192 Evaluation of Textural Characteristics (Texture Profile Analysis and Shear force) on Commercial Training Pet Treats

Abstract

Abstract Characteristics like scent, flavor, and texture can impact pet treat acceptability. Pet owners rely on personal organoleptic preferences of texture to judge treat quality, and subsequently determine desire to purchase. However, quantitative textural data for commercially available pet treats is currently limited and hard to find since companies that normally measure textural parameters in their products typically keep that information for their own use. This information is important for further investigation regarding product development and sensory evaluation to determine pet preferences and purchasing decisions. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate different textural characteristics of commercially available training treats that serve as a reference to manufacture new pet food products. Six different commercial brands (brand 1, brand 2, brand 3, brand 4, brand 5, and brand 6) were randomly selected from local pet stores. A TA-HDplusC texture analyzer was used to conduct a texture profile analysis (TPA) using a TA-30 probe, while the shear force (SF) test was performed using a TA-42 45° angle chisel blade probe (n = 10 samples per test per product). Data were analyzed as a 1-way ANOVA using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS ver. 9.4 with mean separation with the PDIFF option at P ≤ 0.05. Significant differences of TPA and SF test parameters were observed among commercial brands of training treats except for chewiness which was similar among all brands. When products were subjected to the TPA test, brand 1 required the maximum force to deform the treats (P < 0.001). Therefore, brands 1 and 2 had the greatest adhesion to the probe (P < 0.001). For resilience, brands 1 and 2 had greater ability to regain the original form, but brand 2 was similar to brands 4 and 6 (P = 0.023). Brands 1 and 2 had cohesiveness values, but these were similar to brand 6 (P = 0.002). For springiness, brands 1, 2, and 6 had greater values (P = 0.0196), but brand 6 was similar to brands 4 and 5. However, brands 1, 2, and 6 had the greatest height recovered after compression among all brands (P = 0.020). Regarding the SF test, brand 2 were firmer and tougher than all other brands (P < 0.001). Textural differences were observed among different training treats brands; however, treats from certain brands shared similar textural characteristics. Overall, brands 1 and 2 typically had the greater values for the textural parameters evaluated. Moreover, textural data on commercially available training treats was generated, so quantitative data of commercially available training treats can be used as a reference to manufacture new pet treats. Likewise, future consumer sensory panel research into preferred textural characteristics by pet owners is warranted.