Peer Reviewed Journal on Vegan Diet for Dogs
Introduction
The do of feeding a raw meat-based nutrition (RMBD) to dogs is a topic of increasing interest to owners and veterinary professionals akin, with Google searches for "raw dog food" quadrupling over the last 10 years (Google Trend Data, 2020). Estimates of the percentage of dog owners who feed RMBDs vary, but experts agree that the practice is increasing in both the United States and Europe (Davies, Lawes & Wales, 2019).
Equally the feeding of RMBDs has go more than common there has been an increase in research on the safe of the practice, peculiarly the potential for nutritional imbalances and the microbiological risks associated with raw meat. Leading veterinary organizations, from the American Veterinary Medical Association to the World Pocket-size Animal Veterinary Clan, discourage the feeding of RMBDs, but given its increasing popularity some owners are clearly not heeding their warnings (American Veterinary Medical Clan (AVMA), 2019; World Small Brute Veterinarian Clan (WSAVA), 2017). Despite this increased popularity and interest in RMBDs, scant research has been published on canis familiaris owner opinions regarding this type of feeding and comparing it to the feeding of commercially prepared cooked diets (CCDs).
This report was undertaken with the aim to better understand domestic dog owner perspectives on risks, benefits, and nutritional value of raw diets compared to cooked diets. Nosotros hypothesized that owners who feed primarily raw diets to their dogs will perceive the practice to pose less risk to both homo and animal health than those who feed a not-raw diet. We also anticipated that those who feed raw diets will perceive them as more or equally nutritious equally CCDs.
Materials and Methods
Blessing to conduct the project was sought and granted by the Academy of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences Ideals Committee for Non-Clinical Research Involving Human being Participants (Approval Ref: 200180125).
An anonymized, online, internationally attainable, open questionnaire was developed using Google Forms. The questionnaire was tested against peers to assess usability, technical functionality, comprehension, cohesiveness, flow, and length earlier fielding the report. The questionnaire consisted of 11 sections. The first section included a description of the questionnaire including time estimate for completion, stated the terms of consent, and included contact data for the researchers. Whatever person over the age of 18 who was the chief owner or caregiver of a pet domestic dog was invited to participate as the target population. Participation was completely voluntary and required participants to consent to continue with the questionnaire. Participants were not required to sign in or belong to any network in order to participate. No incentives for participation were offered. The second department collected demographics about the dog possessor. Sections three–ten included dichotomous, categorical, ordinal and free-text box questions. Sections three–10 included 1–4 questions each, with an average of three questions per department. Section 11 consisted of a cursory appreciation for their time and ended the questionnaire. Participants were allowed to skip any question or reply free-text questions with "NA" (non applicable) and they were able to navigate forrad and backwards before submitting the questionnaire. Questions asked virtually general feeding trends and opinions, rather than asking for owners to respond about each pet they may own.
Results were automatically collected past the Google Forms software and were exported from the internet when the data collection was finished.
Later on obtaining permission from page administrators, a live, sharable link to the questionnaire was initially posted four times on dog-axial customs pages on Facebook; Dogspotting (one.vii million members) and Dogspotting Society (974,000 members). Facebook users frequent these types of pages to view and share photos or videos of dogs and data near dog ownership. Two of the researchers likewise posted the link on their personal Facebook pages. It is known to the researchers that the survey was posted elsewhere on Facebook by individuals other than the researchers. The link remained live for 14 weeks during the summer of 2019.
Discrete data were compiled and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Statistical significance was adamant using chi-squared testing with a p-value of less than 0.001 unless specifically noted. When presenting percentages to compare cooked and raw feeding groups, summation of percentages is always 100%. Qualitative analysis of the make full-in data was undertaken using the RStudio text mining (tm) parcel and word cloud generator package (wordcloud) to observe relevant discussion frequencies and visually represent the data. Qualitative data were mined to exclude common English stop words and combine words with the aforementioned stem (e.g., take a chance and risky) as well every bit words with an identical significant (due east.one thousand., stool, feces, faeces, poop, poo).
