Content uploaded by Sarah Dodd
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Dodd on Jul 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
VETRECORD| 1
Original research
An observational study of pet feeding
practices and how these have changed
between 2008 and2018
Sarah Dodd , Nick Cave, Sarah Abood, Anna- Kate Shoveller, Jennifer Adolphe, Adronie Verbrugghe
Abstract
Background Pet owners have many feeding options, some may be considered unconventional by veterinary
practitioners. Provision of appropriate nutrition is a basic requirement, with adverse health outcomes possible
when a pet diet is inadequate.
Objective To capture dog and cat feeding practices, with a special focus on countries with large English-
speaking populations, and to compare with data published over the previous 10 years.
Methods An electronic questionnaire was provided for dog and cat owners online. Responses were analysed
using descriptive statistics, and comparisons made with data from nine peer- reviewed articles published over the
previous 10 years.
Results Responses from 3673 English- speaking dog and cat owners in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the
UK and the USA were included. In previous publications, conventional (commercial, heat- processed) products
were the predominant method of feeding. In recent publications, feeding unconventional (raw, homemade,
vegetarian) diets appeared more prevalent. In the present study, most (79 per cent dogs, 90 per cent cats) pets
were oered conventional food. However a few (13 per cent dogs, 32 per cent cats) pets were fed conventional
foods exclusively. Many pets were oered homemade (64 per cent dogs, 46 per cent cats) and/or raw (66 per cent
dogs, 53 per cent cats) foods. Dierent feeding practices were associated with geographical location.
Conclusion As an increased risk of nutrient insuciency and associated conditions have been attributed to
unconventional feeding practices, veterinarians must be aware of pet feeding trends and educate clients about
the nutritional needs of companion animals.
Introduction
Worldwide, over half of the population keeps companion
animals.1 In the USA alone, 47 million households have
at least one cat, and 60 million have at least one dog,
totalling over 94 million cats and 89 million dogs.2
Since the introduction of conventional dry (kibble) and
wet (canned, pouches, rolls) pet foods to the market,
these diets have been fed to the majority of dogs and
cats in developed countries and are considered by
many to be the conventional method of feeding dogs
and cats.3 4 These products are designed to be easy
and convenient, and it has been suggested that the
longevity of companion animals could be attributable,
in part, to the development of nutritional targets and
provision of complete and balanced commercial
products.5 Regulatory guidelines and recommendations
are published in North America by the American
Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and in
Europe by the European Pet Food Industry Federation
(FEDIAF), based primarily upon pet nutrition research
data collated by the National Research Council. These
guidelines were introduced around 50 years ago and
empirical estimates of many nutrient requirements are
lacking in the literature.6 The global pet food industry,
a continually growing market worth about 70 per cent
of the $115 billion pet care business, has a vast array
of pet food options available to consumers, with almost
1000 different brands listed in one online database.7–9
If processed kibble or canned products are considered
/vetrec--
Veterinary Record (2020) doi: 10.1136/vr.105828
1Department of Clinical Studies,
University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary
College, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
2School of Veterinary Science, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New
Zealand
3Department of Animal Biosciences,
University of Guelph Ontario Agricultural
College, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
4Petcurean Pet Nutrition, Chilliwack,
British Columbia, Canada
E-mail for correspondence: Dr Adronie
Verbrugghe, Department of Clinical
Studies, University of Guelph Ontario
Veterinary College, Guelph, ON N1G
2W1, Canada; averbrug@ uoguelph. ca
Provenance and peer review Not
commissioned; externally peer
reviewed.
Received December 20, 2019
Revised March 31, 2020
Accepted April 17, 2020
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
| VETRECORD
2
conventional pet foods, there appears to be increased
interest in feeding alternative or unconventional diets—
that is, homemade (HM) and raw animal products
(RAP), to companion dogs and cats.3 10
Trends in nutrition for companion animals have
come to shadow trends in human nutrition,11 as
dogs and cats have evolved from working animals to
family members.12–14 Current trends include natural,
‘ancestral’, grain- free, HM and RAP.15–17 Trust in
the pet food industry has been decreasing, though
veterinarians are still considered a reliable resource for
food recommendations by most pet owners, at least in
the USA.10 A growing number of concerned owners are
turning to other sources of guidance for their companion
animals’ health and nutrition.10 18 19
The risks associated with feeding nutritionally
inadequate diets have been well documented, including
infectious pathogen exposure and nutrient deciencies
or imbalances.20–26 Reported diseases associated with
feeding unbalanced HM diets include pansteatitis,
dysregulation of bone metabolism, myelopathy
and seizures.27–32 Infectious diseases and antibiotic
resistance have also been reported in association
with feeding RAP.33–35 Feeding commercial processed
kibble or wet food is not a fail- safe measure against
nutritionally associated disease, and cases of ingredient
adulteration and nutrient imbalances have occurred.36 37
However, in the USA, re- calls and reported incidences
are relatively few in comparison with the amount of
processed pet food manufactured and fed to pets each
year,38 and it appears that veterinary practitioners
generally recommend feeding complete and balanced
commercially processed diets to dogs and cats.39 In view
of the plethora of feeding practices and the changeable
perspectives of pet owners it is necessary to regularly
document feeding of companion animals and identify
trends in order to keep practitioners up to date. This
study aimed to examine dog and cat feeding practices,
with a special focus on countries with large English-
speaking populations, and to compare the results
with data published over the previous 10 years. It was
hypothesised that prevalence of HM and RAP would be
greater than previously reported, while the proportion
of animals exclusively fed conventional pet foods would
be lower.
Materials and methods
Literature review
Using the University of Guelph Library, six journal
databases were collectively searched, with full-
text articles available through the Academic Search
Premier, AGRICOLA, Cambridge Journals, Google
Scholar, the Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library.
These databases were searched using defined search
filters (ie, FILTER 1 – ‘Pet’: Pet OR Dog OR Canine
OR Cat OR Feline OR Companion animal; FILTER 2
– ‘Feeding Practices’: Feeding Practices OR Diet OR
Food) and limited to publication years 2008–2018.
