A survey of feeding, activity, supplement use and energy consumption in North American agility dogs

Abstract

A survey was designed and administered at eighteen agility competitions across the Northeast and Midwest USA in 2015 to obtain information regarding competition level, training, feeding practices, owner-reported weight, body condition score (BCS) and supplement use. Average energy intake per d from reported consumption was assessed for all dogs in ideal body condition based on manufacturers’ or US Department of Agriculture database information. To assess the respective parameters across competition levels (novice, open, master/elite), non-parametric or parametric ANOVA or χ2 was used to determine significance. There were 494 respondents with usable data. Results showed that approximately 99 % of respondents used treats and 62 % utilised supplements. Of the respondents, 61 % fed primarily commercial dry food. Approximately 25 % of owners fed foods other than commercial dry (i.e. raw/home-prepared or freeze-dried). This 25 % of non-traditional diets included: 11 % home-prepared raw/cooked diets, 11 % commercial raw/cooked diets, and the remaining 3 % were fed commercial freeze-dried raw products. The remaining 14 % fed a mix of commercial dry food and raw/home-cooked blend. Average BCS was 4·7 (sd 1·1). Mean energy consumption of 238 dogs (BCS 4–5/9) was 444 (sd 138) kJ/kg body weight0·75 per d (106 (sd 33) kcal/kg body weight0·75 per d), with no significant differences observed between dogs at different levels of competition. The mean percentage of energy from treats was 15·1 (sd 12·7) % of overall energy consumption.

An observational study of pet feeding practices and how these have changed between 2008 and 2018

“…Two articles focused on specific subsets of dog owners, including breeders 18 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.…”

Owners’ perception of acquiring infections through raw pet food: a comprehensive internet‐based survey

“…5 Approximately 25 per cent of the agility dog owners in North America feed their dogs with raw/home-prepared or freeze-dried diets. 6 From the dog owners in the USA and Australia, 16.2 per cent provide bones or raw meat as a part of the main meal, 7 and in the USA and Canada one-third of dog breeders use raw diets or bones. 8 In a survey of over 10 000 dog owner respondents in Finland, 26.5 per cent reported that they feed or have been feeding their dogs with bones and other raw foods (A. Hielm-Björkman, personal communication).…”

“…In the Netherlands, 60.5 per cent of the dog owners feed their dogs at least some amount of raw dog food 5 . Approximately 25 per cent of the agility dog owners in North America feed their dogs with raw/home‐prepared or freeze‐dried diets 6 . From the dog owners in the USA and Australia, 16.2 per cent provide bones or raw meat as a part of the main meal, 7 and in the USA and Canada one‐third of dog breeders use raw diets or bones 8 .…”

True nutrient and amino acid digestibility of dog foods made with human-grade ingredients using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay1

“…Consumer interests and concerns have become markedly greater since a few large-scale pet food recalls in the early 2000s ( Stenske et al, 2006 ; Rumbeiha and Morrison, 2011 ; Bischoff and Rumbeiha, 2018 ), motivating pet owners to pursue alternative foods for their pets. Studies have shown that the majority of pets are primarily fed a commercial pet food, and most often in the form of extruded kibbles ( Laflamme et al, 2008 ; Connolly et al, 2014 ; Dinallo et al, 2017 ). However, many pet owners have moved to pet foods having the perception of being safer or of higher quality, with claims such as “natural,” “organic,” “limited ingredients,” “human-grade,” “made in the USA,” “non-GMO,” and “clean label” being quite popular.…”