Survey of owner motivations and veterinary input of owners feeding diets containing raw animal products
Open accessAbstract
Background: The practice of feeding of diets containing raw animal products (RAP) to pets (dogs and cats) is discouraged by veterinary organizations and governmental public health organizations. Nevertheless, the practice of feeding RAP to pets is increasing in popularity. Pet owner motivations for feeding RAP diets to pets have not been explored and the benefits of RAP diets remain largely anecdotal. We hypothesized that pet owners feeding RAP diets would not rely on veterinary advice in choosing their pet’s diet. We also hypothesized that these owners would have lower levels of trust in veterinary advice with respect to nutrition relative to pet owners not feeding RAP. Methods: An anonymous web-based survey was developed to identify pet owner motivations for feeding RAP diets, and to characterize the veterinarian-client relationships of individuals feeding RAP diets. Results: There were 2,337 respondents and 2,171 completed surveys. Of survey respondents, 804 reported feeding RAP at the time of the survey. While 20% of pet owners feeding RAP relied on online resources to determine what or how much RAP to feed, only 9% reported consulting with a veterinarian in making decisions about feeding RAP. Pet owners feeding RAP reported lower levels of trust in veterinary advice both ‘in general’ and ‘with respect to nutrition’ than pet owners not feeding RAP. Most pet owners reported that a discussion regarding their pet’s nutrition does not occur at every veterinary appointment. Discussion: Pet owners feeding a RAP diet have lower trust in veterinary advice than pet owners not feeding a RAP diet. Owners feeding RAP are more reliant on online resources than their own veterinarian in deciding what and how much RAP to feed. Pet owners perceive that nutrition is not discussed at most veterinary appointments. Therefore, there is room for improvement in the veterinarian-client communication with regards to nutrition.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent survey work supports that RMBD-feeding owners are less engaged with health specialists than conventional-feeding owners.
“Recent survey work comparing attitudes between RMBD‐ and conventional‐feeding pet owners supports the idea that RMBD‐feeding owners are less engaged with health specialists (Morgan et al. 2017).”
From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Morgan et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 40 · Cited by 94
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Hutchinson D Freeman LM Schreiner KE Terkla GD 2011 Survey of opinions about nutritional requirements of senior dogs and analysis of nutrient profiles of commercially available diets for senior dogs International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 9 68 79
- Authors
- Morgan, S. K., Willis, S., & Shepherd, M. L.
- Affiliations
- Virginia–Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Corresponding author
- Morgan, Stewart K.
- ORCID
- Shepherd, Megan L.
- Venue
- PeerJ
- Publisher
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2017-03-02
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- e3031
- ISSN
- 2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5337082
- OpenAlex
- W2593936076
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 19.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PeerJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Veterinary Practice and Education Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Keywords
- veterinarian-client communication, pet nutrition, online health resources, dogs, cats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
