Composition and thermal processing evaluation of yeast ingredients as thiamin sources compared to a standard vitamin premix for canned cat food.

Significant improvement in thiamin retention of canned cat food has not been achieved by altering processing conditions. Some ingredients, such as yeasts, may supply thiamin able to withstand thermal processing. Therefore, the study objective was to evaluate yeast ingredients as thiamin sources for canned cat food. Six yeast ingredients were screened for thiamin content, and values ranged from 9.9-4,283.8 mg/kg dry matter basis (DMB). Treatments for thermal processing were arranged as a 2×4 factorial with 2 levels of vitamin premix (with or without) and 4 yeast ingredients (NY = none and LBV, BY, or EA from the ingredient screening). Replicates (n = 3) were processed in a horizontal still retort to an average lethality of 79.23 minutes. Thiamin degradation was analyzed as a mixed model with pre-retort thiamin content as a covariate and production day as a random effect. Main effects of vitamin premix and yeast and their interaction were significant at P-values less than 0.05. The Fisher's LSD post hoc comparison test was used to separate means. On average, experimental formulas retained 33.75% thiamin. The main effect of vitamin premix (average -42.9 mg/kg DMB) was not significant (P > 0.05). Thiamin degradation between NY (-31.3 mg/kg DMB) and BY (-33.8 mg/kg DMB) was similar (P > 0.05) whereas EA (-40.5 mg/kg DMB) and LBV (-55.6 mg/kg DMB) lost more (P < 0.05) thiamin than NY. The experimental formula of EA with vitamin premix (-70.3 mg/kg DMB) lost more (P < 0.05) thiamin than no yeast, BY, or EA without vitamin premix (average -17.4 mg/kg DMB) and all others (average -57.3 mg/kg DMB) were intermediate (P > 0.05). In summary, thiamin from yeast ingredients didn't exhibit better thermal stability than thiamin mononitrate. However, those ingredients with similar degradation levels or uniquely high thiamin levels may provide added value.

Introduction

Cats and other carnivores have a high requirement for thiamin [1] and consumption of a deficient diet can result in paralysis and death within a few weeks [2, 3]. Other observed symptoms of deficiency include impaired learning in young cats [4], low blood levels of transketolase [5], and brain lesions visible with magnetic resonance imaging [6, 7]. Reports in the literature indicate this is a widespread and common problem; a survey of 90 commercially available canned cat foods found that 15.6% of tested products contained less than 5.6 mg/kg thiamin on a dry matter basis (DMB) [8], which is the Association of American Feed Control Officials’ (AAFCO) minimum recommended allowance for maintenance of adult cats [9]. Recalls due to insufficient thiamin have affected prominent companies in the pet food industry. Thus, this is a real and pervasive problem and not simply a function of naive or haphazard production practices.

Thiamin molecules (chemical formula: C12H17N4OS+) consist of a thiazole and a pyrimidine connected with a methylene bridge. The methylene bridge between the two portions of the thiamin molecule is relatively weak and can be destroyed during food processing [10]. Increased temperature and greater processing time decreased retention of thiamin in foods for human consumption [11-13]. These conditions are utilized to achieve commercial sterility, which is required by federal regulations in the United States. Commercial sterility is defined as the condition achieved by the application of heat wherein microorganisms able to reproduce when food is stored in ambient conditions and microorganisms and spores with a public health concern are not present in the food [14]. Foods that control for water activity in addition to the application of heat do not need to consider microorganisms and spores with a public health concern. Most canned pet foods do not control for water activity, so both categories of microorganisms and spores must be taken into account when processing canned pet foods. Therefore, altering processing conditions to minimize thiamin degradation to a significant and meaningful level is unlikely. This leaves the ingredient composition of canned cat food as another avenue.

Thiamin is typically supplied as thiamin mononitrate in a vitamin premix and/or as a separate ingredient. However, other ingredients may provide thiamin in different forms. One example is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a common yeast already used in commercial pet food. Its use as a protein source and as a palatability enhancer in foods for companion animals is documented [15, 16]. In addition, yeast cells have a mechanism to bind thiamin for transport. Researchers isolated binding proteins from young Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells that were able to bind 63.4 picomoles of thiamin per milligram of protein at pH 5.5 [17]. Additionally, genetic analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains used for production of ethanol has identified amplified genes responsible for biosynthesis of thiamin [18]. However, this ingredient category has never been evaluated as a source of thiamin that might provide fortification through the retort process.

The objectives of this experiment were to identify yeast-based ingredients which might function as thiamin sources and to evaluate their effect on thiamin degradation in canned cat food after thermal processing. The hypothesis was that yeast-based sources of thiamin would retain more thiamin after thermal processing compared to thiamin mononitrate.

Materials and methods

Yeast ingredient screening

Six commercial dried yeasts were sourced from companies supplying ingredients to the pet food industry. They could be classified as two brewer’s yeasts, one combination of an active yeast and a brewer’s yeast, one combination of a yeast extract and a brewer’s yeast, one Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (FP; Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA), and one fortified inactive yeast (LBV, Lalmin B-Complex Vitamins; Lallemand Bio-Ingredients, a division of Lallemand Inc., Montréal, QC, CA). The two brewer’s yeasts (BY and EA, respectively) were product #1064B (The Peterson Company, Kalamazoo, MI) and BGYADVANTAGE (The F.L. Emmert Company, Cincinnati, OH). The ingredient including an active yeast and a brewer’s yeast (NS; NUCLEO-SACC) and the ingredient combining a yeast extract and a brewer’s yeast (YS; YEA-SACC1026 OA) were both sourced from the same company (Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, KY). Five lots, except for LBV (n = 4), were collected for all ingredients. Each lot was analyzed for chemical composition in duplicate (Table 1). Three dried yeasts were selected from these six for evaluation in a canned cat food. Thiamin content was the primary selection criterion, with higher thiamin contents preferred and more likely to meet the minimum recommended amount of 5.6 mg thiamin per dry matter kg of processed canned cat food [9].

Table 1

Nutritional composition (mean ± standard deviation) of commercial yeast ingredients selected as potential sources of protected thiamin for canned cat food.