Results
Demographics
Iv hundred and nineteen people of variable age responded to the survey. Nearly respondents were female (n = 393, 93.6%), omnivorous (n = 357, 85.half dozen%), and did not work as role of the animal manufacture or animate being related field (n = 306, 73.two%). Only a minority of respondents lived in households with immunocompromised individuals (due north = 33, 7.9%), pregnant women (due north = 10, 2.4%) or children under x years of age (n = 43, 10.3%). Our survey participants hailed from 16 countries on 5 continents, with the U.s.a. (north = 206, 58.four%) and the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland (n = 97, 27.5%) as the most represented and 2nd most represented countries, respectively (Table 1).
Table one:
Demographic data for survey respondents.
| Variable | Number of respondents | % |
|---|---|---|
| Total survey respondents | 419 | 100 |
| Gender | ||
| Apogender | one | 0.ii |
| Female | 393 | 93.vi |
| Male | 23 | v.5 |
| Nonbinary | 1 | 0.2 |
| Prefer non to say | two | 0.five |
| Historic period (years) | ||
| 18–24 | sixty | fourteen.3 |
| 25–35 | 146 | 34.eight |
| 36–45 | 60 | 14.3 |
| 46–55 | 71 | 16.9 |
| 56–65 | 64 | fifteen.3 |
| Over 65 | eighteen | 4.iii |
| State of Residence | ||
| Australia | eleven | iii.i |
| Canada | 25 | 7.0 |
| New Zealand | 2 | 0.six |
| Singapore | ii | 0.6 |
| S Africa | 1 | 0.3 |
| Spain | ane | 0.three |
| Turkey | 1 | 0.3 |
| United kingdom | 97 | 27.ii |
| Usa | 206 | 57.9 |
| Other: One respondent from each land (China, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, Kingdom of norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Turkey) | 10 | 2.8 |
| Industry (Animal-related field?) | ||
| Fauna Industry (pet food, toys, products) | 12 | 2.9 |
| Animal Services (groomer, farrier, acupuncturist, kennel staff, etc.) | 37 | viii.ix |
| Breeder | 5 | 1.2 |
| No. Other profession not related to animal industry | 306 | 73.ii |
| Student of veterinary medicine/science/nursing | 34 | 8.1 |
| Veterinarian or Vet Nurse | 24 | 5.7 |
| Possessor'southward Dietary Preferences | ||
| Omnivore (meat and institute-based diet) | 357 | 85.6 |
| Vegan | 9 | 2.2 |
| Vegetarian | 39 | nine.4 |
| Other | 12 | 2.9 |
| Household with children nether 10 years of age | ||
| No | 375 | 89.seven |
| Aye | 43 | x.3 |
| Household with immunocompromised private | ||
| "I don't know" | eight | one.nine |
| No | 376 | 90.two |
| Yeah | 33 | 7.9 |
| Household with pregnant individual | ||
| "I don't know" | 1 | 0.2 |
| No | 408 | 97.4 |
| Yes | 10 | 2.4 |
Establishment of diet
When asked how owners established their dog'south diet, 24.4% (due north = 101) of respondents said they followed a recommendation from a veterinarian, veterinary nurse or veterinary technician. Data published online from a not-veterinary source (n = 54, 13.0%) and data published by a veterinarian or veterinary nutritionist (due north = 50, 12.1%) were as well popular choices. The residual of respondents (n = 209, l.5%) established their canis familiaris's nutrition in myriad other ways, like recommendations from friends and family unit, tradition (what they have always fed), recommendation of the breeder or rescue/shelter and recommendation from brood specific literature, among others (101 discrete answers were offered).