Studies performed outside the countries of interest
(Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and the USA), or
including populations other than healthy dogs or cats
were excluded. Particular foods were considered to be
exclusively fed if the study reported that food as the
only food fed. Alternatively, foods were considered to be
inclusive in the diet if the study reported that other foods
were also fed. The reported findings of these studies
were collected, tabulated and graphically represented
to visualise trends in feeding practices over time.
Survey
A multiple choice and short- answer survey titled ‘Pet
Feeding Practices’ was designed and administered
online ( www. surveymonkey. net). The study was
published in English only. As participation was based
on self- selection, there were no inclusion or exclusion
criteria. The survey was distributed online through
social media, initially posted to canine and feline
interest groups on Facebook, Inc, and available for
a total of 135 days from September 2016 to January
2017. The survey link was open to sharing, allowing for
dissemination through other social media platforms.
This avenue had been successfully used previously to
attain adequate participation and so was chosen for
sample collection, recognising the demographic bias
introduced and the inherent risk of self- selection. The
study was approved by the research ethics board of the
University of Guelph (REB #17-08-092). Questions were
designed by SD and NC, and the survey was piloted on
15 final- year veterinary students.
Briey, this study includes the results from four
multiple- choice questions to capture demographic data,
and four multiple- choice questions, each including
a text entry ‘other’ option, to collect information
on species (cat, dog or both), location of pet food
purchasing (supermarket, pet store, veterinary clinic,
direct from manufacturer, online, home- prepared,
‘other’), pet diet and frequency of feeding. Pet diet was
self- reported by selecting frequency of feeding one
or more of the following: commercial meat- based dry
food, commercial meat- based wet food, commercial
meat- based raw food, commercial vegetarian dry food,
commercial vegetarian wet food, commercial vegan
dry food, commercial vegan wet food, home- prepared
food with cooked meat, home- prepared food with
raw meat, home- prepared vegetarian food, home-
prepared vegan food, a therapeutic diet prescribed
by a veterinarian, commercial treats with cooked
meat, commercial treats with raw meat, commercial
vegetarian treats, commercial vegan treats, homemade
treats with cooked meat, homemade treats with raw
meat, homemade vegetarian treats, homemade vegan
treats, food scraps/le overs including cooked meat,
food scraps/le overs including raw meat, vegetarian
food scraps/le overs, vegan food scraps/le overs.
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
VETRECORD| 3
Table 1 Summary of nine peer- reviewed publications published between 2008 and 2018, documenting pet feeding practices in Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, the UK and the USA, compared with the present study
Reference Year published Country Survey method Population Demographics
Species (sample
size)
Australia
USA
Telephone Randomised Australian and USA citizens
from local phone book
Not reported Cats ()
Dogs ()
UK Paper – in clinic Clients of private and charity veterinary
practices
Not reported Dogs ()
Australia Paper – in post Randomised residents from Sydney
phone book
Not reported Cats ()
UK Paper+interview in person Clients of private and charity veterinary
practices
% female;
Age: % – years, %
– years, % –
years, % > years old
Dogs ()
Australia Paper – in clinic Melbourne residents attending veterinary
clinics and dog- related community events
% female;
Mean age . years (SD
.)
Dogs ()
Canada Paper – in clinic Medical clinic patients Not reported Cats ()
Dogs ()
Canada
USA
eSurvey Dog breeders Not reported Dogs ()
Australia Telephone interview,
eSurvey
Randomly selected households from
online community panel
% female;
Age % – years, %
– years, % –
years, % – years, %
> years
Cats ()
Dogs ()
USA Interview in person Agility trial participants Not reported Dogs ()
Present study Australia
Canada
New Zealand
UK
USA
Other
eSurvey Owners of dogs and cats % female;
Age: % < years, %
– years, % –
years, % – years,
% – years, %
– years, % > years
Cats ()
Dogs ()
Though the term ‘meat’ may not be entirely precise
with respect to the nature of animal products in some
pet foods (ie, animal by- products as opposed to muscle
meat), it was chosen as it is common and recognisable.
Similarly, though the term ‘vegan’ is dened as a
creed or lifestyle philosophy, it was used to refer to
foods without any animal ingredients (ie, no meat,
dairy, egg or honey ingredients) due to familiarity of
the term and possible ambiguity of the phrase ‘plant-
based’. Frequencies of feeding options were ‘never’,
‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’, or ‘daily’.
Statistical analysis
Survey responses were analysed and descriptive
statistics applied to assess categorical data. Diet
was categorised as conventional if it consisted of
commercial processed meat- based foods, raw if it
consisted of commercial or homemade raw meat- based
foods, homemade if it consisted of homemade food,
vegetarian if it consisted of vegetarian food, or plant-
based if it consisted of vegan food. Data were reported
as frequency counts (n) and percentage/proportion
(%). Chi- square analyses of the obtained survey data
measured differences between groups of interest,
with a P value of 0.05 being considered significant.
Countries of focus (Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
UK, USA) were compared with each other, and with a
global average.
Results
Literature review
Nine peer- reviewed articles published between 2008
and 2018 were identified that described dog and cat
feeding practices in corresponding countries (table1).
Eight of these studies included data regarding feeding
practices for dogs, while only one included data for
cats. Previous publications focused on only one or two
geographical regions and most did not include rigorous
descriptions of diet types (eg, discussing ‘commercial’
versus ‘RAP’ feeding without identifying the category
into which a commercial RAP product would fit). Five
articles focused predominantly on feeding practices,
while four included information regarding feeding
practices as a component of a larger study. Two articles
focused on specific subsets of dog owners, including
breeders18 and sporting/working dogs.40 A summary
of pet feeding practices extrapolated from the previous
literature published between 2008 and 2018 can be
seen in table 2. In general, among both species the
feeding of conventional products, particularly as the
sole diet, appears to be decreasing, with increasing
inclusion of unconventional diets, particularly RAP.