Nutrient	NS	YS	FP	EA	LBV	BY
Lots analyzed, n	5	5	5	5	4	5
Moisture, %	6.9 ± 0.21	4.5 ± 0.12	8.3 ± 0.15	4.3 ± 0.28	5.0 ± 0.41	7.4 ± 0.81
	---------------------------------------------------------------Dry matter basis---------------------------------------------------------------
Thiamin, mg/kg	13.9 ± 2.58	10.6 ± 2.07	9.9 ± 0.85	12.0 ± 1.59	4283.8 ± 176.18	36.8 ± 5.97
Crude protein, %	45.6 ± 0.34	23.4 ± 1.04	11.8 ± 0.66	54.5 ± 1.09	57.3 ± 1.29	48.6 ± 4.34
Crude fat, %	0.41 ± 0.390	2.74 ± 0.292	0.69 ± 0.251	1.68 ± 0.256	2.50 ± 0.286	0.34 ± 0.207
Crude fiber, %	0.35 ± 0.130	4.59 ± 1.775	38.52 ± 2.261	3.65 ± 0.683	0.38 ± 0.150	0.50 ± 0.556
Ash, %	5.87 ± 0.132	41.25 ± 0.776	7.90 ± 0.465	7.08 ± 0.221	6.34 ± 0.202	6.35 ± 0.945
NFE2, %	47.8 ± 0.47	28.0 ± 2.13	41.1 ± 1.30	33.1 ± 0.60	33.5 ± 1.10	44.2 ± 5.35
Calcium, %	0.24 ± 0.044	14.64 ± 0.497	0.64 ± 0.056	0.49 ± 0.029	0.23 ± 0.013	0.33 ± 0.028
Phosphorus, %	1.480 ± 0.0387	0.952 ± 0.0313	0.324 ± 0.0422	0.782 ± 0.0271	1.093 ± 0.1007	1.434 ± 0.1747
Potassium, %	1.710 ± 0.0615	0.430 ± 0.0247	1.865 ± 0.0925	2.337 ± 0.0553	2.546 ± 0.0759	1.459 ± 0.3053
Sodium, %	0.020 ± 0.0000	0.020 ± 0.0000	0.767 ± 0.1178	0.017 ± 0.0067	0.095 ± 0.0173	0.101 ± 0.1422
Magnesium, %	0.196 ± 0.0101	1.629 ± 0.0722	0.427 ± 0.0507	0.308 ± 0.0076	0.118 ± 0.0089	0.195 ± 0.0202
Sulfur, %	0.43 ± 0.013	0.25 ± 0.005	0.31 ± 0.034	0.41 ± 0.011	0.54 ± 0.044	0.39 ± 0.040
Iron, mg/kg	68 ± 6.3	1627 ± 64.7	156 ± 23.6	112 ± 8.1	47 ± 3.1	175 ± 64.2
Copper, mg/kg	29.49 ± 1.906	8.65 ± 0.788	4.01 ± 0.558	16.96 ± 1.067	5.50 ± 0.265	6.01 ± 2.479
Manganese, mg/kg	9.32 ±1.563	146.70 ± 8.808	20.40 ± 4.518	38.12 ± 1.943	10.25 ± 0.612	9.24 ± 2.477
Zinc, mg/kg	82 ± 3.3	105 ± 6.1	68 ± 15.4	60 ± 7.0	88 ± 9.2	208 ± 103.3

1 NS = NUCLEO-SACC; YS = YEA-SACC; FP = Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product; EA = BGYADVANTAGE; LBV = Lalmin B-Complex Vitamins; BY = spray-dried brewer’s yeast #1064B.

2 NFE = nitrogen free extract, calculated (Dry matter basis contents of crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash subtracted from 100).

Experimental treatment production

Eight formulas were created to test the retention of a standard vitamin premix containing thiamin mononitrate as the main thiamin source separate from and in addition to the yeast ingredients LBV, BY, and EA (Table 2). The experimental treatments were arranged as a 2×4 factorial with 2 categorical levels of vitamin premix (without vitamin premix or with vitamin premix) and 4 categorical levels of dried yeast (no yeast, LBV, BY, or EA). The formulas with vitamin premix included a vitamin premix at 0.08% of the total mass. This vitamin premix contained thiamin mononitrate as the thiamin source. The 0.08% inclusion was chosen to emulate a commercial canned cat food providing roughly 2,343% of the AAFCO minimum recommended level of 5.6 mg thiamin per kg of diet dry matter [9]. The level of LBV (0.65%) was chosen to match this value based on the average dry matter thiamin content from the initial ingredient screening. The levels for BY and EA were capped at 5% even though this level was not expected to provide the AAFCO minimum recommended level for thiamin after thermal processing. This maximum level was chosen to ensure that all experimental treatments were practical from a processing and ingredient formulation perspective.

Table 2

Ingredient composition of canned cat foods containing different levels of a vitamin premix and/or a dried yeast ingredient.

	No vitamin premix				Contains vitamin premix
Ingredient, % as-is	NY	LBV	BY	EA	NY	LBV	BY	EA
Basal batter2	94.92	94.92	94.92	94.92	94.92	94.92	94.92	94.92
Ground brewer’s rice	5.08	4.43	0.08	0.08	5.00	4.35	-	-
Vitamin premix	-	-	-	-	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08
Lallemand yeast	-	0.65	-	-	-	0.65	-	-
Peterson yeast	-	-	5.00	-	-	-	5.00	-
Emmert yeast	-	-	-	5.00	-	-	-	5.00

1 NY = no yeast; LBV = Lalmin B-Complex Vitamins; BY = spray-dried brewer’s yeast #1064B; EA = BGYADVANTAGE.

2 1 kg of basal batter contains 283.48 g mechanically deboned low ash chicken, 230.33 g pork liver, 223.59 g water, 148.83 g ground chicken, 106.30 g steam, 3.19 g guar gum, 1.35 g potassium chloride, 1.06 g mineral premix for cats, 0.74 g kappa carrageenan, 0.57 g taurine, 0.53 g salt, and 0.02g 50% vitamin E.

