Table 1.
Dry | Semimoist | Wet | Homemade | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Moisture range | <14% | 14% to 60% | >60% | Variable |
Pros | Storage | Storage | Source of dietary water and hydration |
Enjoyable for both owners and pets |
Ease of use | Ease of use | Greatest palatability | Higher sense of involvement in pets’ health for owners |
|
No spoilage enabling free choice feeding |
Higher palatability than dryer pet food |
High level of proteins on dry-matter basis |
Feeling for owners to better understand the ingredients used |
|
Dental health | - | Easier to chew (when dental issues) |
- | |
Cheapest on cost-per-calorie basis |
- | - | - | |
Cons | Lower palatability than moister pet food | Readily available monosaccharides (diabetic pets) |
Most expensive on cost-per-calorie basis |
Often nutritionally inadequate and deficient |
- | - | - | Recipes not always properly observed by owners |
|
- | - | - | More expensive than dry products on cost-per-calorie basis |
|
References | [5,28,29] | [5] | [5,28,29] | [29,30,31] |