Survey
A total of 3673 questionnaires were included in this
dataset, with 3161 from Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, the USA or the UK. The other 512 respondents
were spread between 57 other countries. A summary of
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
| VETRECORD
4
Table 2 Summary of dog feeding practices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA published between 2008 and 2018 and including the
present study
Reference
3 41 42 43 44 45 18 46 40
Present study
Year published
Diet: dogs
Exclusively conventional %* -% - - % -%
Includes conventional %* -% % -% -%
Exclusively homemade .–.% -.% -% .% -.%
Includes homemade % -.% % -% -%
Exclusively raw - ------ %
Includes raw % - - .% - - % %
Diet: cats
Exclusively conventional %* % ----- %
Includes conventional %* % -% -% -%
Exclusively homemade % ------ .%
Includes homemade % - - % -.% -%
Exclusively raw - ------ .%
Includes raw .% - - .% -.% -%
*Indicates data estimated from graphical representation. Note that the categories 'raw' and 'homemade' can overlap, as in the case of a homemade diet containing raw animal products. In previous studies, this
distinction is not made, so homemade raw food could be represented both under 'raw' and under 'homemade' categories, for the data from the present study, raw homemade food is categorised simply as 'raw'.
Particular foods were considered to be exclusively fed if the study reported that food as the only food fed or that the diet comprised solely that food. Alternatively, foods were considered to be inclusive in the diet
if the study reported that other foods were also fed or that the diet comprised more than one food.
Table 3 Frequency with which dog and cat owners provided various treats or snacks for their pets, as reported by pet owners in an online questionnaire on
pet feeding practices
Never Occasionally Frequently Daily
Dogs (n=) Commercial treats .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Homemade treats .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Table scraps .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Raw animal products .% () .% () .% () % ()
Cats (n=) Commercial treats .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Homemade treats .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Table scraps .% () .% () .% () .% ()
Raw animal products .% () .% () .% () % ()
the demographic data of survey respondents is shown
in table1. Half of respondents had dogs only (51 per
cent, n=1870), a third had both dogs and cats (33 per
cent, n=1200), and less than a quarter had cats only (16
per cent, n=603). Dietary information was acquired for
1542 cats and 2940 dogs. Just over 10 per cent of dogs
(13 per cent, n=381) and just over a quarter of cats (32
per cent, n=488) were exclusively fed a conventional diet
as their main meals. Feeding of treats and table scraps
was considered separately (table 3). The majority of
animals were fed diets that comprised at least partially
conventional food, representing 78 per cent (n=2301) of
dogs and 90 per cent (n=1390) of cats. Of those animals
fed conventional diets, more cats (86 per cent, n=1196)
than dogs (79 per cent, n=1839) were fed this way daily
(figure 1). Daily feeding of conventional kibble was
reported for 61 per cent of dogs (n=1796) and 69 per
cent of cats (n=1064), and daily feeding of canned food
for 15 per cent of dogs (n=427) and 44 per cent of cats
(n=684). Although 8 per cent (n=243) of dogs and 18
per cent (n=282) of cats were fed prescription diets, less
than 5 per cent of those animals (n=11 dogs, 11 cats)
were reportedly fed a prescription diet exclusively.
Many respondents claimed to feed a diet that
included HM foods to some degree, although few dogs
or cats were fed HM diets exclusively (table 4). Raw
animal products were fed to over half of all animals
represented in the survey (table 4). Figure 1 depicts
the frequency of feeding HM and RAP diets to dogs and
cats. Of the animals receiving RAP, more were fed a HM
RAP diet (89 per cent, n=1724 dogs; 87 per cent n=709
cats) than were fed a commercial RAP (67 per cent,
n=1296 dogs; 64 per cent, n=516 cats). Few pet owners
said they fed RAP exclusively (9 per cent, n=268 dogs; 6
per cent, n=94 cats). A smaller number of pets were fed
vegetarian foods, with these foods included in the diet
of 22 per cent of dogs (n=650) and 4.7 per cent of cats
(n=73). Of these, approximately half (47 per cent, n=302
dogs; 70 per cent, n=51 cats) were fed completely plant-
based (vegan) foods, with a small number (6.8 per cent,
n=44 dogs; 15 per cent, n=11 cats) fed plant- based
diets exclusively. Aside from the main diet, most dogs
(77 per cent, n=2,228) and cats (61 per cent, n=936)
were given treats (table 3). Similarly, the feeding of
scraps was prevalent, as they were fed to 81 per cent of
dogs (n=2,347) and 55 per cent of cats (n=842).
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
VETRECORD| 5
Autralia
0
20
40
60
80
100 A1 A2
Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
Autralia Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Autralia
0
20
40
60
80
100 B1 B2
Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
Autralia Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Autralia
0
20
40
60
80
100 C1 C2
Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of dogs fed a conventional diet
Autralia Canada New Zealand UK USA
Country
Figure 1 Frequency of inclusion of conventional kibble or canned (A),
homemade (B), or raw (C) food in the diet of dogs (1) and cats (2) as a percentage
of pets in each country as reported by pet owners in an online questionnaire
about pet feeding practices. Red indicates ‘never’, orange ‘sometimes’, blue
‘often’, green ‘daily’.
Table 4 Geographical variations in PET diets, as percentage of respondents in each region, based on an online pet owner questionnaire on pet feeding
practices
Conventional inclusive
Conventional
exclusive Homemade inclusive Homemade exclusive Raw inclusive Raw exclusive
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Dogs
Global (n=) . . . . . .
Australia (n=) .
a
.
a
.
a,b,c
.
a
.
a
.
a
Canada (n=) .
a,b
.
b,c
.
b,c
.
b,c
.
b
.
b
New Zealand (n=) .
a,b,c
.
c
.
c
.
d
.
c
.
c
UK (n=) .
a,b
.
b
.
a,b,d
.
c
.
c
c
USA (n=) .
c
.
b,c
.
a
.
b
.
c
.
b
Cats
Global (n=) . . . . . .