Formulas were produced once per replicate day of processing (n = 3). Production of a 1,361 kg batch of basal batter began by grinding (Scansteel Foodtech, Denmark) mechanically deboned low ash chicken (Simmons Animal Nutrition, Siloam Springs, AR), ground chicken (Simmons Animal Nutrition, Siloam Springs, AR), and pork liver (BHJ USA, LLC., Omaha, NE) through a die plate with 6.35 mm openings. Next, the ground meats were mixed (MTB-40-100P; MTC, Temple, TX) with a gravy prepared prior with a triblender (F3218; Alfa Laval Inc., Richmond, VA). This gravy contained the water, guar gum (Tilley Chemical Company Inc., Baltimore, MD), potassium chloride (Bill Barr & Company, Overland Park, KS), mineral premix (Trouw Nutrition USA LLC, Highland, IL), kappa carrageenan (Mannasol Products Ltd., Cheshire, United Kingdom), taurine (Avid Organics, Gujarat, India), salt (Compass Minerals America, Overland Park, KS), and 50% vitamin E (DSM Nutritional Products, Heerlen, NL) for the formula. Steam was added while mixing to increase moisture content and to raise the temperature of the batter to 50°C. The batter was processed through a three-plate emulsifier (Comvair-149.14 kW; Reiser, Canton, MA) and 91 kg of batter was sub-sampled to create the eight canned pet foods. Each formula was produced by adding the ground brewer’s rice (Les Aliments Dainty Foods, Windson, ON, Canada), vitamin premix (Nutra Blend LLC, Neosho, MO), and/or yeast (depending on the treatment) directly to 7.6 kg of basal batter. Batter temperature was maintained at a minimum of 50°C with a hot plate. The addition was done while mixing the batter with a power drill (#DR560; Black + Decker, Towson, MD) equipped with a paint mixing attachment for 1 minute to minimize clumping and to ensure a complete distribution of the added dry ingredients. A sample of each batter was collected and frozen for chemical analysis before cans (size 307×109; Crown Holdings, Philadelphia, PA) were filled with 156 g of batter and seamed (Pneumatic Scale Angelus, Stow, OH) with an easy-open lid.

A minimum of 1 can per formula replicate contained a thermocouple (Ecklund-Harrison Technologies Inc., Fort Myers, FL) for thermal process validation and cook value calculations. Lethality and cook value (C100) were calculated using Eq 1 [19] and Eq 2 respectively, wherein TC(t) is the temperature recorded by the thermocouple at time t and Δt represents the length of time between temperature measurements (15 seconds or 0.25 minutes). The temperature of 121.11°C and z-value of 10°C for the calculation of lethality are reference values for Clostridium botulinum. This hardy bacterium poses a public health concern for thermally processed low-acid foods [20]. Reference values for C100 (temperature = 100°C; z-value = 10°C) were derived from experiments with thiamin because the nutrient is highly sensitive to thermal processing. The units for lethality and C100 are relative time (minutes) the food product could have been processed for at the respective reference temperature. Both integral equations were solved using the trapezoid rule (Eqs 3 and 4, respectively). All cans for each production day were processed in a horizontal steam batch retort (Versatort Multimode 1520; Allpax, Covington, LA) under a process schedule designed to mimic a worst-case scenario in production with a 10 minute come-up cycle, a 63 minute cooking cycle (target temperature = 123°C), and a 27 minute cooling cycle. Afterwards, cans were removed from the retort and cooled to room temperature before analysis.

Chemical analyses

All samples were analyzed by a commercial laboratory (Midwest Laboratories; Omaha, NE) for moisture (AOAC 930.15), thiamin (AOAC 942.23), crude protein (AOAC 99003), crude fat (AOAC 2003.05 for dry samples, AOAC 954.02 for wet samples), crude fiber (AOCS Ba 6a-05), ash (AOAC 942.05), sulfur (AOAC 985.01), phosphorus (AOAC 985.01), potassium (AOAC 985.01), magnesium (AOAC 985.01), calcium (AOAC 985.01), sodium (AOAC 985.01), iron (AOAC 985.01), manganese (AOAC 985.01), copper (AOAC 985.01), and zinc (AOAC 985.01). Results below the minimum detection level were treated as zeros. Mechanically deboned low ash chicken, pork liver, and ground chicken were not analyzed for crude fiber content. Samples of the post-retort diets were generated by compositing three cans from the individual replicates. All analyses were conducted in duplicate. Nitrogen free extract (NFE) was calculated by subtracting the DMB contents of crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash from 100%.

Statistical analysis

Data from the initial screening of dried yeasts were presented as mean values across analyzed lots with their corresponding standard deviation.

Initial internal can temperature, lethality, and C100 were analyzed as a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with vitamin premix and yeast as fixed effects and production day as a random effect. The procedure GLIMMIX was used for this analysis (SAS v. 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Nutrient contents of pre-retort batters and processed diets were presented as mean values ± standard deviation. Thiamin content of individual formulas was compared to 5.6 mg/kg DMB, the minimum recommended value for maintenance of adult cats [9], using a single-sample lower-tail t test. Dietary thiamin content was considered less than the minimum recommended value if the P-value was less than 0.05.

Change in thiamin content was calculated by subtracting pre-retort batter thiamin content from processed diet thiamin content. Data were transformed [wherein “x” represents a data point: ] to meet the model assumptions of equal variance and normality for statistical analysis. Significance of the main effects for vitamin premix and yeast and their interaction were determined with a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Pre-retort batter thiamin content was included as a covariate and production day as a random blocking factor. Retention was analyzed with this methodology instead of as a percent loss or percent retention to maximize the stability of the response variable and to account for the variation due to initial thiamin content [21]. Denominator degrees of freedom were corrected using the Kenward-Roger adjustment. Individual means were separated by Fisher’s LSD and significance was set at ⍺ = 0.05. The procedure GLIMMIX was employed in this analysis (SAS v. 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Data were presented as means with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in pre-transformation units.

Results

Nutrient composition of screened yeast ingredients

Differences in nutrient composition were observed in the initial screening of dried yeast ingredients (Table 1). Thiamin content was highest for LBV (4283.8 mg/kg DMB) with all other ingredients similar to each other (9.9–36.8 mg/kg DMB). Ranges for crude protein (from 11.8% DMB in FP to 57.3% DMB in LBV), crude fiber (from 0.35% DMB in NS to 38.52% DMB in FP), and ash (from 5.87% DMB in NS to 41.25% DMB in YS) were also wide. Crude fat content was less varied with the highest contents measured in LBV and YS (average = 2.62% DMB), lowest in NS, FP and BY (average = 0.48% DMB), and intermediate in EA (1.68% DMB). Notable findings for the mineral concentrations included higher levels of calcium, iron, and manganese in YS (14.640% DMB, 1627.0 mg/kg DMB, and 146.70 mg/kg DMB, respectively) and a higher level of zinc in BY (207.5 mg/kg DMB).

