1. bookVolume 18 (2018): Issue 3 (July 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Do insects smell attractive to dogs? A comparison of dog reactions to insects and commercial feed aromas – a preliminary study

Published Online: 01 Aug 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 18 (2018) - Issue 3 (July 2018)
Page range: 795 - 800
Received: 09 Nov 2017
Accepted: 06 Feb 2018
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The goal of the present study was to investigate the olfactory attractiveness of air-dried insects used as aromas to dogs. The trial consisted of 35 adult dogs (20 males, 15 females) aged between 12 months and 7 years (mean = 3.6), varied in terms of breed, kept as companion animals. The dogs had free olfactory access to selected unprocessed dried insects, i.e., mealworm (Tenebrio molitor), Turkestan cockroach (Shelfordella lateralis), black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), and tropical house cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus), as well as commercial dried and pelleted dog feed, which was used as a control treatment. Samples (100 g) were located separately in non transparent closed boxes with 5 perforations in the cover (7 mm each) to improve the intensity of the aromas without direct contact with the tested samples. The box was recorded as chosen when the dog showed interest in it for more than 15 seconds continuously per each attempt (3 attempts per dog). The presented study shows that the selected insect species were chosen as frequently as the control group (P=0.03). However, in terms of preferences by dog gender, Tenebrio molitor was favored more often by males than by females, which preferred Shelfordella lateralis. The current preliminary data suggest that the olfactory features of the selected insect species may be attractive to dogs.

Keywords

Bradshaw J.W. (1986). Mere exposure reduces cats’neophobia to unfamiliar food. Anim. Behav., 34: 613-614.Search in Google Scholar

Chen M., Chen X., Nsor-Atindana J., Masamba K.G., Ma J., Zhong F. (2017). Optimization of key aroma compounds for dog food attractant. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 225: 173-181.Search in Google Scholar

Donfrancesco B. Di, Koppel K., Chambers E. (2012). An initial lexicon for sensory properties of dry dog food. J. Sens. Stud., 27: 498-510.Search in Google Scholar

Guerra C.C.M. (2015). Preferencias alimentarias en perros: effecto del sexo, raza, edad peso sobre la eleccion de dietas comerciales. Dissertation. Univesidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Search in Google Scholar

Houpt K.A., Hintz H.F., Shepherd P. (1978). The role of olfaction in canine food preferences. Chem. Sens., 3: 281-290.Search in Google Scholar

Józefiak A., Engberg R.M. (2017). Insect proteins asapotential source of antimicrobial peptides in livestock production. Areview. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 26: 87-99.Search in Google Scholar

Józefiak D., Józefiak A., Kierończyk B., Rawski M., Świątkiewicz S., Dłu- gosz J., Engberg R.M. (2016). Insects -anatural nutrient source for poultry -areview. Ann. Anim. Sci., 16: 297-313.Search in Google Scholar

Koppel K. (2014). Sensory analysis of pet foods. J. Sci. Food Agr., 94: 2148-2153.Search in Google Scholar

McCay C.M. (1949). Nutrition of the dog. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, New York, pp. 210-211.Search in Google Scholar

Sawosz-Chwalibóg E., Kosieradzka I. (2012) Editors. Wild animal nutrition. Mammals (in Polish). SGGW Publishing, Warsaw, pp. 391-399.Search in Google Scholar

Verbeke W., Spranghers T., Clercq P. De, Smet S. De, Sas B., Eeckhout M. (2015). Insects in animal feed: Acceptance and its determinants among farmers, agriculture sector stakeholders and citizens. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 204: 72-87.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo