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.

BackgroundAlthough the European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF) stated that labels must be accurate and provide detailed information on the ingredients, mislabeling of pet food has been documented by several authors. This phenomenon is of particular concern when related to products used as elimination diets for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR) in dogs and cats because the presence of undeclared ingredients may negatively interfere with the trial and prevent the veterinarian from making an appropriate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to shed light upon the problem of contamination and mislabeling in both dry and wet novel protein diets (NPDs) and hydrolyzed protein diets (HPDs) using a microarray-based commercial kit which tests for the presence of 19 animal species.ResultsOf the 40 analyzed products (9 dry NPDs, 22 wet NPDs, 6 dry HPDs and 3 wet HPDs), ten presented a content that correctly matched the label, while five did not contain the declared animal species, twenty-three revealed the presence of undeclared animal species, and two had a vague label that did not allow the evaluation of its accuracy. The most frequently contaminants identified in both dry and wet pet foods were pork, chicken and turkey. The presence of undeclared animal species was higher in dry than wet pet foods; furthermore, a lower number of contaminating animal species was identified in HPDs than NPDs (4 vs 10), and a lower number of contaminated HPDs (6 out of 9, 67%) than contaminated NPDs was detected (24 out of 31, 77%). Thirteen out of 14 brands tested presented at least one mislabeled product.ConclusionsMislabeling seems to be a widespread issue in pet foods used as elimination diets. Contamination can occur in all types of products used for the purpose, although dry NPDs are the main issue. Due to the high risk of contamination, particular attention should be given to both the selection of raw material suppliers and the production process.

Obesity in dogs is an emerging issue that affects canine health and well-being. Its development is ascribed to several factors, including genetic predisposition and dietary management, and recent evidence suggests that intestinal microbiota may be involved as well. Previous works have shown obesity to be linked to significant changes in gut microbiota composition in humans and mice, but only limited information is available on the role played by canine gut microbiota. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether composition of canine faecal microbiota may be influenced by overweight condition and breed. All the enrolled companion dogs were young adults, intact, healthy, and fed commercial extruded pet food; none had received antibiotics, probiotics or immunosuppressant drugs in the previous six months. Labrador Retriever (LR) and Border Collie (BC) were chosen as reference breeds and Body Condition Score (BCS) on a 9-point scale as reference method for evaluating body fat. The faecal microbial communities of 15 lean (BCS 4–5/9; 7 LRs and 8 BCs) and 14 overweight (BCS > 5/9; 8 LRs and 6 BCs) family dogs were analysed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Moreover, for each dog, the daily intake of energy (kcal/d) and dietary macronutrients (g/d) were calculated according to an accurate feeding history collection. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes resulted the predominant phyla (51.5 ± 10.0% and 33.4 ± 8.5%, respectively) in all dogs. Bioinformatic and statistical analysis revealed that no bacterial taxon differed significantly based on body condition, except for genus Allisonella (p < 0.05); BC gut microbiota was richer (p < 0.05) in bacteria belonging to phyla Actinobacteria (family Coriobacteriaceae in particular) and Firmicutes (Allobaculum and Roseburia genera). No remarkable differences were recorded either for diversity indices (i.e., alpha diversity, p > 0.10) or for divergence within the sample set (i.e., beta diversity, p > 0.05). PERMANOVA tests performed on single factors demonstrated the tendency of dietary protein to influence the recruited dogs’ microbiota beta-diversity at amplicon sequence variant level (p = 0.08). In conclusion, the faecal microbiota of dogs involved in this exploratory study showed no major variations based on body condition. However, our findings suggested that certain bacterial taxa previously acknowledged in obesity-related studies may be detected in dissimilar amounts depending on canine breed.

Forty-one dog treats were selected from the market with the aim of providing more insight into supplemental pet food composition. Thirty-two products (four biscuits, nine tender treats, two meat-based strips, five rawhides, eight chewable sticks, four dental care sticks) were analysed for proximate nutrient composition and quantification of minerals, hydroxyproline (Hyp), starch, glucose, fructose and sucrose. Labelled ingredients were often expressed as non-specific categories. A treat supplied a mean of 332.0±39.2 kcal metabolisable energy (ME)/100 g, and the most energy-dense product was a tender treat (475.0 kcal ME/100 g). Small dogs receive the highest percentage of maintenance energy requirement when producers' feeding instructions are followed. Treat categories revealed variability in dry matter, crude protein, ash, Hyp and starch. Rawhides showed the highest Hyp content. Simple sugars were identified in most treats, and sucrose was the most prevalent. Results of the study suggest treat labelling should include more information on the ingredients used, and the varying nutrient and caloric density of treats should be considered. Specific attention should be given to the use of treats in dogs with specific ingredient sensitivities or nutrient considerations.