EXTRUDED PET FOOD PRODUCT

Abstract

The present invention relates to an extruded pet food product for use in pet animal health. The present invention relates to an extruded packaged pet food product containing from over 15% to 30% moisture, from 11% up to 45% carbohydrate, fat and protein, an aw of over 0.7, for use in pet animal health. The invention also relates to a method of health in an animal, the method comprising feeding an extruded packaged pet food product containing from over 15% to 30% moisture, from 11% up to 45% carbohydrate, an aw of over 0.9, and a density in the range of 250 to 300 g/l to a pet animal.

Claims

1. An extruded packaged pet food product for improving the health of a pet animal, comprising: about 15% to about 30% moisture; about 11% to about 45% carbohydrate; a fat; a protein; and an a.sub.w of over 0.7.

2. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the extruded product has no ingredient applied after extrusion.

3. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the extruded product has about 20% to about 27% moisture.

4. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the extruded product has about 15% to about 20% moisture.

5. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the extruded product has about 18% moisture.

6. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the a.sub.w is greater than 0.8.

7. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the pet animal is a cat or a dog.

8. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, comprising about 13% to about 17% of the carbohydrate.

9. The extruded pet food product of claim 1, wherein the product further comprises an acid.

10. The extruded pet food product of claim 9, wherein the product comprises about 0.5% to about 10% of the acid.

11. The extruded pet food product of claim 9, wherein the acid is lactic acid.

12-13. (canceled)

14. A method for improving the oral health of a pet animal, comprising: feeding the pet animal an extruded packaged pet food product that includes about 15% to about 30% moisture, about 11% to about 45% carbohydrate, a fat, a protein, and an a.sub.w of over 0.7.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein oral plaque of the pet animal is reduced.

Description

[0061] In terms of shelf stability, the peroxide value of the product is preferably less than 10 mEq/kg fat (Eq is the equivalent to O.sub.2). The Hexanal content is less than 15 ppm. The present invention is described in FIGS. 1 to 8, in which:

[0062] FIG. 1 shows the process for producing an extruded package pet food product of the claimed invention.

[0063] FIG. 2 is a graphical representation of the food intake of Beagle dogs fed either the adult control product or the adult test product. The first, second, third and fourth meal food intake are measured from the bottom of the graph up.

[0064] FIG. 3 is a graphical representation of the meal consumed by Beagle dogs over a 12 hour period fed either the test food product (SHS) or control food product (Medium). The bars to the left of the pair of bars is the control pet food product (Medium) and the bars on the right are the test pet food product (SHS).

[0065] FIG. 4 is a graphical representation of the percent amount the Beagle dogs consumed of the test food product (SHS) versus the control food product (Medium).

[0066] FIG. 5 is a graphical representation of the plaque on the dogs fed either the control food product or the test food product.

[0067] FIG. 6 is a graphical representation of the percentage of surface plaque at 10 days on the Beagle dogs fed the control product versus the test food product.

[0068] FIG. 7a and FIG. 7b is a graphical representation of the kinetic ingestion of the control pet food product versus the test pet food product in Schnauzer dogs.

[0069] FIG. 8 shows an image of the control pet food product versus the test food product.

EXAMPLE

[0070] The present invention can be described with reference to the following non-limiting examples.

Objective

[0071] The aim of this trial was to assess the effect of an extruded product according to the invention. The comparison is between a product with the same ingredients produced by different technologies and having the formula as set out below:

TABLE-US-00001 Test Product % as fed g/M cal H2O 25+/−0.5 84.6 PB 22.27 75.4 Fat 6.55 22.2 Crude Fiber 1.12 3.8 TDF 4.72 16.0 Starch 35.72 120.9 Ash 4.91 16.6 Energy URC 2006 2954 (kcal/kg) Energy (dry weight) 2741 (kcal/kg)

TABLE-US-00002 Control/Dry Product % as fed g/M cal H2O 9.5 24.6 PB 25.21 65.3 Fat 13.95 36.1 Crude Fiber 1.25 3.2 TDF 5.26 13.6 Starch 39.37 101.9 Ash 5.61 14.5 Energy URC 2006 3863 (kcal/kg) Energy (dry weight) 3625 (kcal/kg)

Conditions

[0072] The test product of the invention was produced using the following process:

[0073] Preconditioner settings included a product with 29% moisture.

[0074] The product was extracted under a temperature of around 125° C. and a pressure of around 20 bar.

[0075] The product was extracted into superheated steam atmosphere of between 120-140° C.

[0076] The product had a round shape, with dimensions of 13 mm, thickness of 7 mm and a die plate which was round, having dimensions of 7.3 mm.

[0077] The process is diagrammatically represented in FIG. 1.

Protocol

[0078] A two product ranking test was conducted. Two products were used according to the above formula.

[0079] The design used for the test was a random crossover test. Each week, dogs had three meals (kinetics) with one of the two diets (the test or the control). The following week, the alternative test or control diet was used.

[0080] A description of the test is set out as follows:

[0081] The outcome was that there was a total food intake in kcal/kg.sup.0.75 at each kinetic.

[0082] The test was carried out on 10 adult Beagle dogs. The dogs had access to unlimited water.

[0083] The energy allowance was: [0084] 120 kcal/kg.sup.0,75 compounds to 100% of the Energy Requirement [0085] 240 kcal/kg.sup.0,75corresponds to 200% of the Energy Requirement

[0086] The results also included the fact that in terms of digestibility, neither diarrhoea nor constipation was observed.

Product Production

[0087] The ingredients for the product, as described above were mixed and extruded. For the test product, the product was produced with at least a part of the product being conducted under super heated steam as described above. The control diet was dried and a coating of fat and palatants, typical of a dried kibble added (poultry fat).

[0088] The results are shown in FIG. 2.

[0089] FIG. 2 shows that the test diet is eaten at 43% less than the control diet.

[0090] Further results are seen in FIG. 3

[0091] FIG. 3 shows that the satiety effect appears after the first meal (34% decrease of meal consumption).

[0092] Further results are shown in FIG. 4

[0093] FIG. 4 shows that the superior palatability of the products confirm that the satiety cannot be explained by a less palatable product, but the combination of the low energy diet and a soft texture which tends to increase the time between meals

Oral Hygiene Test

[0094] A two product ranking test was performed with 7 Schnauzer dogs. The dogs were scaled and polished two weeks before the beginning of the study. The dogs were fed the control diet over a 10 day period and then fed the test product for ten days. For both diet periods, the dental plaque deposit was brushed before the first meal and monitored after the meal on day 10 (percentage of surface plaque).

[0095] Further results are shown in FIG. 5.

[0096] FIG. 5 shows a reduction of plaque on the dogs' teeth fed the test product versus the control pet food. The teeth of the dogs fed the control diet had more plaque visible in the photo then what was seen on the teeth of the dogs fed the test diet.

[0097] Further results are shown in FIG. 6.

[0098] FIG. 6 shows significant 17.2% reduction in plaque over 10 days in dogs fed the test pet food product versus the control.

[0099] Further results are shown in FIG. 7.

[0100] FIG. 7 (A) and (B) shows that the dogs fed the test product pet food versus the control fed dogs took longer to ingest the pet food (significant increase of 19.1%); thereby increasing the time for mastication and reducing the amount of plaque that forms on the dogs' teeth.

[0101] Further results are shown in FIG. 8.

[0102] FIG. 8 shows the appearance of the test product pet food versus the control pet food product.