Nutrient content of raw ingredients, pre-retort batters, and processed diets

Nutrient composition varied among ingredients used to create the experimental formulas (S1 Table). Ingredients in the basal batter contributed low levels of thiamin (average 4.3 mg/kg DMB). The ingredient with the highest thiamin content was the vitamin premix at 17933.3 mg/kg DMB. Brewer’s rice contained low levels (1.6 mg/kg DMB) consistent with the ingredients included in the basal batter. On average, the three yeasts selected contained 515% more crude protein, 84.8% less crude fat, 95.0% less crude fiber, 78.5% less ash, and 55.4% more NFE than the vitamin premix. The BY and EA yeasts contained similar levels of thiamin, averaging 27.5 mg/kg DMB. While LBV contained more thiamin than BY and EA, it still only contained 7.09% of the thiamin provided in the vitamin premix. Mean values for crude protein, crude fat, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, copper, manganese, and zinc for all batters and diets were above the AAFCO recommended minimum levels for adult cats (S2 Table). There are no minimum recommendations for moisture, crude fiber, ash, or NFE. Moisture content averaged 82.0 ± 1.50% across the diets pre- and post-retort processing (Table 3). Thiamin content was lower for all diets after retort processing. The post-retort diet that did not contain the vitamin premix or a yeast ingredient (0.7 ± 1.02 mg/kg DMB) and the post-retort diet including EA without the vitamin premix (2.2 ± 0.37 mg/kg DMB) did not meet the minimum recommended level of 5.6 mg/kg DMB thiamin for adult cats (P = 0.0070 and P = 0.0042, respectively). All other post-retort diets contained enough thiamin to meet or surpass the minimum recommended level (P > 0.05).

Table 3

Moisture and thiamin contents (mean ± standard deviation) of pre-retort and post-retort canned cat foods containing different levels of a vitamin premix and/or a yeast ingredient.

	No vitamin premix				Contains vitamin premix
Nutrient	NY	LBV	BY	EA	NY	LBV	BY	EA
Pre-retort moisture, %	82.7 ± 0.34	79.7 ± 4.29	82.3 ± 0.25	81.7 ± 1.79	81.0 ± 0.88	81.3 ± 0.93	81.1 ± 0.60	82.7 ± 1.13
Post-retort moisture, %	82.9 ± 0.98	82.6 ± 1.24	83.1 ± 0.74	81.9 ± 1.09	82.7 ± 1.13	82.5 ± 1.32	82.7 ± 0.74	82.0 ± 1.08
	---------------------------------------------------------------Dry matter basis---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-retort thiamin, mg/kg	4.1 ± 1.38	54.1 ± 14.07	10.7 ± 1.40	8.5 ± 1.55	137.3 ± 15.95	191.5 ± 7.26	161.3 ± 21.23	169.2 ± 26.50
Post-retort thiamin, mg/kg	0.7* ± 1.02	19.9 ± 4.29	5.8 ± 0.54	2.2* ± 0.37	54.7 ± 18.64	59.8 ± 7.29	60.7 ± 11.04	46.5 ± 5.78

1 NY = no yeast; LBV = Lalmin B-Complex Vitamins; BY = spray-dried brewer’s yeast #1064B; EA = BGYADVANTAGE.

* Least square mean thiamin content is less than 5.6 mg/kg dry matter basis.

Thiamin degradation due to thermal processing

At least 1 thermocouple was successful for all formula replicates, except for the formula containing BY and no vitamin premix on production day 3. No main effects of vitamin premix or yeast or their interaction were detected (P > 0.05) for thermal processing data. Initial internal can temperature averaged 30.01 ± 4.471°C and total lethality and C100 averaged 79.23 ± 7.418 and 280.76 ± 17.750 minutes, respectively.

Inclusion of the vitamin premix (average -62.8 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI = -97.4 mg/kg DMB, -37.6 mg/kg DMB) did not affect (P > 0.05; Fig 1) the change in thiamin content compared to formulas without the vitamin premix (-23.0 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI -41.7 mg/kg DMB, -10.9 mg/kg DMB). This represented an average 33.75% retention of thiamin after thermal processing regardless of vitamin premix inclusion.

Fig 1

Main effect of vitamin premix inclusion on the change in the dry matter basis (DMB) thiamin content (mean values with 95% confidence interval) of canned cat food.

Change in thiamin content was affected (P < 0.05) by the main effect of yeast (Fig 2) and the interaction between yeast and vitamin premix (Fig 3). The greatest loss of thiamin was observed for the LBV yeast (average -55.6 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI -69.9 mg/kg DMB, -43.3 mg/kg DMB). More thiamin was lost with EA (average -40.5 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI -46.4 mg/kg DMB, -35.1 mg/kg DMB) vs. NY (average -31.3 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI -39.0 mg/kg DMB, -24.7 mg/kg DMB) with BY (average -33.8 mg/kg DMB; 95% CI -39.2 mg/kg DMB, -28.9 mg/kg DMB) not different from either. The formula including the vitamin premix and EA (average -70.3 mg/kg DMB) exhibited a greater loss in thiamin content compared to formulas without the vitamin premix and either EA, BY, or NY (average -17.4 mg/kg DMB). Formulas containing LBV with or without the vitamin premix and EA or NY with the vitamin premix (average -57.3 mg/kg DMB) were intermediate and not different from the others. If these changes are expressed as relative percent losses, the diets would be ranked as follows: BY without the vitamin premix (45.8%), NY with the vitamin premix (60.2%), BY with the vitamin premix (62.4%), LBV without the vitamin premix (63.2%), LBV with the vitamin premix (68.8%), EA with the vitamin premix (72.5%), EA without the vitamin premix (74.1%), and NY without the vitamin premix (82.9%).

Fig 2

Main effect of yeast inclusion on the change in the dry matter basis (DMB) thiamin content (mean values with 95% confidence interval) of canned cat food.

abc Means within the same chart that do not share a superscript are different (P < 0.05). 1 NY = no yeast; LBV = Lalmin B-complex vitamins; BY = spray-dried brewer’s yeast #1064B; EA = BGYADVANTGE.

Fig 3

The interaction of vitamin premix inclusion and yeast inclusion on the change in the dry matter basis (DMB) thiamin content (mean values with 95% confidence interval) of canned cat food.

ab Means within the same chart that do not share a superscript are different (P < 0.05). 1 NY = no yeast; LBV = Lalmin B-complex vitamins; BY = spray-dried brewer’s yeast #1064B; EA = BGYADVANTGE.

