396
- Cited by
- 34
- 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: Determining metabolizable energy content in commercial pet foods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1439-0396.2001.00330.x
- The paper
- Laflamme, D. P. (2001). Determining metabolizable energy content in commercial pet foods. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0396.2001.00330.x
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.