Australia (n=) .
a
.
a
.
a,b
.
a
.
a
.
a
Canada (n=) .
a,b
.
b
.
b
.
b
.
b
.
b
New Zealand (n=) .
b
.
b
.
b
.
b
.
b,c
.
b
UK (n=) .
b
.
c
.
c
.
b
.
b
.
b
USA (n=) .
b
.
b,c
.
a,b
.
b
.
c
.
b
Columns without a common superscript letter differ significantly from each other at the . level based on chi- square analysis. Note that the categories 'raw' and 'homemade' can overlap if a diet is both raw and
homemade.
Geographical location underpinned signicant
dierences in the most prevalent feeding practices
among the main countries represented by the survey
(table 4). Exclusively feeding RAP was the most
prevalent in Australia, exclusively feeding a HM diet
occurred most oen in Australia (dogs) and the USA
(cats), and New Zealand and Canada had the most
exclusively conventional feeding practices (gure 1,
table3.
In total, 3505 survey respondents answered the
question regarding the location where they purchase
pet food (table 5). Pet stores were the most popular
location for purchasing pet food, accounting for 53
per cent of respondents (n=1845). Supermarkets (31
per cent, n=1085), online distributors (30 per cent,
n=1061) and purchasing direct from the manufacturer
(14 per cent, n=503) were the next most popular.
Ten per cent of respondents reported purchasing pet
food from their veterinarian (n=345). Farm or animal
feed stores (4 per cent, n=145), butchers (3 per cent,
n=101), and big- box stores (2 per cent, n=66) were
represented to a much smaller extent. Few respondents
said they acquired their companion animals’ food from
raw feeding co- ops, hunting, slaughterhouses, breeders
or specialty vegan retailers. Occasional references were
made to acquiring meat that was out- of- date, either
directly from supermarkets or from individuals who sold
out- of- date meat specically for animal consumption.
Discussion
In the study reported here, conventional diets
were the most popular choice of dog and cat foods,
a finding consistent with previous publications
(table 2).3 41–46 However, it appears the practice of
feeding non- commercial and unconventional foods,
either as the sole source of nutrition or in conjunction
with a conventional diet, is higher now than has been
previously reported (table2). While the majority of dogs
and cats are still being fed conventional pet food, a large
proportion of survey respondents reported additionally
feeding HM foods and RAP, with a smaller proportion
offering vegetarian or vegan diets. Differences in
modern feeding practices based on geographical region
were found (figure 1, table 4), though comparison of
pet feeding practices between countries has not been
well described in the published literature. Based on
the present data, it appears that feeding practices
in Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA are
relatively similar (figure 1, table 4), but Australia
differs. Australian respondents indicated decreased
feeding of conventional diets, particularly in favour of
RAP (figure 1, table 4). This finding is supported by
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
| VETRECORD
6
Table 5 Geographical variations in pet food purchases, as percentage of pet owners in each region, based on an online pet owner questionnaire on pet
feeding practices
Pet store Supermarket Online Veterinarian Direct from manufacturer
n % n % n % n % n %
Global (n=) .
Australia (n=)
a
a
a
a
a
Canada (n=)
b
b
.
b
a
.
a
New Zealand (n=)
c
a
a
b
b
UK (n=)
d
c
c
.
c
b
USA (n=)
a
b
d
.
c
.
a
Columns without a common superscript letter differ significantly from each other at the . level based on chi- square analysis. Note that the categories ‘raw’ and ‘homemade’ can overlap if a diet is both raw and
homemade.
previous studies investigating pet feeding practices in
Australia. For example, most dogs were fed food other
than commercial dry or canned food, including nearly
a quarter fed raw meat.47 Also compared with the USA,
greater reporting of feeding raw bones and meat was
noted in Australia.3 Animal Medicines Australia, in
association with Newgate Research and the Pet Food
Industry Association of Australia published results
from a survey revealing that a quarter of dog owners
and 10 per cent of cat owners gave their pets leftovers,
and 16 per cent of dog and 4 per cent of cat owners
made homemade diets specifically for their pets.48
Additionally, 20 per cent of dog owners acquired food
from the butcher for their dog, though only 4 per cent
reported doing so exclusively. These values are in close
agreement with the findings of the current study. The
rationale for this difference is unclear. It has been
suggested that pet owners in non- urban regions may
be more likely to make their own pet food, as access
to commercial foods may be lower. However, this has
not been supported in Australia.46 Furthermore, a high
prevalence of non- commercial foods included in the
diet of urban dogs in Perth, Western Australia, has
previously been reported.47 The term ‘BARF’, standing
for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food, was first coined
in Australia, with an Australian veterinarian being
considered the founder of the BARF movement in the
1990s. It is possible that the perception of Australian
pet owners may be particularly influenced by well-
known local veterinary figureheads promoting the
feeding of foods other than commercial processed diets.
The survey results suggest that present day feeding
practices for both dogs and cats consist generally of a
combination of commercial processed pet food as well
as HM and RAP. Quantication of caloric intake was not
possible, though respondents reported the main diet of
the animal separate from treats, snacks or scraps. Thus,
it is possible that, particularly for animals being fed HM
and RAP foods in addition to their conventional diet,
greater than 10 per cent of the animal’s caloric intake
could potentially come from unconventional sources,
considered a nutritional risk factor by the World
Small Animal Veterinary Association Global Nutrition
Committee.49 Around 10 per cent of respondents
indicated they fed veterinary therapeutic diets to their
pets, though few animals were fed these diets solely.
Successful dietary management of many diseases
requires adherence to a strict nutrient prole, and the
practice of feeding other food sources along with a
veterinary therapeutic diet may decrease ecacy of
nutritional management of disease. This presents an
area where more consumer education is needed.
