Background The popularity of raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) for pets has been increasing in recent years even if the reputed health benefits are mainly anecdotal. A web-based survey was developed to better understand the motivations and habits of owners who decided to feed their dogs RMBDs. Results The questionnaire was completed by 218 dog owners, 62 of whom were living with people whose immune system was impaired or weakened. Internet was the preferred source of information for more than half of the respondents, and feeding dogs a more natural and healthier diet was the main reason behind owners’ interest in RMBDs. About 80% of the participants completely abandoned commercial pet food and showed marked distrust especially towards the lack of clarity on the ingredients used ( n = 169). The vast majority of owners interviewed (94%) believed RMBDs to be absolutely safe for dogs, and shinier coat, muscle mass gain, and cleaner teeth were the principal improvements seen on their pets. Controlling the composition and quality of the ingredients provided to their animals was the main advantage of RMBDs for 57% of the owners, while the main disadvantages were related to the purchase of some components (38%) and the time required (22%) for the preparation of the diet. Only 8% of the respondents relied on veterinarians for RMBD formulation, and a wide variety of feeding regimens and combinations of ingredients was observed. Conclusions As revealed by this study, most owners are unaware of the risks posed by the feeding of RMBDs for both animal and human health, and they often rely on questionable sources for advice on pet nutrition. Owners see RMBDs as a more natural and healthier alternative to commercial pet food even if the actual benefits remain unproven. Consulting veterinarians for proper information and board-certified nutritionists for the formulation of complete and balanced RMBDs should be promoted. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1824-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acute diarrhea is a common, often self-limiting, cause of presentation for veterinary care, yet there is a paucity of data on frequently-prescribed treatments. The purpose of this randomized, double blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was to compare two anecdotally-recommended treatments: a probiotic combination and metronidazole. Sixty dogs without concurrent comorbidities were randomized into three treatment groups. The time to resolution of diarrheal signs was evaluated using owner surveys and fecal scoring charts. Dogs presenting with acute diarrhea achieved acceptable fecal consistency after 3.5 ± 2.2 days when receiving probiotic, 4.6 ± 2.4 days with oral metronidazole, and 4.8 ± 2.9 days with placebo; statistically significant differences were not identified between treatment groups ( p = 0.17). These findings failed to provide evidence for the common use of metronidazole in this cohort of dogs with acute canine diarrhea, and a larger study population would be required to identify a statistically significant effect of probiotics.

No abstract

Background: Pet food storage plays a crucial role in maintaining the nutritional and sensory properties of purchased products over time. Methods: An online survey was developed to collect data regarding owners’ storage habits for both commercial and home-made diets. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1545 dog owners and 676 cat owners. Pet and owner age played roles in the choice of the type of diet (commercial vs. home-cooked vs. raw meat-based) adopted. Kibble feeders (75.7%) usually bought one (50.1%) or two (24.6%) packages at a time, and most pets (64.4%) took a minimum four weeks to consume an entire bag. Almost half of the owners (43.5%) used a container to store pet food (plastic bins for 79.5%). Pet food was commonly stored in the kitchen (45.1%) and not exposed to direct light (94.5%); 23.6% of the kibble feeders said it might be exposed to high temperatures. Most commercial pet food feeders (67.3%) considered preservatives a potential health risk for pets. Among homemade diet feeders, 38.6% stored fish oil at room temperature. Conclusions: Pet owners should be educated in proper food storage management when receiving feeding instructions from veterinarians. More comprehensive information on the nature and importance of additives in pet food should be promoted by manufacturers.

Feeding raw‐meat‐based diets to companion animals has become a widespread practice, and many owners are now accustomed to buying frozen ingredients online. The goals of this study were to assess the microbiological quality of raw‐meat dog foods obtained from specialized websites and to evaluate the effects of storage at different temperatures for a few days. Twenty‐nine raw dog food products were processed for quantitative bacteriology (i.e. total viable count, TVC; Escherichia coli; faecal coliforms, FC) and sulphite‐reducing clostridia, and analysed for the presence of Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica and Clostridium difficile. Every sample was examined right after the delivery (T0), after 24 to 48 hr and after 72 hr, both at 2°C and 7°C. At T0, the mean score for the TVC was 5.9 × 106 cfu/g (SD = 4.8 × 107 cfu/g), while those for E. coli and FC were 1.1 × 104 cfu/g (SD = 2.5 × 105 cfu/g) and 3.3 × 103 cfu/g (SD = 6.5 × 104 cfu/g) respectively. The samples stored at 2°C had a significant increase of all parameters (TVC: p < .01; E. coli: p = .03; FC: p = .04) through time. Noteworthy differences between the analyses performed at 2°C and 7°C were found for TVC (p < .01), being the samples considerably more contaminated at higher temperatures. No sample tested positive for Salmonella spp., while L. monocytogenes was isolated from 19 products, Y. enterocolitica from three products and Clostridium perfringens and C. difficile from four and six products respectively. The microbiological quality of raw‐meat dog foods sold online appears to be poor, carrying considerable amounts of potentially zoonotic bacteria and reaching greater levels of bacterial contaminations if not kept at proper refrigeration temperatures and fed soon after defrosting.