Prior research demonstrates significant inaccuracy when repeatedly measuring the same amount of dry dog food using a dry-food measuring cup, bringing into question the accuracy of measuring devices. This study aimed to determine dog owners’ accuracy when measuring different volumes of dry dog food using different types of measuring devices. One hundred dog owners, randomly assigned one of three measuring devices (a one-cup dry-food measuring cup, a two-cup graduated-liquid measuring cup or a two-cup commercial food scoop), were asked to measure ¼, ½ and 1 cup of dry dog food. Accuracy was assessed with an electronic gram scale by comparing measured volumes with the correct weight in grams. Individual accuracy ranged from −47.83% to 152.17% across devices and volumes. Measuring accuracy was found to be associated with the volume of food measured (p<0.001) and the type of measuring device used (p<0.001). Findings highlight approaches for decreasing excess intake of calories by dogs, including promotion of tactics to improve measurement accuracy (eg, gram scales, volume-calibrated dry-food measuring devices), especially for measuring small volumes.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, an indication of whether changes were made, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This research project was funded by a grant from Royal Canin Canada.
Competing interests JBC regularly receives research grants, consults for and receives honoraria from Royal Canin. AR has been employed by Royal Canin as a student-research assistant. TRE receives speaking honoraria from Royal Canin Canada. JMP is employed full time by Royal Canin Canada.
Ethics approval The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB no. 16JN002).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.