In comparison with earlier studies, the dierences in
feeding practices may partially be explained by a loss
of trust in the pet food industry.18 50 In 2007, a large
and highly publicised global pet food crisis occurred,
where diets from many of the largest and most popular
pet food brands were found to be contaminated with
inorganic toxins, leading to sickness in nearly 500 dogs
and cats, and death of over 100 animals.36 51 This crisis
has had ongoing implications for trust in the industry;
more than a decade later, respondents participating in
this survey reported concerns regarding the origin of
pet food ingredients and potential contamination.52
The humanisation of companion animals may
contribute to the feeding of unconventional diets,
reported by a large number of respondents in this
study. Trends in animal nutrition shadow trends in
human nutrition, with increasing consumer interest
in ‘natural’ and ‘holistic’ foods demonstrated in both
human and pet feeding practices.10 12 15 53 Moreover,
people may also feed HM diets to pamper or bond
with their companion animal; they may perceive
these diets to be more palatable, or they may consider
them to be healthier than processed commercial
diets.54 Feeders of RAP have been reported to have
signicantly dierent perceptions of the pet food
industry, as well as animal health and nutrition than
feeders of conventional diets.10 In particular, people
who feed RAP to their pets had lower condence in
the advice of veterinarians, especially with respect
to companion animal nutrition. They also reported
concerns regarding the safety, quality and nutritional
value of conventional foods, and perceived RAP as
being more natural and healthier than conventional
diets. Promoters of HM diets and RAP claim that these
foods will improve health, increase energy and even
reverse chronic diseases such as cancer; however,
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
VETRECORD| 7
there is currently a lack of peer- reviewed research to
support these claims.55–57
Avoidance of conventional pet foods in favour
of HM diets and RAP may put the health of dogs and
cats at risk. Published analyses of HM diets or recipes
intended for dogs and cats indicate that most have
one or more nutrient insuciencies and imbalances in
comparison with National Research Council nutrient
requirements.26 58 The most common and signicant
nutrient insuciency in HM diets are calcium,
phosphorus, vitamin D and essential amino acids.
Additional published reports feature cases of adverse
health conditions directly resulting from the feeding of
an inadequate HM diet.27 29 59 60 Skeletal abnormalities
caused by insucient or excess calcium, phosphorus
and/or vitamin D appear to be the most commonly
reported physiological eect of an imbalanced HM
diet.28 30 59 61 While nutritional inadequacy is a risk with
HM foods, these diets may also prove to be benecial for
some pets and their owners by nurturing the human–
animal bond as well as specic nutrient targets for
individual animals and management of nutritionally
responsive pathologies.54
Results from the current study suggest that more
owners who are feeding RAP are choosing to use
HM rather than commercial RAP. Raw HM diets are
associated with the same potential for nutritional
deciencies and adverse health eects as cooked
HM diets.25 31 60 61 Feeding RAP has been shown to
pose the extra risk of contamination with microbial
pathogens.20–22 Companion animals fed diets
containing RAP are at risk of infection from pathogenic
bacteria as no chemical, enzymatic, heat or pressure
treatment step is undertaken to kill potential bacterial
contaminants. While commercial RAP may undergo
some sort of processing, such as dehydration, high-
pressure pasteurisation, irradiation or freeze- drying,
these processing methods may be insucient to
completely eliminate potential pathogenic bacteria.62
More investigation regarding safe processing of RAP is
required. Foods containing RAP have been implicated
in clinical infections in companion animals, and also
in potential transmission to people.34 35 63–66 Of greatest
concern is the possibility for transmission of antibiotic-
resistant organisms from animals fed RAP to people.33 67
Considering the large proportion of animals oered RAP,
as reported in this study, this appears to be a feeding
practice growing in popularity. Thus, investigation
into safe and ecacious ways of feeding nutritionally
complete and balanced RAP to dogs and cats warrants
further investigation.
In contrast to feeding RAP, some participants reported
avoiding feeding animal products altogether to their
companion animals. About one- quarter of dogs and less
than 5 per cent of cats were oered vegetarian or strictly
plant- based (vegan) foods as part of their diet, though
few were fed these diets exclusively. To the authors’
knowledge, the only previous study documenting
the prevalence of vegetarian or strictly plant- based
diets was from our own research group, which used
data from the same population as the current study.52
Vegetarian and plant- based diets are generally accepted
as suitable for dogs, with veterinary supervision,
but they are considered by many to be unsuitable for
cats.68 69 HM plant- based diets pose the same risks for
nutritional insuciency as HM diets containing animal
products, and probably pose additional risks with
relation to some essential nutrients such as sulfur-
containing amino acids, long- chain polyunsaturated
fatty acids and vitamins B12 and D.68 70 71 Few studies
have been published that have investigated the health
status of dogs or cats fed plant- based diets. Though no
adverse health eects attributable to consumption of a
vegetarian or plant- based diet have been reported, the
phenomenon is relatively new and published studies
have been limited.72–74 Comprehensive investigation of
the impact of feeding plant- based diets long- term has
yet to be published for either dogs or cats, but given
the increased prevalence of feeding these diets, further
research is warranted.
In addition to their main diet, most animals were
fed treats, snacks and table scraps/leovers. There
does not appear to be great dierences in the overall
prevalence of feeding treats or scraps in this study
compared with previously published papers, though
the frequency of feeding may dier.3 46 75 76 Treat
feeding may be associated with training and bonding
with pets, while it has been suggested that feeding of
scraps and leovers may be a food waste management
strategy adopted by pet owners.46 Considering the
high proportion of dogs and cats reportedly fed treats
or snacks, the risks of these foods must be considered.
Feeding excessive treats or scraps can contribute to
obesity and unbalancing of otherwise appropriate
diets.49 77 Additional considerations when bone is oered
as a treat or snack are the risk of tooth fracture from
chewing the hard bone, intestinal obstruction if pieces
of bone are ingested, and constipation or obstipation
from consumption of indigestible material.78
Among the respondents of this survey, pet stores
were the most popular location for purchasing pet food,
followed by supermarkets and online distributors.
