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. 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. 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.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two feed supplements on rumen bacterial communities of heifers fed a high grain diet. Six Holstein-Friesian heifers received one of the following dietary treatments according to a Latin square design: no supplement (control, C), 60 g/day of fumarate-malate (organic acid, O) and 100 g/day of polyphenol-essential oil (P). Rumen fluid was analyzed to assess the microbial population using Illumina sequencing and quantitative real time PCR. The P treatment had the highest number of observed species (P < 0.10), Chao1 index (P < 0.05), abundance based coverage estimated (ACE) (P < 0.05), and Fisher’s alpha diversity (P < 0.10). The O treatment had intermediate values between C and P treatments with the exception of the Chao1 index. The PCoA with unweighted Unifrac distance showed a separation among dietary treatments (P = 0.09), above all between the C and P (P = 0.05). The O and P treatments showed a significant increase of the family Christenenellaceae and a decline of Prevotella brevis compared to C. Additionally, the P treatment enhanced the abundance of many taxa belonging to Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Tenericutes phyla due to a potential antimicrobial activity of flavonoids that increased competition among bacteria. Organic acid and polyphenols significantly modified rumen bacterial populations during high-grain feeding in dairy heifers. In particular the polyphenol treatment increased the richness and diversity of rumen microbiota, which are usually high in conditions of physiological rumen pH and rumen function.

Summary: Failure to respond to commercial limited antigen diets can occur in dogs kept on a dietary trial for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR). The aim of this study was to assess twelve canine dry limited antigen diets (eleven novel protein diets and one hydrolysed diet) for potential contamination by ingredients of animal origin not mentioned on the label. The validity of the two methods adopted for the detection of such food antigens was also evaluated. Each dietary product was analysed by microscopy analysis using the official method described in Commission RegulationEC152/2009 with the aim of identifying bone fragments of different zoological classes (mammalian, avian and fish) and bypolymerasechainreaction(PCR) for the identification ofDNAof animal origin. Discrepancies between the results obtained byPCRand/or microscopy analysis and the ingredients listed on pet food packages were found. Only in two pet foods did the results of both analyses match the ingredients listed on the label. In the remaining ten samples, microscopy detected bone fragments from one or two unpredicted zoological classes, revealing avian fragments in six of ten samples followed by those of fish in five of ten and mammalian fragments in four of ten. In two samples, microscopy analysis identified a contamination that would have otherwise passed unobserved if onlyPCRhad been used. However,PCRconfirmed the presence of all the zoological classes detected by microscopy and also identified theDNAof an additional unexpected zoological class in two samples. Dogs might fail to respond to commercial limited antigen diets because such diets are contaminated with potential allergens. BothPCRand microscopy analysis are required to guarantee the absence of undeclared animal sources in pet foods. Before ruling outAFR, a novel protein home‐made diet should be considered if the dog is unresponsive to a commercial regimen.

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.