Discussion

The aim of this work was to identify yeast ingredients as potential thiamin sources and to evaluate the stability of their intrinsic thiamin during thermal processing. Preliminary studies identified that retort processing conditions [22], package size and material [23], and protein source and the presence of sulfites [24] influenced thiamin content in canned cat food. However, none of those experiments identified a solution to minimize thiamin degradation that could be applied to all thermally processed cat foods. If a yeast ingredient with similar or better thermal resistance compared to thiamin mononitrate, then it could be suitable as a novel thiamin source.

Dried yeast ingredients are commonly included in commercial pet foods as protein sources and dose-dependent palatability enhancers for cats [25, 26]. As such, reports of nutritional content of these ingredients are available for comparison. Moisture contents for the ingredients screened in the present experiment were similar and in-line with published values for dried brewer’s yeasts and other yeast ingredients. Many manuscripts do not present thiamin contents for yeast ingredients intended for animal consumption. Thiamin content of a dried brewer’s torula yeast was 6.7 mg/kg DMB [1], which was lower than all six yeast ingredients screened in the present experiment. Crude protein and fat contents of all 6 yeasts fell in line with ingredients evaluated in animal feeding experiments [15, 27–29]. The FP ingredient contained notably high levels of crude fiber compared to the other yeast ingredients, which was expected. A Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product fed to adult dogs similarly contained high levels of fiber [30]. Ash contents were similar in the screened yeast ingredients, with the exception of YS. The notably high ash content of YS was likely driven by its calcium and iron contents, which were also higher than the other screened yeast ingredients. However, there are no maximum calcium or iron levels for adult cats provided by AAFCO [9].

Nutritional content of raw ingredients, pre-retort batters, and processed diets

The initial screening of commercially available yeasts yielded three ingredients for inclusion in canned cat foods for thermal processing. These yeasts were LBV, BY, and EA and their average DMB thiamin contents were 4283.8, 36.8, and 12.0 mg/kg, respectively, across multiple production lots. As detailed in the previous section, dried yeast ingredients have not been extensively evaluated for thiamin content. Limited reports suggested thiamin content of 5.1 mg/kg as-is basis in a brewer’s yeast [31], 22.2 mg/kg DMB in a Candida tropicalis yeast biomass [32], and 6.7 mg/kg DMB in a torula brewer’s yeast [1]. The wide range in thiamin contents observed suggested that one value cannot accurately describe all dried yeasts. Thiamin content should be analyzed when evaluating a new ingredient and source. Nevertheless, the dried yeasts selected for evaluation in thermally processed diets contained at least 100% more thiamin compared to published values for brewer’s yeasts.

Analysis of the yeasts used for formula production found that LBV used in the formulas contained 70.3% less thiamin than the average screening lot. On the other hand, EA used in formula production contained 107.5% more thiamin. The BY ingredient was the most consistent and only contained 18.2% less thiamin. Storage can affect thiamin content in yeasts, with reported losses of 13–44% within 6 months of storage and 55–68% within 12 months [33]. As such, it is possible that LBV and BY supplied for experimental formula production were older than the lots included in the initial screening. The higher thiamin content in EA used to produce formulas suggested that thiamin content in the ingredient was more variable than suggested by the screening. It is also possible that the differences in thiamin content between samples was influenced by the inherent variability in thiamin analysis or by sampling variation. Nevertheless, these differences led to lower-than-expected batter thiamin contents for those containing BY or LBV and higher than expected values for batters containing EA. Other nutrients were more consistent between the screening and production yeast samples. Supply chain management and accurate analytical data for these ingredients is critical if their intended purpose is to supply thiamin for commercial canned cat foods.

Nutrient content, especially thiamin, of ingredients used to produce commercial canned cat food is scarce in the literature. Data herein, especially the thiamin content of the pre-thermal processing batter that did not contain the vitamin premix or a yeast, suggested that thiamin content of these ingredients did not contribute to the overall thiamin content of the diet in a meaningful way. This information was still valuable for understanding the background thiamin content of the experimental formulas and can help pet food formulators when designing new products.

Ground brewer’s rice was chosen as the space-filling ingredient for its low thiamin content and similar dry matter content compared to the vitamin premix and selected yeasts. For example, nutritional analysis of a whole brewer’s rice yielded a moisture content of 11.00% and a thiamin content of 1.4 mg/kg as-is basis (or 1.6 mg/kg DMB) [1]. These values were comparable to the 12.5% moisture and 1.6 mg/kg DMB thiamin of the brewer’s rice used in the present experiment. This led to similar moisture contents (average 82.0 ± 1.50%) across all 8 formulas. Typically, canned pâté style pet foods do not contain more than 78% moisture [34, 35]. As such, the formulas produced in this experiment may not fit the criteria of commercial pâté-style pet foods from that perspective. However, commercial canned pet foods that consist of a meat chunk in a liquid (colloquially called “chunks in gravy”) may contain 82% moisture, which is very similar to the moisture content of the diets in the present experiment. The diets produced in the present experiment are still relevant to the pet food industry even though the moisture content was higher than anticipated. This could be modified by decreasing the amount of water and/or steam in the formula. Moisture content can influence the rate of heat penetration [36] but likely did not affect thiamin retention of the 8 formulas differently in the present experiment. Future experiments should more closely monitor steam and water addition to yield moisture contents less than 78% when producing pâté style canned pet foods.

Except for diets containing no vitamin premix with either NY or EA, all pre-retort batters and processed diets met the AAFCO nutrient recommendations for adult cats. As such, all diets except for the two previously mentioned represent potential commercial formulations from a macronutrient and mineral perspective. Further analysis to verify this would include amino acid and fatty acid contents, as crude protein and crude fat do not adequately describe these nutrients.

Many factors affecting thermal processing and thiamin degradation have been identified and were controlled in the present experiment. Differences in moisture content and initial internal can temperature affect the kinetics of heat penetration [37, 38] and in turn influence thiamin losses due to thermal processing. However, diets in the present experiment had similar moisture contents and initial internal can temperatures. Preliminary research suggested that container type and size influence thiamin degradation [23], but the same container type and size was filled with the same amount of food in the present experiment. This suggested that differences observed in thiamin loss in this experiment were due to ingredient inclusions and not influenced differently by processing conditions. Ingredients can affect thiamin degradation as well. The effect of thiaminase, an enzyme capable of destroying thiamin, was not considered because the meats were not different between diets and the enzyme is found in fish [39, 40], which were not included in the treatments. Additionally, none of the ingredients in the basal batter were preserved with sulfites, which are commonly used to preserve dehydrated potatoes and other carbohydrate visual inclusions [41]. Sulfites have been linked to thiamin degradation in thermally processed foods for humans [42] and pets [24]. Nevertheless, these situations illustrate that thiamin degradation can affected by the ingredients present in the formulation.