This is in relatively close agreement with reports from
2015 to 2019, showing an increase in online pet food
purchases in the USA.79 80 This growth in the online
sector of the market may be associated, at least in
part, with the online resources for information, true
or otherwise, about pet health widely available on
the internet. Many pet owners regard the internet as a
source of information for pet care, including nutrition,
which may be a contributing factor in the rising
trend for inclusion of unconventional food types, as
apparent in the data collected here.10 79 While many
online blogs and resources are available from animal
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
| VETRECORD
8
and veterinary nutritionists, there are countless others
from impassioned veterinarians, pet parents and/or
paraprofessionals espousing their personal experiences
and views as well. Never before in the history of pet
keeping have so many opportunities for information
and potential misinformation been available to pet
owners, which may complicate the decision- making
process regarding pet feeding practices.
Limitations to the present study must be considered
when interpreting the current results. To minimise
selection bias, no reference was made to any particular
type of diet or feeding practice in the title or introduction
of the survey. However, given that the survey was
available for sharing, it is possible that specialty focus
groups or specic types of pet owners were recruited
into the study, biasing the results. Exclusivity of
feeding practices was not asked of the respondents but
determined if they selected that they fed only one type
(conventional, HM or RAP) of diet and never fed any
other foods, with the exception of treats and snacks.
This may have been more discriminant than other
methodologies, which may have relied on self- reporting
of exclusivity of feeding. Additionally, dierences in
recruitment strategy, survey method and phrasing
dierences in questions probably account for some
of the variation in demographics, data collection and
results as compared with previous reports on feeding
practices. Historical studies had relatively similar age
and gender demographics, though the present survey
results generally had a greater number of female
respondents, and a slightly younger sample population,
which could bias results if these demographics aected
their feeding practices (table1).
Conclusion
The survey reported here was completed by 3673 dog
and cat owners from around the English- speaking
world and provided information regarding how
these animals were typically fed. Most animals were
fed conventional diets—that is, heat- processed and
commercially available kibble and wet foods, but
this number was lower than in previously published
literature. Feeding unconventional (ie, RAP or HM)
diets was more prevalent than previously reported, and
accounted for at least part of the diet in over half the
animals represented. For animals with nutritionally
responsive health conditions for whom a therapeutic
diet is recommended, the efficacy of these diets must
be discussed, particularly with respect to feeding
other diets in addition to the therapeutic diet. There
were significant geographical differences in feeding
practices—in particular, Australia had a much higher
prevalence of feeding RAP and a lower prevalence
of feeding conventional diets. Considering the high
prevalence of unconventional feeding practices,
veterinary healthcare teams must be aware of the
potential risks and benefits of these practices and
educate their clients to help best meet the nutritional
needs of their companion animals.
Funding This study was funded by Mitacs Accelerate.
Competing interests SD is the owner of Dodd Veterinary Services and participates
in paid internships and engagements within the pet food industry. NC is an associate
professor and academic group leader at the Massey University School of Veterinary
Science and a member of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association Global
Nutrition Committee. AV is the Royal Canin Veterinary Diets endowed chair in canine
and feline clinical nutrition at the Ontario Veterinary College, serves on the Health
and Nutrition Advisory Board for Vetdiet and has received research funding from
various pet food manufacturers and ingredient suppliers. SA is the owner of Sit Stay
Speak Nutrition, consults with various manufacturers within the pet food industry
and consults with Pet Recipe Designers. A- KS serves on the scientific advisory board
for Trouw Nutrition’s Companion Animal and has received funding from various pet
food manufacturers and feed and food ingredient companies. JA is employed as the
nutrition manager at Petcurean Pet Nutrition.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.
Anonymous questionnaire responses available upon request from from https:// orcid.
org/ 0000- 0002- 8151- 5844.
© British Veterinary Association 2020. No commercial re- use. See rights and
permissions. Published by BMJ.
ORCID iD
SarahDodd http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 8151- 5844
References
1 Anonymous. Pet ownership: growth from knowledge, . Available: https://www.
gfk. com/ fileadmin/ user_ upload/ country_ one_ pager/ NL/ documents/ Global- GfK-
survey_ Pet- Ownership_ . pdf [Accessed Mar ].
2 Inc APPMA. The - APPMA national PET owners survey Greenwich,
Conneticut: American PET products manufacturers association Inc, . Available:
https://www. americanpetproducts. org/ press_ industrytrends. asp [Accessed Mar
].
3 Laflamme DP, Abood SK, Fascetti AJ, etal. Pet feeding practices of dog and cat owners
in the United States and Australia. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
4 Morris JG, Rogers QR. Assessment of the nutritional adequacy of PET foods through the
life cycle. J Nutr ;:S–.
5 Bontempo V. Nutrition and health of dogs and cats: evolution of petfood. Vet Res
Commun ; Suppl :–.
6 AAFCO. Official publication. Champaign, Illinois: Association of American Feed Control
Officials .
7 Euromonitor B. Pet food sales worldwide -. Petfood Industry. com: Petfood
Industry. com, . Available: https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ pet- food- market-
data/ pet- food- sales- worldwide- -
8 Industry P. Pet food product database. PetFood Industrycom. PetFood Industry. com:
WATT global media, . Available: https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ directories/
- pet- food- product- database/ topic/ - consumer
9 Anonymous. Cat food and snacks market value to exceed B by :
PetFood Industry, . Available: https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ articles/
- cat- food- and- snacks- market- value- to- exceed- b- by-
10 Morgan SK, Willis S, Shepherd ML. Survey of owner motivations and veterinary input of
owners feeding diets containing RAW animal products. PeerJ ;:e.
11 Case L. Perspectives on domestication: the history of our relationship with man's best
Friend. J Anim Sci ;:–.