Owners were asked what their dogs ate most of the fourth dimension (their main diet). The bulk of respondents fed their canis familiaris a CCD every bit the main diet, in the forms of dry/kibble or moisture/canned/sachet (due north = 267, 63.7%). Commercially prepared raw nutrient (n = 54, 12.9%) was the next most popular option, followed by a bootleg raw diet (due north = 52, 12.four%), a prescription diet for a medical condition (due north = 30, 7.2%) and a homemade cooked nutrition (n = sixteen, iii.8%). For the purposes of this newspaper, owners who fed predominantly raw diets (as their main diet) in whatever grade volition herein be referred to as "raw feeders" while owners who fed predominantly cooked diets in any grade will be referred to equally "cooked feeders".
Perceptions of diets
Respondents were asked to rate diverse diets on scales of 1 to 5 (where 1 is lowest and 5 is highest) in terms of perceived nutritional value, as well equally risks to both human and dog health; the diets they rated were CCDs, commercially prepared RMBDs, and homemade RMBDs.
When asked virtually nutrition, raw feeders were more than likely to rate RMBDs equally highly nutritious (iv or five out of five) than cooked feeders were (p < 0.001 for all comparisons made), and made only a small distinction between commercial or bootleg RMBDs, with 83.5% (n = 79) of raw feeders rating commercial RMBDs equally highly nutritious and 73.half dozen% (n = 78) rating homemade RMBDs as highly nutritious. In contrast, cooked feeders fabricated a greater distinction between commercial and bootleg diets than between cooked and raw; 52.7% (north = 164) of cooked feeders rated CCDs as highly nutritious and 51.half dozen% (n = 119) gave the aforementioned rating to commercial RMBDs. Only 35.7% (north = 106) of cooked feeders rated homemade RMBDs as highly nutritious, and only 12.five% (north = 13) of raw feeders rated CCDs as highly nutritious (Fig. 1).
Figure i: Possessor responses to rating questions.
Dog owner responses when asked to rate cooked diets or raw diets on three variables (nutritional value, take a chance to dog health, or gamble to human being health) every bit well as their ain knowledge of nutrition and their veterinarian'southward noesis of nutrition on a v-bespeak scale, where 1 was the least and 5 was the nearly of each variable, separated by owner'southward chosen diet (cooked feeders vs raw feeders).When asked about chance, all participants rated CCDs as depression risk to humans; in that location was no statistical difference betwixt the groups (p = 0.93). Still, cooked feeders perceived RMBDs equally riskier to both their canis familiaris'south health and human being health than raw feeders did (p < 0.001 for all). Both groups viewed CCDs every bit riskier to dog health than to human health: while approximately 15.0% of both groups thought in that location was a high risk to homo health (cooked feeders northward = 17, raw feeders due north = 7), in that location was a significant divergence in perception of risk to canis familiaris health between groups. 40-five cooked feeders (25.1%) rated CCDs as highly risky to dog health. The results from raw feeders were more extreme: 65.three% (n = 54) of them rated CCDs as highly risky to domestic dog health (Fig. one).
Perceptions of nutritional knowledge
Ii hundred and 90-7 (lxx.9%) respondents had discussed nutrition with their veterinary. When asked to rank how knowledgeable they felt their veterinarian was nearly diet where 1 was least knowledgeable and 5 was virtually knowledgeable, 59.ix% (n = 249) of respondents gave their veterinary a 4 or 5 out of 5. When asked to rank how knowledgeable owners felt they were most their dog's diet, 61.9% (n = 260) gave themselves 4 or five out of 5. Further analysis of this information shows a meaning departure in responses given by raw feeders and cooked feeders. When asked to rank their own nutritional noesis on a scale of i to 5, 65.two% (n = 174) of cooked feeders ranked themselves as iv or 5 out of v, while 86.0% (n = 85) of raw feeders gave themselves the aforementioned score (p < 0.001). Just 45.5% (n = 33) of raw feeders gave their veterinarian a iv or v on the calibration, whereas 78.0% (n = 215) of cooked feeders ranked their veterinary as 4 or five out of 5 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 1).
