{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05451866404715128, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03192534381139489, 'mean_word_length': 4.786931818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PSIII-18 Protein efficiency ratios of various dried chicken, egg, and pea proteins used in diets for dogs and cats


 Various ingredients from both animal and plant sources are used to supply indispensable amino acids in pet foods. The proportion and availability of the limiting amino acids is critical when formulating nutritionally complete diets. Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to determine the protein quality of chicken, egg, and pea protein sources using one-day-old broiler chicks as a model. Dietary treatments contained 10% of the protein from spray dried granulated egg powder (SPDEG), spray dried chicken protein isolate (SDCPI), various spray dried chicken proteins (1SDCP, 2SDCP, and P3547), spray dried partially hydrolyzed chicken (SDPHC), spray dried organic chicken protein (SDOCP), spray dried partially hydrolyzed organic chicken (SDHOC), pea protein isolate (PPIHG), a 50:50 blend of PPIHG and SDCPI (PPCPB), or spray dried egg white (HSDEW). A negative control diet (NEGC) contained no added protein source. After seven days acclimation on a starter diet, chicks were grouped by weight into 48 pens with 6 chicks per pen. Treatments were randomly assigned to pens with battery (n = 2) as a blocking factor. Feed consumption and body weight were measured after nine days of feeding experimental diets. Amino acid and proximate composition of each protein source were also analyzed. Treatment means were separated using statistical analysis software (GLIMMIX; SAS 9.4) with significance at P < 0.05. The SDGEP (5.32) had the highest (P < 0.05) protein efficiency ratio value (PER). PPCPB had a greater (P < 0.05) PER than PPIHG (4.02 vs. 1.92); whereas the SDOCP (4.52), SDHOC (4.56), and SDPHC (4.10) did not differ (P > 0.05) in PER from 1SDCP (4.44), 2SDCP (4.52), and P3547 (4.47). In conclusion, PER of pea protein was improved by blending with dried chicken protein isolate and the organic and hydrolyzed chicken products were comparable to non-organic non-hydrolyzed chicken protein products.