12 PFI. Pet food trends follow human food trends. Petfood Industry https://www.
petfoodindustry. com/ articles/ - tbt- pet- food- trends- follow- human- food- trends
13 Oliviera S. Canadian PET market outlook, . Rockville, Maryland: Packaged Facts,
.
14 Boya UO, Dotson MJ, Hyatt EM. A comparison of dog food choice criteria across dog
owner segments: an exploratory study. Int J Consum Stud ;:–.
15 Buff PR, Carter RA, Bauer JE, etal. Natural PET food: a review of natural diets and their
impact on canine and feline physiology. J Anim Sci ;:–.
16 Michel KE, Willoughby KN, Abood SK, etal. Attitudes of PET owners toward PET foods
and feeding management of cats and dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
17 Natural LD. Organic and eco- friendly PET products in the U.S. Rockville, MD: Packaged
Facts, . http://www. packagedfacts. com/ Natural- Organic- Eco- /
18 Connolly KM, Heinze CR, Freeman LM. Feeding practices of dog breeders in the United
States and Canada. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
19 Gerstner K, Liesegang A. Survey: nutrition, body condition and activities of dogs in
Switzerland. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr ; Suppl :–.
20 Weese JS, Rousseau J, Arroyo L. Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and
feline RAW diets. Can Vet J ;:–.
21 Nemser SM, Doran T, Grabenstein M, et al. Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and
toxigenic Escherichia coli in various PET foods. Foodborne Pathog Dis ;:–.
22 van Bree FPJ, Bokken GCAM, Mineur R, etal. Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in
RAW meat- based diets for cats and dogs. Vet Rec ;:.
23 Bojanić K, Midwinter AC, Marshall JC, etal . Isolation of Campylobacter spp. from client-
owned dogs and cats, and retail raw meat pet food in the Manawatu, New Zealand.
Zoonoses Public Health ;:–.
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
VETRECORD| 9
24 Lauten S, Smith T, Kirk C, etal. Computer analysis of nutrient sufficiency of published
home- cooked diets for dogs and cats. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
;:–.
25 Dillitzer N, Becker N, Kienzle E. Intake of minerals, trace elements and vitamins in bone
and RAW food rations in adult dogs. Br J Nutr ; Suppl :S–.
26 Stockman J, Fascetti AJ, Kass PH, e t al. Evaluation of recipes of home- prepared
maintenance diets for dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
27 Niza MMRE, Vilela CL, Ferreira LMA. Feline pansteatitis revisited: hazards of unbalanced
home- made diets. J Feline Med Surg ;:–.
28 Verbrugghe A, Paepe D, Verhaert L, et al. Metabolic bone disease and
hyperparathyroidism in an adult dog fed an unbalanced homemade diet. Vlaams
Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift ;:–.
29 Hutchinson D, Freeman LM, McCarthy R, etal. Seizures and severe nutrient deficiencies
in a puppy fed a homemade diet. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
30 Tal M, Parr JM, MacKenzie S, etal. Dietary imbalances in a large breed puppy, leading
to compression fractures, vitamin D deficiency, and suspected nutritional secondary
hyperparathyroidism. Can Vet J ;:–.
31 Taylor MB, Geiger DA, Saker KE, etal. Diffuse osteopenia and myelopathy in a puppy
fed a diet composed of an organic premix and RAW ground beef. J Am Vet Med Assoc
;:–.
32 Dodd S, Barry M, Grant C, etal. Abnormal bone mineralization in a puppy fed an
imbalanced RAW meat homemade diet diagnosed and monitored using dual- energy
X‐ray absorptiometry. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) ;.
33 Baede VO, Broens EM, Spaninks MP, etal. Raw PET food as a risk factor for shedding of
extended- spectrum beta- lactamase- producing Enterobacteriaceae in household cats.
PLoS One ;:e.
34 Giacometti F, Magarotto J, Serraino A, etal. Highly suspected cases of salmonellosis
in two cats fed with a commercial RAW meat- based diet: health risks to animals and
zoonotic implications. BMC Vet Res ;:.
35 Kent M, Boozer L, Glass EN, etal. Post- operative Salmonella surgical site infection in a
dog. Can Vet J ;:–.
36 Puschner B, Reimschuessel R. Toxicosis caused by melamine and cyanuric acid in dogs
and cats: uncovering the mystery and subsequent global implications. Clin Lab Med
;:–.
37 Anonymous. Hill’s products recalled for excess vitamin D. J Am Vet Med Assoc
;:–.
38 Recalls & Withdrawals: U.S. Food & Drug Administration, . Available: https://www.
fda. gov/ animal- veterinary/ safety- health/ recalls- withdrawals [Accessed Mar ].
39 Freeman L. Think twice: reasons to avoid a home- cooked diet. Petfoodology. Tufts
University Cummings Veterinary Medical Center, .
40 Dinallo GK, Poplarski JA, Van Deventer GM, eta l. A survey of feeding, activity,
supplement use and energy consumption in North American agility dogs. J Nutr Sci
;:e.
41 Thomson RM, Hammond J, Ternent HE, et al. Feeding practices and the use of
supplements for dogs kept by owners in different socioeconomic groups. Vet Rec
;:–.
42 Toribio J ALM, Norris JM, White JD, etal. Demographics and husbandry of PET cats living
in Sydney, Australia: results of cross- sectional survey of PET ownership. J Feline Med
Surg ;:–.
43 Courcier EA, Thomson RM, Mellor DJ, etal. An epidemiological study of environmental
factors associated with canine obesity. J Small Anim Pract ;:–.
44 Rohlf VI, Toukhsati S, Coleman GJ, etal. Dog obesity: can dog caregivers' (owners')
feeding and exercise intentions and behaviors be predicted from attitudes? J Appl Anim
Welf Sci ;:–.
45 Stull JW, Peregrine AS, Sargeant JM, etal. Pet husbandry and infection control practices
related to zoonotic disease risks in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health ;.
46 Thompson K, O'Dwyer L, Sharp A, etal. What’s in a dog’s breakfast? Considering the
social, veterinary and environmental implications of feeding food scraps to pets using
three Australian surveys. Sustainability ;:–.
47 Robertson ID. A survey of diets offered to dogs in metropolitan Perth, Western
Australia. Aust Vet J ;:–.
48 Australia AM. Pets in Australia: a national survey of pets and people: PET food industry
association of Australia .
49 Freeman L, Becvarova I, Cave N, et al. WSAVA nutritional assessment guidelines. J
Feline Med Surg ;:–.
50 Sprinkle D. What do PET owners think of the PET food industry? Part . Watt Global
Media: Petfood Industry, . https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ articles/ -
what- do- pet- owners- think- of- the- pet- food- industry- part- ? v= preview
51 Hansen S. The United States PET food recall. Clinical Toxicology ;.
52 Dodd SAS, Cave NJ, Adolphe JL, etal. Plant- based (vegan) diets for pets: a survey of PET
owner attitudes and feeding practices. PLoS One ;:e.
53 Sprinkle D. What do PET owners think of the PET food industry? Part . Petfood
Industry: Watt Global Media, : –. https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ articles/
- what- do- pet- owners- think- of- the- pet- food- industry- part- ? v= preview
54 Remillard RL. Homemade diets: attributes, pitfalls, and a call for action. Top Companion
Anim Med ;:–.
55 Benitez K. Make your own PET food: holistic recipes to help your cats and dogs live
longer and healthier: Kyle Benitez .
56 Taylor- Laino B. The healthy homemade PET food Cookbook: Whole- Food recipes
and tasty treats for dogs and cats of all ages. Beverly, USA: Fair Winds, .
57 Woodford R. Feed your best friend better: easy, nutiritous meals and treats for dogs.
Kansas City, USA: Andrew McMeel Publishing, .
58 Streiff EL, Zwischenberger B, Butterwick RF, et al. A comparison of the
nutritional adequacy of home- prepared and commercial diets for dogs. J Nutr
;:S–.
59 Becker N, Kienzle E, Dobenecker B. [Calcium deficiency: a problem in growing and adult
dogs: two case reports]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere ;:–.
60 Polizopoulou ZS, Kazakos G, Patsikas MN, etal. Hypervitaminosis A in the cat: a case
report and review of the literature. J Feline Med Surg ;:–.
61 de Fornel- Thibaud P, Blanchard G, Escoffier- Chateau L, et al. Unusual case of
osteopenia associated with nutritional calcium and vitamin D deficiency in an adult
dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc ;:–.
62 Mehlenbacher S, Churchill J, Olsen KE, et al. Availability, brands, labelling and
Salmonella contamination of raw PET food in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Zoonoses
Public Health ;:–.
63 Fauth E, Freeman LM, Cornjeo L, etal. Salmonella bacteriuria in a cat fed a Salmonella-
contaminated diet. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
64 Lefebvre SL, Reid- Smith R, Boerlin P, et al. Evaluation of the risks of shedding
salmonellae and other potential pathogens by therapy dogs fed RAW diets in Ontario
and Alberta. Zoonoses Public Health ;:–.
65 Leonard EK, Pearl DL, Finley RL, etal. Evaluation of pet- related management factors
and the risk of Salmonella spp. carriage in PET dogs from volunteer households in
Ontario (-). Zoonoses Public Health ;:–.
66 Nash JQ, Chissel S, Jones J, etal. Risk factors for toxoplasmosis in pregnant women in
Kent, United Kingdom. Epidemiol Infect ;:–.
67 Leonard EK, Pearl DL, Janecko N, etal. Risk factors for carriage of antimicrobial- resistant
Salmonella spp and Escherichia coli in pet dogs from volunteer households in Ontario,
Canada, in and . Am J Vet Res ;:–.
68 FEDIAF. Are vegetarian diets for cats and dogs safe? . Available: http://www. fediaf.
org/ - dcs- nutrition- fact- sheets
69 Dodd SAS, Adolphe JL, Verbrugghe A. Plant- based diets for dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc
;:–.
70 Kanakubo K, Fascetti AJ, Larsen JA. Assessment of protein and amino acid
concentrations and labeling adequacy of commercial vegetarian diets formulated for
dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
71 Michel KE. Unconventional diets for dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract
;:–.
72 Brown WY, Vanselow BA, Redman AJ, et al. An experimental meat- free diet
maintained haematological characteristics in sprint- racing sled dogs. Br J Nutr
;:–.
73 Semp P. Vegan nutrition of dogs and cats. Veterinary University of Vienna, .
74 Wakefield LA, Shofer FS, Michel KE. Evaluation of cats fed vegetarian diets and
attitudes of their caregivers. J Am Vet Med Assoc ;:–.
75 White GA, Ward L, Pink C, et al. "Who's been a good dog?" - Owner perceptions and
motivations for treat giving. Prev Vet Med ;:–.
76 Morelli G, Marchesini G, Contiero B, etal. A survey of dog owners' attitudes toward
treats. J Appl Anim Welf Sci ;:–.
77 German AJ, Holden SL, Gernon LJ, etal. Do feeding practices of obese dogs, before
weight loss, affect the success of weight management? Br J Nutr ; Suppl
:S–.
78 Freeman LM, Chandler ML, Hamper BA, et al. Current knowledge about the risks
and benefits of raw meat- based diets for dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc
;:–.
79 Phillips- Donaldson D. PetfoodIndustry. com: Petfood industry, . Available:
https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ blogs/ - adventures- in- pet- food/ post/
- how- pet- food- shoppers- retail- channel- choices- are- changing
80 Sprinkle D. How the Internet is remixing PET food purchasing trends: Petfood industry,
. Available: https://www. petfoodindustry. com/ articles/ - how- the- internet-
is- remixing- pet- food- purchasing- trends [Accessed Mar ].
on June 23, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/Veterinary Record: first published as 10.1136/vr.105828 on 18 June 2020. Downloaded from
