PS7-7. Interlaboratory Variability in Total Dietary Fiber Measurements in Fresh Refrigerated Dog Foods.

Clicks: 14
ID: 330598
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #407 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Total dietary fiber (TDF) is now a required nutrient listing under the Pet Food Label Modernization Act published in the American Feed Control Officials’ 2024 Official Publication. TDF analysis is complex and can produce variable results depending on method modifications and food matrices. These challenges may be particularly pronounced in fresh meat-based pet foods, which differ substantially from the cereal-based matrices for which many TDF methods were originally developed. These pet food products are typically characterized by high moisture, high protein, and relatively low intrinsic fiber concentrations, conditions that may or may not contribute to analytical variability. The objective of this study was to evaluate interlaboratory variability in TDF measurements in fresh refrigerated dog foods. A total of 7 roasted meals and 6 rolls were analyzed in triplicate by three ISO-17025 accredited commercial laboratories (A, B, and C), all using AOAC Method 991.43 with some laboratory-specific procedural modifications. All laboratories defatted the samples before fiber analysis, and TDF was calculated as the sum of insoluble dietary fiber and soluble dietary fiber. Triplicate results were averaged prior to statistical analyses performed using R (v. 4.5.2). Due to intrinsic formulation differences, roasted meals and rolls data were analyzed separately. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, while p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 were considered trends. Despite the use of a comparable analytical method, significant differences were observed among laboratories in reported TDF values. For roasted meals, Lab A reported lower average TDF than Lab B (3.06% vs. 4.40%, as-is) and showed a tendency toward lower values than Lab C (3.06% vs. 3.92%, as-is). There were no statistical differences between Labs B and C for roasted meals. For rolls, TDF values differed significantly between Labs B and C (3.18% vs. 2.12%, as-is, respectively), while no significant differences were observed between Lab A and the other labs. Notably, the laboratory reporting the lowest TDF values differed between roasted meals and rolls; Lab A reported the lowest TDF values for roasted meals, whereas Lab C reported the lowest values for rolls. These results demonstrate that substantial interlaboratory variability may occur when measuring TDF in fresh pet foods, even when a comparable validated method is used. The findings highlight the analytical challenges associated with meat-based matrices and suggest the need for improved standardization and metric specific analytical considerations to ensure reliable fiber quantification.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214778465 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Taija Stoner‐Harris, Chris Almon, Steven Buskaritz, R. A. Donadelli, Gabriela Magossi, Kayla Henry, Dustin Keys, Eden Ephraim
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.459
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.459
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.