Free text answers
Owners provided a diversity of opinions via free-text boxes when asked about perceived benefits and risks of raw feeding as well every bit why they chose to feed a RMBD or why they chose not to feed a RMBD to their dog. These perceptions are visually summarized in the give-and-take clouds (Figs. 2–5). The about repeated words for benefits of RMBDs were "wellness" (frequency (f) = 105), "better" (f = 104), "coat" (f = 59), and "teeth" (f = 50) (Fig. two) and the most repeated words for risks were "bacteria" (f = 91), "nutrition" (f = 72), "chance" (f = 63), and "Salmonella" (f = 39) (Fig. iii). When asked why they chose to feed raw, owners virtually often used the words "wellness" (f = 54), "better" (f = 23), "diet" (f = 20)" and "glaze" (f = 14) (Fig. 4). Conversely, when asked why they chose non to feed raw, the almost common words were "expensive" (f = 59), "time" (f = 45), "chance" (f = 42), and "convenience" (f = 36) (Fig. 5).
Figure two: Perceived benefits of raw diets.
Response to the prompt: what benefits are y'all aware of associated with feeding a raw diet? 
Figure 3: Perceived risks of raw diets.
Response to the prompt: what risks are you aware of associated with feeding a raw nutrition? 
Figure iv: Reasons for feeding a raw diet.
Response to the prompt: if you feed your dog a raw diet, why? 
Figure 5: Reasons for non feeding a raw diet.
Response to the prompt: if you practice non feed your dog a raw nutrition, why not?Discussion
Our demographic data indicates that our survey respondents were overwhelmingly female (north = 393, 93.6%) which seems to be a typical result in surveys of pet owners (Morgan, Willis & Shepherd, 2017). Though we did have responses from a breadth of countries, the U.s. and the Britain were the 2 most represented countries, which is an expected outcome given that our questionnaire was just available in English.
Comparison raw feeders with cooked feeders revealed many key distinctions in stance and perception between the two groups. To start, raw feeders and cooked feeders differed in their assessments of the nutritional quality of diverse diets. As we hypothesized, raw feeders perceived homemade and commercial RMBDs both as highly nutritious, making little distinction between the two preparations. This perception is not supported by scientific evidence; numerous studies take demonstrated the risks of nutritional imbalances inherent in homemade diets (Freeman & Michel, 2001; Stockman et al., 2013; Pedrinelli, Gomes & Carciofi, 2017; Dillitzer, Becker & Kienzle, 2011). Even bootleg diets formulated by veterinarians take been shown to sometimes be incomplete though they tend to have fewer and less severe deficiencies than those formulated by non-veterinarians (Freeman & Michel, 2001). Homemade diets should always exist formulated in consultation with lath-certified veterinary nutritionists to ensure they are properly counterbalanced. A wide array of medical atmospheric condition can be acquired past improper food residuum including nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism, developmental orthopedic conditions, and even canine nutritional hyperthyroidism; there are multiple documented cases of dogs developing these conditions as a consequence of eating improperly counterbalanced homemade RMBDs (Taylor et al., 2009; Krook & Whalen, 2010; Zeugswetter, Vogelsinger & Handl, 2013; Köhler, Stengel & Neiger-Casas, 2012). These risks are concerning, especially as a contempo international study of pet owners found that 89% of raw-feeding dog owners fed homemade raw diets (Dodd et al., 2020). A split survey aimed specifically at raw feeders found that only 15% of respondents formulated their dog's RMBD with guidance from a veterinarian or nutritionist (Morelli et al., 2019). The fact that raw feeders are not making a distinction between the nutritional quality of bootleg and commercial RMBDs and that many seem to be formulating their dog's diet without appropriate guidance suggests a need for further owner education on the risks of feeding an improperly counterbalanced homemade diet. By comparison, the majority of cooked feeders did distinguish between their assessment of the two preparations, with few of them rating homemade RMBDs as highly nutritious and a larger number rating both commercial RMBDs and CCDs every bit highly nutritious. It is worth noting that a RMBD beingness commercially produced is not a guarantee that it is nutritionally counterbalanced, particularly given that legal standards for pet food vary from land to country. The WSAVA recommends only feeding commercial pet food (raw or cooked) from companies that meet specific standards, including the total-fourth dimension employment of a board-certified veterinary nutritionist (World Pocket-sized Fauna Veterinary Association Global Nutrition Commission, 2013).