It is important to note that the scheduled process employed in the present experiment resulted in greater lethality than is normal for canned pet food. The typical lethality for commercial products was reported between 12 and 14 minutes [43]. This would result in a lower degree of thermal processing and less thiamin loss would likely be observed. Another experiment with a less harsh scheduled process would be necessary to determine the effect of the test ingredients on thiamin loss in a more typical production setting.

Average thiamin retention across all formulas was 33.75% with a range from to as described in the Results, which was lower than reported in a preliminary study at roughly 69% retention [23]. However, that experiment processed wet cat foods to a lethality of 8 minutes, which was less thermal processing than applied in this experiment. The Association of American Feed Control Officials gives a broad guidance of 90% degradation, or 10% retention, of thiamin due to retort processing [9]. However, this guidance does not consider the range of scheduled processes that can be employed to achieve commercial sterility. It is likely that the scheduled process and final lethality have a significant impact on thiamin retention. This was not a factor in the present experiment and should be confirmed in future research. The 33.75% thiamin retention observed herein was more in-line with approximately 30% thiamin retention for thermally processed beef liver [44] and 23.8–27.8% retained thiamin for pressure-cooked red-gram splits [13].

The cook value has been used to describe the degree of thermal processing on the quality of thermally processed food products, with higher cook values suggesting lower quality [45]. However, cook values in the present experiment were not different even though thiamin degradation was different. This likely demonstrates that the cook value is affected by the source of thiamin present in the food. Many researchers have identified different z-values for thiamin depending on the food undergoing thermal processing. For example, thiamin z-values were between 25.3°C and 26.3°C for periwinkle processed in various media [46], 31.4°C for tuna [47], and 26°C for rainbow trout [48]. As such, cook values calculated as done in the present experiment may not reflect the true nutritional quality of canned cat food when different thiamin sources are used. Other researchers have proposed 150–200 minutes as maximum cook values for thermally processed products [49]. However, there are no published standards for maximum cook values for pet foods. Instead, the common metric is whether or not the pet food meets the regulatory nutritional recommendations throughout its shelf-life. This was not addressed in the present experiment and highlights an area for further research.

Thiamin loss was not minimized by including the vitamin premix in the formula. This was not expected and suggested that supplemental thiamin mononitrate and thiamin intrinsic to standard canned cat food ingredients have similar retention due to thermal processing. However, the different yeasts tested did not exhibit similar thiamin degradation. The NY inclusion of the yeast fixed factor represented no yeast inclusion in the formula and quantified changes in thiamin present in standard canned cat food ingredients. The only yeast to exhibit similar changes in thiamin loss was BY. Even though LBV contained more thiamin than BY and EA, it exhibited the lowest retention. It is important to note that experimental treatments containing LBV met minimum recommended nutrient allowances [9] and were practical formulations despite the higher thiamin degradation. Thiamin loss was not minimized by the combination of the vitamin premix and yeast. Instead, most formulations were similar and loss increased when vitamin premix was included with EA. All formulas were comparable to the formula containing the vitamin premix and no yeast, which was considered most similar to what is found in the marketplace, in terms of thiamin loss due to thermal processing.

It appeared thiamin intrinsic to BY had the most favorable thermal processing survival of the three yeasts tested. The ingredient contained more DMB thiamin than standard canned cat food ingredients (with the exception of vitamin premix), yet its thiamin loss was similar. Additional testing with this ingredient should determine the ideal amount of BY when batter viscosity, processed formula texture, and feline thiamin bioavailability are considered in addition to thiamin loss. The scheduled process employed in such an experiment should more closely resemble standard processing conditions instead of mimicking a worst-case scenario. Another area of further research could be to identify the mechanism behind the improved thiamin retention exhibited by BY. The lack of agreement between thiamin retention and cook values in the present experiment suggest that thiamin intrinsic to the different ingredients had varying levels of thermal resilience. However, investigation into potential mechanisms fell outside the scope of the present experiment. While the intention of this experiment was to evaluate yeast ingredients based on thiamin loss due to retort processing, it is clear that LBV had the highest thiamin content of any yeast examined. Therefore, it is reasonable to conduct further research with the ingredient even though it exhibited poor retention in the present experiment.

Conclusion

The results from this experiment suggested that some yeast ingredients contain meaningful levels of thiamin to serve as sources in canned cat food. At the same time, thiamin degradation was different when three commercially available yeasts or no yeast were included in the diet formulation and the inclusion of a standard vitamin premix did not improve thiamin retention as expected. Formulations with LBV or BY alone and LBV, BY, or EA with the vitamin premix did result in products that met or exceeded nutrient allowances. They may be suitable sources of thiamin due to their high thiamin content relative to standard ingredients in commercial canned cat foods alone. The results discussed suggest that BY was the most favorable yeast in terms of thiamin loss due to thermal processing. Future research is necessary to fine-tune canned cat food formulas with this ingredient to meet all requirements for food safety, pet health, and pet owner acceptance. Such research could include storage of the ingredients alone and in processed diets to further describe the stability of their thiamin. Additionally, the lack of agreement between the calculated cook values and the observed thiamin degradation due to thermal processing indicate that thiamin supplied by different ingredients do not have the same z-value. Research identifying the z-value for these ingredients would result in more accurate cook values calculated with the equation used in the present experiment.

Nutritional composition of ingredients1 used to produce canned cat food containing different sources of thiamin.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Dry matter basis macronutrient and mineral contents (mean ± standard deviation) of pre-retort and post-retort canned cat foods containing different levels of a vitamin premix and/or a yeast ingredient1.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Experimental data.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

(Ingredient and analytical costs were supported by Simmons Pet Food, Inc. They assisted with the study design, data collection, and preparation of the manuscript but imposed no restrictions.)

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests:

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : (I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: A.N.D. was employed by Simmons Pet Food Inc. as a paid intern prior to conducting this research project; M.F.M. Jr., B.W., and L.L. were employed by Simmons Pet Food while this research project was conducted; C.G.A. has no competing interests to declare.)

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-22-05056 Composition and thermal processing evaluation of yeast ingredients as thiamin sources compared to a standard vitamin premix for canned cat food

I found the manuscript to be thorough and the procedures well conducted. I think there is some useful information here but I cannot recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its present form. There are a number of issues relative to the data presented and the clarity of interpretation that should be clarified before resubmission.

Line

64 “the first definition is” I found this confusing in that there is really only one definition. Please reword for clarity.

68 Delete “the form”

69 Suggest thiamin in different forms.

85 You describe 6 yeasts, then in Table 2 show their composition. I have two isses; 1) if you want to include all of their compositions then it should be Table 1. 2) Somewhere you chose 3 of the 6 to include in the foods? I could never understand where or why you chose the yeasts you used?

Tables 3-7 There is a lot of info presented that I am not sure all has much value. I would suggest provide the pre-retort values (Table 5) and then in the text address any nutrients that were affected by retort. Because it is the premise of the paper, thiamin could be dealt with in a separate table where all values could be viewed simultaneously. Other data if desired could be added as an appendix where it could be qavailable to others but is really not a part of the results.

240 As presented, the outcomes are confounded by design. To report a change in thiamin concentration is inappropriate. The outcome is predetermined by the thiamin content which was not equal. I suggest you express these as the fraction surviving retort. I think this would be more meaningful.

277-342 I do not see the point of this discussion as it pertains to the objectives of the paper.

Reviewer #2: Yeast ingredients are examined in this manuscript as possible sources of thiamin in canned cat food. The purpose of this contribution is to clarify the potential use of an alternative source of thiamin for canned cat food in the pet food industry. There is good writing throughout and the experiment has some merit.

Even though it is an important topic, the study fails to present a scenario that is similar to an industrial production line. As, diets failed to achieve the minimum recommended by AAFCO; the humidity of the diets was not similar to the humidity found in commercial products, and the processing time was longer than what would be expected in an industrial setting.

Due to the effect that moisture content has on heat penetration, producing a diet with a higher moisture content and processing time compared to market-standard diets could lead to a greater degradation of thiamine than would be seen in daily practice.

Further, the authors mention that sulfites can lead to thiamine degradation but fail to mention whether this is an expected industry practice or if only a minority of products include sulfites. Accordingly, if sulfites are used as an industry practice, the results of this study do not correspond to a commercially expected outcome.

Furthermore, the study does not provide relevant information about the ingredients used. Although the study focused on the level of thiamine in the diet and its degradation, it is evident that other characteristics of the ingredient can negatively affect the quality of the diet as well. During the discussion, the authors discuss all the points that would need to be reviewed, considering that before being accepted for publication, it will be recommended to analyze the ingredients in terms of their amino acid characteristics, their minerals, and their fiber content (soluble and insoluble). Further, the use of crude fiber constrains the scientific discussion, because it has been noted that it is not a common method for measuring fiber in different industries and that many studies have shown that it is also not the ideal method for testing fiber in pet food and ingredients.

The discussion is also repetitive and with little explanation of the reason for the differences found between the ingredients, with many paragraphs listing the fact that the vitamin premix was not effective in preventing the loss of thiamine.

In spite of being a matter of interest, the authors fail to answer questions that are relevant to industrial production.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Jun 2022

Dr. Juan J. Loor, Academic Editor, PLOS ONE:

Dear Dr. Loor,

Thank you for serving as the Academic Editor for our manuscript titled “Composition and thermal processing evaluation of yeast ingredients as thiamin sources compared to a standard vitamin premix for canned cat food” and for allowing us the opportunity to revise it. We acknowledge that you and the reviewers have given significant amounts of time and effort to share critical feedback to strengthen our submission. We have considered all comments made by the reviewers and incorporated changed into the manuscript. All changes are shown using track changes in the file titled “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.” We have also provided a “clean” version titled “Revised manuscript” and updated the supplemental data file titled “S1_File” to correct a data entry error and the cover letter file titled “Cover letter.” We believe the changes we have incorporated into our manuscript further clarify the importance of the experiment and the rationale behind the experimental design and execution.

We have outlined a response to the Journal Requirements and to each of the reviewers’ comments below:

Journal Requirements

Comment 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you for reminding us of PLOS ONE’s style requirements. We have removed the bolding of the title and removed the short title completely.

Comment 2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

(Ingredient and analytical costs were supported by Simmons Pet Food, Inc. They assisted with the study design, data collection, and preparation of the manuscript but imposed no restrictions.)

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We received no additional external funding for this study and have amended our Funding Statement within our cover letter.

Comment 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests:

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : (I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: A.N.D. was employed by Simmons Pet Food Inc. as a paid intern prior to conducting this research project; M.F.M. Jr., B.W., and L.L. were employed by Simmons Pet Food while this research project was conducted; C.G.A. has no competing interests to declare.)

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing- interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Thank you for clarifying the requirements for the Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement. We have updated both statements and included them in our revised cover letter.

Comment 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Thank you for pointing out that we were missing a caption for our Supporting Information file. We have added this to the manuscript.

Comments from Reviewer 1

Comment 1. I found the manuscript to be thorough and the procedures well conducted. I think there is some useful information here but I cannot recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its present form. There are a number of issues relative to the data presented and the clarity of interpretation that should be clarified before resubmission.

Response: Thank you for providing us with valuable insights and suggestions. We feel your comments have further strengthened our manuscript.

Comment 2. Line 64: “the first definition is” I found this confusing in that there is really only one definition. Please reword for clarity.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have reworded this sentence to explicitly say that both categories of microorganisms and spores must be taken into account when processing canned pet foods.

Comment 3. Line 68: Delete “the form”

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have deleted “the form”.

Comment 4. Line 69: Suggest thiamin in different forms.

Response: We have taken this suggestion and replaced “thiamin in a different form” with “thiamin in different forms”.

Comment 5. Line 85: You describe 6 yeasts, then in Table 2 show their composition. I have two issues; 1) if you want to include all of their compositions then it should be in Table 1. 2) Somewhere you chose 3 of the 6 to include in the foods? I could never understand where or why you chose the yeasts you iused?

Response: Thank you for highlighting this area of confusion. We have switched the numbering of Table 1 and Table 2 and moved Table 1 (containing the nutritional composition of the yeast ingredients) into the Materials and Methods. The three yeasts included in the foods were chosen based on their thiamin content. Yeasts with higher thiamin contents were preferred as they were more likely to meet the minimum recommended thiamin content in the canned cat food. This is described in lines 105-109.

