The systemic approach in dog palatability

Transcription

1 The systemic approach in dog palatability PET FOOD Cécile SAINT-PAUL Product Development Manager SPF North America

2 Agenda The systemic approach in dog palatability Introduction I- The dog s sense of smell II- Olfaction as a driver for new product development III- Other palatability drivers for dogs IV- The systemic approach Conclusion

3 Introduction

4 Cat and dog feeding particularities Cat Feeding behavior Obligate carnivorous Very selective Several small meals per day Eat all day long including the night Dog Feeding behavior Omnivorous Chews Eats a few large meals (1 or 2 daily) Prefers eating during daylight

5 Meal sequence and choice criteria Selection Importance of smell Dogs start to sniff and will choose rapidly Prehension Importance of size & form Takes the food with teeth Likes smooth surface Chewing Importance of texture Dogs chew kibbles Sensitive to kibble moisture Perception Importance of taste Detects the 5 tastes Preference for sweet taste. Digestion Importance of nutritional profile Adapted to digest complex carbohydrates

6 I- The dog s sense of smell

7 The famous dog s sense of smell Dog s have a high-performing olfactory sense Used daily to make food choices Used to hunt With training, dogs can also: Track people Detect drugs or explosives (Gazit & Terkel, 2003) Detect human cancer (Willis et al, 2004) A highly developed sense of smell = Physiological reasons x training

8 The importance of sniffing Different pathways to smell odors Nasal pathway: Inhalation flow:100ml/s speed: 1m/s Retro nasal pathway: Exhalation (olfaction + taste) Flow rate is essential for the response to odors in dogs (Tonosaki & Tucker, 1985; Mainland & Sobel, 2006) Sniffing: Inhalation flow:1l/s speed: 10m/s (adapted from Vadurel & Gogny, 1997)

9 Internal factors impacting olfaction Dogs are able to detect some substances at concentrations 1000 to 1 million times lower than humans Surface of olfactory epithelia (cm²) is an indicator of olfaction capabilities However, dogs are not equal 100 cm² 200 cm² 50 cm² 1 cm² 20 cm² (Vadurel, 1997; Dodd&Squirrel, 1980)

10 External factors impacting ability to smell Environmental factors Weather conditions (temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure) Pollution Level of exposure Health Condition factors Physical activity Stress Illness and lesions (dysosmies) Veterinary treatments (Vadurel, 1997)

11 Canine olfactory receptors gene characteristics Number, diversity and expression level of Olfactory Receptors genes are considered as a distinctive characteristic High level of polymorphism between breeds, heterogeneous levels of polymorphism within one breed (Robin et al.,2009). Similar cluster organization in dog and humans The dog olfactory receptors genome appears to be around 30% larger than in humans Human preserved genes area Canine Olfactory Receptors sequences (Quignon et al, 2003)

12 II- Olfaction as a driver for new product development

13 Olfaction and palatability testing Strong role of olfaction in food intake - Attractive odors will initiate food intake - Anosmic dogs will not show preferences between different meat species, whereas intact dogs will (Houpt & al., 1978) Two criteria are measured in versus palatability tests: - Consumption Ratio - First Choice = 1 st food tasted by the animal driven by sense of smell

14 Olfaction and palatability testing Panelis France Panelis Brasil Panelis kennels statistical analysis per year: 1st choice & Consumption Ratios correlation % % % % % 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% More than 80% tests show identical response between 1 st choice and consumption ratio.

15 A new ongoing innovative approach (David, 2010; Schieberle, 1995) Human detection of compounds with high olfactive impact by GC/Olfactometry Background Our Goals - To Odorant verify if molecules and how the are volatile selection by of nature the key odorants selected by humans are perceived by dogs - Utilize To explore modern whether flavor some analytical compounds techniques play to a understand, more important identify role and than quantify others the in relevant the dogs odorants selection for and dogs preference - Use To indentify a human the nose bio-chemical as the first screener pathways / of detector these compounds and formulate PEs

16 A new ongoing innovative approach (David, 2010; Schieberle, 1995) STEP 1. Extraction of the volatile compounds STEP 2. Detection of volatiles with high olfactive impact STEP 3. Determination of their dilution factor GC-O principle (Picture of Steinhaus, 2000)

17 A new ongoing innovative approach (David, 2010; Schieberle, 1995) STEP 4. Identification of compounds by GC & MS and Quantification C Calibration line Cu Au Peak area STEP 5. Determination of their Odor Activity Value STEP 6. Recombination Compounds formation pathways identification Chemical synthesis Palatant reformulation in different substrates using omissions methodology

18 cooked potato 3,00 A new ongoing innovative approach sulfury 2,00 1,00 pungent (David, 2010; Schieberle, 1995) STEP 7. Sensorial analysis butter 0,00 cheese caramel cooked potato 3,00 meat Recombination of D'Tech in water Recombination of D'Tech in triacetin sulfury 2,00 pungent Palatability enhancer D'Tech 1,00 0,00 butter cheese Recombination of D'Tech in water caramel meat Recombination of D'Tech in triacetin From previous steps 15 aromatic compounds have been selected They have been recombined in different solutions Palatability enhancer D'Tech with a 20 experts human panel, aromatic description of recombinations have been compared to the formal palatant

19 A new ongoing innovative approach (David, 2010; Schieberle, 1995) STEP 8. Palatability tests Versus tests with treats methodology Coated solutions are recombined palatants with different aromatic compounds omissions to define their impact in dog preference 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Recombined D'Tech versus Recombinations with different omissions st Taken 1st Consumed 1st Finished R PAL1 O11 O12 Example of results: Some molecules have no impact Some molecules have a positive impact Some molecules have a negative impact Volatiles strongly contribute to palatability in dogs they are necessary but not sufficient

20 III- Other palatability drivers for dogs

21 Consumption ratio (%) Moisture level of the kibble Effect of spraying water before 6% fat application on dog kibbles (no PE applied) No water VS 0.5% *** *** * No water VS 0.5% 27 No water VS 1% *** *** *** No water VS 1% No water VS 2% No water VS 2% 34 * *** % VS 1% 0.5% VS 1% No water added 0.5% sprayed water 1% sprayed water 2% sprayed water *** p < ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 An increase of 0.5% of moisture will trigger a significant difference

22 Fat usage for coating Consumption ratio (%) Effect of the nature and quality of the fat on dog palatability *** Different suppliers 2. Different stabilizations 22 ** Difference fat species Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Fat A (specie 1) Fat B (specie 1) Fat A stabilised (specie 1) Fat A NOT stabilised (specie 1) Fat A (specie 1) Fat C (specie 2) Fat application stimulates positive olfactory receptors and contributes to a more moist texture Fat quality is key to not deteriorate palatability Nature of fat can impact palatability

23 Texture impact Texture is impacted by the initial moisture of the kibble and the amount of coating (fat and PE added) Penetrometry Kibble moisture 4% Kibble moisture 6% + 6% Fat Kibble moisture 6% + 6% fat + 4% liquid PE Maximal Strength decrease Penetration increase Penetration increase

24 Kibble pore structure impact Mercury volume (ml g-1 extrudate matrix) 0.08 Pore Volumes distribution Fat and liquid PE coating effect Fat coating effect E Log (pore diameter (µm)) HD0 = uncoated kibble HD1 = 3% fat + 1% Dry PE applied HD2 = 3% fat + 3% liquid PE + 1% dry PE applied 24 Mercury injection in kibble pores Porosimetry methodology: Liquid Coating palatant with fat application reduces the equalizes global pore the pore volume volumes filling distribution of pores by with fat Doubling filling the quantity kibble pores of fat does not further impact the structure Pores size and distribution determined according to needed pressure to inject changing kibble protein/ starch network structure

25 IV The systemic Approach Best association and expression of the drivers

26 The palatability equation Palatability equation = Σ (a.odor + b.texture + c.taste + ) 3.Liquid PE 4. Powder PE 2. Fat 1- New inclusion solutions Key for nest expression texture, taste and coating Strongly contributes to smell and taste properties Completes the smell and taste characteristics

27 In hancer: palatability from inclusion % Consumption ratio (after 2 months) Kibble formulation Process Texture, taste and odor impact In hancer inclusion = 2 incorporation possibilities - Addition - Substitution & Reformulation Benefits *** *** *** 15% In'hancer 10% In'hancer 7,5% In'hancer -Increased palatability -Increased digestibility - Quality standardization - Less cost fluctuation - Possibility of monitoring specifications - Easy handling - Adapted to all extruders - No major investments - No process over cost

28 Fat & Liquid dosages best expression Liquid PE dosage (%) Consumtion ratios Objective: to establish the best fat and liquid dosages combinations Statistical tool: Composite plan experimental design Parameters : Fixed: kibble, fat reference, Liquid reference Variables: Liquid & fat dosage Fat dosage: 3% - 8% Liquid dosage : 0.5% - 4% Response: consumption ratio Palatability increases significantly with increases fat dosage with In studied conditions, 2 liquid PE dosage expected palatability level But this benefit is not statistically 1,5 can be predicted significant P-value = , Palatability level ,5 1 oconsumtion ratios r a t i o _ p r o t r a t i o _ p r o t o Fat 0 dosage (%) Fat dosages Liquid PE dosages Equation: *X *Y *X*X *Y*Y *X*Y

29 Liquid + Powder best association Powder Liquid dosage have exhibits a In linear the a quadratic studied impact system response palatability Lower Higher Powder and is the dose higher liquid impacts dosages dosage, more have better palatability the is best palatability impact than liquid in palatability level Objective: to define the L+P combinations that lead to highest consumption ratios Statistical tool: Composite plan experimental design Parameters : Fixed: kibble, fat, moisture, Liquid reference, powder reference Variables: Liquid & powder dosage Powder dosage: 0.5% - 1,5% Liquid dosage : 0.5% - 4% Response: consumption ratio 75/25 60/40 50/50 75/25 60/40 50/50 LIQUID DOSAGE 0.5% 4% POWDER DOSAGE 1.5% 0.5%

30 Conclusion

31 Conclusion and perspectives Kibble moisture control Key aroma targets Palatant Kibble Process Kibble size and shape Kibble base effect (texture, structure ) Dog Specificities Target dog populations (age, size, breed ) Palatability Target diets (light, hypo, indoor, urinary ) Palatant usage optimization Good fat usage Application Measurement Continuous improvement of methodologies Dietary past impact

32 Conclusion and perspectives The canine population is a wide target to satisfy It requires an overall expertise to manage the various palatability drivers Specific solutions can thus be created to meet each dog s specificities or almost!

33 Thank You Cécile SAINT-PAUL Product Development Manager Cell: (864) SPF North America Hwy 25 N Hodges, SC Tel: (864) Fax: (864)