Unsurprisingly only one in eight raw feeders viewed CCDs as highly nutritious. Cooked feeders demonstrated interesting perceptions of CCDs, with slightly over one-half of them (northward = 164, 52.7%) rating CCDs as highly nutritious; that is an alarmingly low number considering that is the diet they chose to feed to their dogs. When we combine these findings with the top reasons that owners provided for not feeding RMBDs ("time", "expensive", "convenience"), we tin postulate that nutrition option is multifactorial and that lifestyle factors may exist playing a larger role than nutritional value for some owners. This is an area that begs farther research to understand exactly why cooked feeders are choosing to feed a nutrition they do non view equally particularly high in nutritional value.
When information technology comes to risks associated with raw and cooked diets, raw feeders and cooked feeders again had dissimilar perceptions. Cooked feeders were far more likely to rate both commercial and homemade RMBDs as higher risk to both canis familiaris and human being health than CCDs. This demonstrates an sensation of the published dangers surrounding the handling and consumption of raw meat products. 1 of those risks is of zoonotic infection with Salmonella, which is 1 of the most ordinarily found pathogens in RMBDs and may pose a greater threat to owners than to their pets; dogs have been plant less probable to showroom clinical signs of Salmonella infections fifty-fifty while shedding the leaner into their environments, and multiple studies have demonstrated higher incidence of Salmonella shedding in dogs fed RMBDs (Gruenberg, 2019; Reimschuessel et al., 2017; Lefebvre et al., 2008; Lenz et al., 2009). This risk is not necessarily mitigated by strict hygiene standards; Salmonella species have been shown to persist in dog bowls used for RMBDs, even after being cleaned in a dishwasher at 85 °C or scrubbed and soaked in bleach (Weese & Rousseau, 2006). Salmonella is the most common pathogenic risk from raw feeding cited past our respondents, though it is past no means the only hazard associated with RMBDs; other examples of pathogens found in studies of RMBDs include the bacteria Escherichia coli species, Campylobacter species, Clostridium perfringens, and Brucella suis, as well equally the parasites Toxoplasma gondii, Sarcoystis cruzi, and Sarcoystis tenella. These contaminants can atomic number 82 to a range of disorders, including polyradiculoneuritis in the example of Campylobacter spp. infection (Hellgren et al., 2019; Van Bree et al., 2018; Van Dijk et al., 2018; Martinez-Anton et al., 2018). In that location take also been concerning reports of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens constitute in commercial RMBDs, from strains of E. coli to diverse Salmonella serovars, and there are ongoing reports of cats in the United kingdom contracting Tuberculosis from a particular make of commercial RMBD (Finley et al., 2007; Nilsson, 2015; O'Halloran et al., 2019). Many of these risks take been further explored by Davies, Lawes & Wales (2019) in their 2019 review. One contempo written report institute that simply 63 out of 16,475 raw-feeding households self-reported that a member of their household became ill due to raw products fed to their pet(s), and of those households, simply 39 had the pathogen confirmed past a laboratory (Anturaniemi et al., 2019). This seems to indicate a very minimal human adventure from feeding RMBDs to pets, nonetheless the ii most normally reported pathogens in that report, Campylobacter and Salmonella are both considered to be widely underdiagnosed and underreported (Wagenaar, French & Havelaar, 2013; WHO, 2015). It is hard to gauge the exact caste to which zoonotic transmission of pathogens occurs from the feeding of RMBDs but the risk is certainly present. While responses from cooked feeders imply some level of understanding of the pathogenic risks of RMBDs, they also demonstrate a perception that commercial RMBDs are less risky than homemade RMBDs when in that location is piffling bear witness to support this. By contrast, raw feeders were non likely to charge per unit any type of RMBD as highly risky to either human or animal wellness. This correlates with Morelli et al who found that 65% of raw feeders believed that RMBD consumption cannot make dogs sick (Morelli et al., 2019). These findings conspicuously signal a demand for further possessor education on the pathogenic risks of RMDBs.
Interestingly, a quarter of cooked feeders (n = 45, 25.1%) and roughly two-thirds of raw feeders (n = 13, 65.3%) rated CCDs as highly risky when it comes to canine wellness. Information technology is worth noting that participants were non given an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind their ratings, and then it is unclear what perceived risks were beingness associated with CCDs. Cooked pet food can be host to microbial pathogens, withal, the take a chance is significantly lower than for RMBDs; a study of over 1,000 commercially available pet foods plant evidence of Salmonella or Listeria species in 40.8% of raw samples and just 0.42% of cooked ones (Nemser et al., 2014). All the same there have been some highly publicized incidents of dry nutrient recalls including a problem in 2007 with melamine contagion and more recently excess levels of vitamin D which may have been a factor for owners in answering this question (U.Due south. Food and Drug Administration, 2018, 2020). Exploring possessor-perceived risks associated with commercially cooked nutrient would be an interesting area for further research.
When respondents were asked to rate their veterinarian's knowledge of nutrition, 59.9% (n = 249) of owners surveyed believed their veterinarian to be highly knowledgeable (iv or 5 out of 5). A prior survey past Morgan et al found that simply 35.9% of surveyed canis familiaris owners trusted their veterinarians as a noesis resource with respect to pet nutrition (Morgan, Willis & Shepherd, 2017). While that statistic makes our effigy seem surprisingly high, farther analysis of our information shows a large departure in the cess of veterinary nutritional knowledge depending on the diet fed by the possessor in question; cooked feeders gave their veterinarian an average score of iii.ix out of 5 while raw feeders gave an boilerplate score of simply 2.9 out of v. The stark deviation between the perceptions of the 2 groups demonstrates a demand for better advice between veterinarians and their raw feeding clients, with specific regard to veterinarians' ability to inspire confidence in their ain nutritional knowledge. Furthermore, this emphasizes the demand for a strong foundation in nutrition in veterinary education alongside the communication skills and confidence to raise questions and beginning evidence-based discussions most nutrition in the consulting room.
One of the novel aspects of this research was allowing owners to provide their opinions on raw feeding in their own words using free-text boxes. When all owners were asked about the benefits of raw feeding, specific keywords repeatedly arose such every bit "teeth", "coat", "natural", "digestion" and "allergen", along with general positive words like "better" and "health". Highlighting the areas where owners think raw feeding benefits their dogs tin can serve equally a starting point for veterinarians to open word about nutrition and help them to understand what owners find highly-seasoned about the do of feeding RMBDs.
When asked why raw feeders chose to feed RMBDs, frequently repeated words were more than oftentimes vague: "wellness", "better", "issues" and "benefits". These did not farther the agreement of the motivation behind raw feeding and may expose an inability of raw feeders to agree on reasons to choose RMBDs. The lack of specific terms also emphasizes the dearth of peer-reviewed published information on the benefits of raw feeding.
Asking owners about the risks associated with raw feeding generated less ambiguous results, with words like "bacteria", "Salmonella", "contagion", "bone" and "unbalanced" being often repeated. This suggests that at least a subset of the population is informed about some of the documented risks of RMBDs. When owners who did not feed RMBDs were asked why they avoid the practice, they used tangible words once more, with "time", "expensive", "risk", and "convenience" being some of the about repeated words. It is worth pointing out that the most common answers for why owners chose not to feed RMBDs practise not straight correlate with the risks they listed previously. This perhaps indicates that it is non the risks associated with RMBDs that is preventing these owners from choosing that diet for their dog.