Comment 6. Tables 3-7: There is a lot of info presented that I am not sure all has much value. I would suggest provide the pre-retort values (Table 5) and then in the text address any nutrients that were affected by retort. Because it is the premise of the paper, thiamin could be dealt with in a separate table where all values could be viewed simultaneously. Other data if desired could be added as an appendix where it could be qavailable to others but is really not a part of the results.

Response: We appreciate your comments to improve the conciseness of our paper. We feel the information presented in these tables is valuable for readers, especially pet food formulators. However, we have combined the diet pre- and post-retort moisture and thiamin values into one table (Table 3) and moved all other information into Supplementary Tables. All in-text references to the tables have also been updated.

Comment 7. Line 240: As presented, the outcomes are confounded by design. To report a change in thiamin concentration is inappropriate. The outcome is predetermined by the thiamin content which was not equal. I suggest you express these as the fraction surviving retort. I think this would be more meaningful.

Response: We appreciate your concerns with how our thiamin degradation data is presented. Prior to submitting this manuscript, we consulted with a statistician who advised the data be analyzed as change in thiamin concentration with pre-retort thiamin as a covariate to account for the confounding effect instead of analyzing as the fraction surviving retort. However, we acknowledge that describing the data as you suggest may be easier for our readers to understand. We have added a sentence ranking the 8 diets from least degradation to greatest degradation and expressed the values as relative percentages (lines 319-324).

Comment 8. Lines 277-342: I do not see the point of this discussion as it pertains to the objectives of the paper.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this as an area in need of refinement. We felt this section of the discussion was important to the paper because the yeast ingredients supply more than thiamin to the nutritional content of the diet. However, we concede that this section is lengthy and have condensed it to better reflect the objectives of the paper.

Comments from Reviewer 2

Comment 1. Yeast ingredients are examined in this manuscript as possible sources of thiamin in canned cat food. The purpose of this contribution is to clarify the potential use of an alternative source of thiamin for canned cat food in the pet food industry. There is good writing throughout and the experiment has some merit.

Response: Thank you for providing these thorough and insightful comments about our manuscript.

Comment 2. Even though it is an important topic, the study fails to present a scenario that is similar to an industrial production line. As, diets failed to achieve the minimum recommended by AAFCO; the humidity of the diets was not similar to the humidity found in commercial products, and the processing time was longer than what would be expected in an industrial setting.

Due to the effect that moisture content has on heat penetration, producing a diet with a higher moisture content and processing time compared to market-standard diets could lead to a greater degradation of thiamine than would be seen in daily practice.

Response: Respectfully, we disagree with your comment that the study fails to present a scenario that is similar to an industrial production line. The diets were produced in one of the largest commercial canned pet food facilities in the world with a process that mimicked normal procedures as closely as possible.

Only two diets failed to meet an AAFCO minimum nutrient requirement measured in this experiment. The diets in question (no vitamin premix with either NY or EA) fell below the AAFCO minimum thiamin content for cats. This information is still highly relevant to the pet food industry as it helps research and development scientists decide which ingredients are most helpful in providing thiamin.

We conceded that moisture content of the diets produced in this experiment was higher than the typical pâté-style canned pet food in lines 517-519 and that moisture content is known to influence the rate of heat penetration during processing in lines 524-525. However, moisture contents were similar across the diets and we do not feel moisture was a confounding factor in the experiment. Additionally, commercial canned pet foods that consist of a meat chunk in a liquid (colloquially called “chunks in gravy”) may contain 82% moisture, which is very similar to the moisture content of diets in the present experiment. Language clarifying this point has been added in lines 519-523.

We conceded that the retort processing parameters resulted in greater processing than what is reported as typical for the pet food industry in lines 559-561. However, we also described that the retort processing parameters used were designed to mimic a worst-case scenario in production in lines 165-169. As such, we feel that our experiment is relevant because not every production is typical and situations do arise when a food is processed to a greater degree than intended. We did suggest that a follow-up experiment be conducted with processing parameters closer to the “typical” production in lines 562-564. However, this is outside the scope of the present experiment.

Comment 3. Further, the authors mention that sulfites can lead to thiamine degradation but fail to mention whether this is an expected industry practice or if only a minority of products include sulfites. Accordingly, if sulfites are used as an industry practice, the results of this study do not correspond to a commercially expected outcome.

Response: We appreciate that you’ve identified the presence of sulfites as a cause for degradation. However, in our laboratory’s experience, one would have to intentionally add sulfites in order to demonstrate an effect. While we are pointing to the range of potential factors, evaluating these factors was outside the scope of the experiment. For more details, one would encourage the reviewer to read the thesis of DeNoya, 2016.

Comment 4. Furthermore, the study does not provide relevant information about the ingredients used. Although the study focused on the level of thiamine in the diet and its degradation, it is evident that other characteristics of the ingredient can negatively affect the quality of the diet as well. During the discussion, the authors discuss all the points that would need to be reviewed, considering that before being accepted for publication, it will be recommended to analyze the ingredients in terms of their amino acid characteristics, their minerals, and their fiber content (soluble and insoluble). Further, the use of crude fiber constrains the scientific discussion, because it has been noted that it is not a common method for measuring fiber in different industries and that many studies have shown that it is also not the ideal method for testing fiber in pet food and ingredients.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments on the importance of additional nutritional information regarding the ingredients presented in the manuscript. Out of consideration for Reviewer 1, we have consolidated this section and moved the majority of this information to Supplementary Files. We concede that the additional nutritional information suggested would be valuable, however this fell outside the scope of the present experiment.

Comment 5. The discussion is also repetitive and with little explanation of the reason for the differences found between the ingredients, with many paragraphs listing the fact that the vitamin premix was not effective in preventing the loss of thiamine.

In spite of being a matter of interest, the authors fail to answer questions that are relevant to industrial production.

Response: Thank you for highlighting that our discussion of why we felt the inclusion of different ingredients resulted in differences could be clearer. We proposed that thiamin supplied by the different ingredients did not have similar z-values in lines 641-644 of the conclusion. We have added this to the discussion (lines 620-624) and concede that this could be confirmed in future experiments that fell outside the scope of the present manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Jul 2022

Composition and thermal processing evaluation of yeast ingredients as thiamin sources compared to a standard vitamin premix for canned cat food

PONE-D-22-05056R1

Dear Dr. Aldrich,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

22 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-05056R1

Composition and thermal processing evaluation of yeast ingredients as thiamin sources compared to a standard vitamin premix for canned cat food

Dear Dr. Aldrich:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE