Cited by 44Animal Nutrition and PhysiologyVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryAquaculture Nutrition and Growth

Nutrient digestibility, but not mineral absorption, is age-dependent in cats: Mineral absorption and digestibility in young and old cats

Teshima, E., Brunetto, M. A., Vasconcellos, R. S., Gonçalves, K. N. V., De-Oliveira, L. D., Valério, A. G., Carciofi, A. C.·2010·Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition

Abstract

Availability of nutrients is influenced by extremes of age, and a better characterization of this influence is necessary for appropriate development of foods and nutritional management throughout life stages of cats. This study investigated nutrient digestibility, mineral absorption, faeces and urine production in three groups of six young, mature and old cats fed two diets containing different energy densities. Apparent digestibility and mineral absorption were calculated by total collection method and values were tested with anova and regression analysis. A quadratic relationship was detected between age and digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, acid-hydrolysed fat and starch in the low-energy diet. Starch digestibility showed the same response in the high-energy diet. Young adult cats had intermediate digestibility, mature cats the highest and old cats the lowest. Mineral absorption (calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride) and urinary pH were not different among groups. These findings confirm previous studies that found low digestibility of nutrients in some old cats, and support evidence that this trend is even more important in less digestible dry foods. On the contrary, data suggest that mineral formulations do not need to be varied in diets for adult cats of different ages.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2009.00964.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teshima, E., Brunetto, M. A., Vasconcellos, R. S., Gonçalves, K. N. V., De-Oliveira, L. D., Valério, A. G., & Carciofi, A. C.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
Venue
Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-15
Volume
94
Issue
6
Pages
e251-e258
ISSN
0931-2439 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1914620631
Cited by
44
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acervo Digital da Universidade Estadual Paulista (Universidade Estadual Paulista) (submittedVersion)
  • UNESP Institutional Repository (São Paulo State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Keywords
cats, age-related changes, nutrient digestibility, mineral absorption, apparent digestibility, fecal output, urine output, urine pH, energy density, dry matter digestibility, crude protein digestibility, starch digestibility, fat digestibility, feline nutrition, senior cats
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Cats, Diet, Digestion, Female, Male, Minerals

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