Abstract
Quality nutrition for canine species contributes to a large global economic and health care field. Choices abound in terms of the availability of food in any given retail outlet. Likewise, there is copious conjecture surrounding the supposed benefits of certain brands or types over others, especially in the choice of conventional versus grain-free food types. A comparison of nutritive value of feeds relative to ingredient formulation and consumer cost would provide useful insight to the consumer when making selections for canine companion animals. This study sought to ascertain the correlations among ingredient position, nutritive value, and cost of commercially-available dog food. Over the course of February and March of 2019, commercially-available dog food was evaluated at local retail outlets in Stephenville, TX. For each observation, records were made of brand name, formulation, ingredient list, guaranteed nutritive analysis, and cost. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated using PROC CORR, and effect of conventional versus grain-free claims on cost and nutritive value were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS v. 9.4. Order in which meat, meat meal, or corn occurred in the ingredient list was not statistically correlated to cost per kg (P ≥ 0.33) or concentrations of crude protein (P ≥ 0.35), crude fat (P ≥ 0.13), or crude fiber (P ≥ 0.35). Grain-free formulations cost significantly more than conventional formulations ($2.70 vs. $4.60/kg; P < 0.01). However, there was no effect of formulation on concentrations of crude protein (P = 0.07), crude fat (P = 0.37), or crude fiber (P = 0.44). Results are interpreted to mean that, despite claims to the contrary, order of ingredients in a formulation have no observable effect on the nutritive value, but large effects on cost, of commercially-available dog food.
Keywords: dog food, correlation, formulation