Qualitative and quantitative detection of chicken deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in dry dog foods

Next Generation Sequencing-based DNA metabarcoding for animal species profiling in fish feed

The expansion of worldwide aquaculture has been accompanied by extensive growth in the fish feed industry. However, improper labelling of many commercially available fish feeds has raised security and safety concerns over the species' origin of the ingredients. The inclusion of ruminants-derived ingredients in fish feed is prohibited according to EU legislation while porcine inclusion in fish feed has been a great concern among Muslim farmers. In contrast to the limited species that could be simultaneously determined using multiplex PCR, this study utilised Next Generation Sequencing-based DNA metabarcoding assay to determine the compositional profiles of animal species in fish feed samples in a more holistic manner. In relation to the religious issue associated with porcine-derived ingredients in fish feed, this study firstly aimed to determine the sensitivity of the methods in profiling fish feed adulterated with porcine blood and muscle tissues. Next, 10 commercially available fish feed samples were analysed. As a result, a detection limit of as low as 3% (w/w) porcine muscle and blood in the laboratory-prepared fish feed was obtained. The analysis of 10 commercial fish feeds shows surprising findings: 50% of the feeds contain Sus scrofa and 80% contain Bos taurus, a ruminant. Only one commercial fish feed was found to be solely composed of marine species. This study shows that commercial fish feeds sold in Malaysia contain undesirable animal species, and emphasises the need for accurate and legally enforced labelling of mammalian species in fish feed products.

Detection of chicken DNA in commercial dog foods

BACKGROUND

These days the number of potential food allergens is very large, but chicken is one of the most common allergens in dogs. Elimination diet is one of the clinical tools for the diagnosis of allergies and allergy tests are not very reliable. The restriction diet is most commonly carried out by feeding pet foods, relying on the ingredients on the label to select an elimination diet not containing previously eaten foods. Unfortunately, mislabeling of pet food is quite common. The purpose of this study was to determine the absence or presence of chicken DNA using both qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis methods in dry and wet maintenance complete pet foods for adult dogs. Results were used to verify the declared composition on the labels.

RESULTS

Eleven out of fifteen (73%) dog foods were produced as declared by the manufacturer, two of which showed the presence of chicken protein as stated on the label. The remaining nine foods contained amounts of chicken DNA below 1%, consistent with declarations that no chicken was added in the composition. Four of tested dog foods (27%) were not produced consistently with the declaration on the packaging. Two dog foods (one dry and one wet) did not contain the claimed chicken protein. In two foods the addition of chicken DNA was detected at the level of over 2% and almost 6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we focused on one of the most commonly undeclared animal species on the label-chicken protein-and performed DNA analyzes to investigate possible contamination and mislabeling. The results showed some inaccuracies. However, most of them are trace amounts below 1%, which proves compliance with the label. Our results showed that undeclared animal species can be as common as missing an animal protein declared on the label. The conducted research indicates that both dry and wet analyzed foods should not be recommended as a diagnostic tool in elimination tests, because it may result in false negative results. Over-the-counter maintenance foods for dogs should not be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of food hypersensitivity.