Compiling the free-text data into word clouds or tag clouds provides an intuitive and accessible way to visualize the information, rather than simply relying on frequency graphs. Information technology demonstrates the complication and diversity of data while highlighting the most important and frequently used keywords as the largest and centrally located words (Bateman, Gutwin & Nacenta, 2008). The use of word clouds originated in the www as a fashion to compile tags but has since evolved every bit a useful tool for text analytics (Heimerl et al., 2014). Their use in scientific literature has not been widespread, thus this application represents an innovative style to present our data. Our word clouds summarize a massive corporeality of costless-text data and allow us to choice out trends and keywords rapidly and efficiently while providing an esthetically pleasing medium that is easy for a layperson to interpret.
The free-text boxes were a particular strength of this survey equally it allowed owners a risk to limited their perceptions in their own words. Additional strengths included our wide geographic spread of participants and variety in professional groundwork of participants. Limitations of the survey include aspects that potentially restricted participation, in particular the need for respondents to be expert in the English language as well as have internet and social media access. The varying geographical and cultural backgrounds of respondents may too have led to some confusion in terminology, for instance, the term "traditional" was used multiple times in the survey and all the same will imply unlike connotations to a respondent depending on their groundwork. As with many studies, sample size and participant engagement could accept been more than robust and volition be a point of attention for future research.
Conclusions
This study used a novel questionnaire to appraise canis familiaris owner perceptions around canine feeding of raw meat-based and commercial cooked diets. Canis familiaris owners take immense selection when deciding on a nutrition for their pets and the data indicated that an increasing number of them are choosing RMBDs, despite concerns cited by leading veterinarian bodies (Davies, Lawes & Wales, 2019). This contradiction indicates a clear need to sympathise what specifically is driving owners to choose RMBDs or CCDs, though it is equally important to assess what causes owners to avoid feeding these diet types as well.
We found our hypotheses to be largely right; domestic dog owners who choose to feed RMBDs mostly viewed the practice to exist less risky to both human and dog health than owners who practise non feed RMBDs. Raw feeders also rated raw diets as significantly more nutritious than CCDs. Moreover, over 6 in seven raw feeders perceived themselves as highly knowledgeable most nutrition, while only one-half viewed their veterinary equally knowledgeable. Conversely, cooked feeders perceived their veterinarians as more knowledgeable than they were about their dog's nutrition, but just half of them viewed CCDs as a nutritious diet. Further potential areas of inquiry could include probing into specific claims made by raw feeders in the free-text portion of the questionnaire as well as exploring why cooked feeders choose their diet.
Supplemental Information
Original survey that owners completed.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Tim Parkin and William Houston for their aid with statistics and coding.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Writer Contributions
Alysia Empert-Gallegos conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.
Emerge Colina conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the information, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.
Philippa S. Yam conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, supervised and approved the final draft.
Human Ideals
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.due east., approving trunk and whatsoever reference numbers):
The University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences Ethics Commission for Non-Clinical Research Involving Human Participants granted ethical approval to carry out this survey (Application Ref: 200180125) and informed consent was obtained for all participants.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Data is available at Figshare: Empert-Gallegos, Alysia; Poole, Sarah (2020): RRaw Questionnaire Raw Data.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.12404432.v1.
Funding
This piece of work was supported by MSD Animal Health. The funders had no office in study design, information collection and analysis, decision to publish, or training of the manuscript.
References
-
Investigation of listeria, salmonella, and toxigenic escherichia coli in various pet foods. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease xi (ix):706-709
-
Tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis in pet cats associated with feeding a commercial raw food diet. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 21 (8):667-681
-
Multilaboratory survey to evaluate Salmonella prevalence in diarrheic and nondiarrheic dogs and cats in the United States betwixt 2012 and 2014. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 55 (5):1350-1368
Source: https://peerj.com/articles/10383/
0 Response to "Peer Reviewed Journal on Vegan Diet for Dogs"
Post a Comment