1 / 16

Therapy dogs and raw diets – a prudent mix?

Therapy dogs and raw diets – a prudent mix?. Sandi Lefebvre, DVM University of Guelph. Formula. 1. Introduction to raw diets. 2. Review of the evidence. Review of the evidence. 3. Study of therapy dogs & raw. 4. Conclusions. Background. B – biologically A – appropriate

jaden
Download Presentation

Therapy dogs and raw diets – a prudent mix?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Therapy dogs and raw diets – a prudent mix? Sandi Lefebvre, DVM University of Guelph

  2. Formula 1 Introduction to raw diets 2 Review of the evidence Review of the evidence 3 Study of therapy dogs & raw 4 Conclusions

  3. Background • B – biologically • A – appropriate • R – raw • F – food

  4. Evidence against BARF Risks of food being contaminated • Nonspecific types of E. coli in up to 64% samples • Salmonella spp in 6 – 80% (Joffe & Schlesinger 2002, Weese et al 2005, Strohmeyer et al 2006) Risks of raw-eaters shedding Salmonella • 30-93% of stools from dogs fed non-commercial raw diets(Joffe & Schlesinger 2002, Morley et al 2006) • In feces of 44% research beagles that ate 1 contaminated commercial raw meal vs 0% fed1 uncontaminated meal (Finley et al 2007) Risks of dogs transmitting Salmonella?

  5. Context for the present study Question: What are the incidence rates of specific pathogens in therapy dogs and do these rates vary by level of exposure to healthcare facilities? • Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) • Extend-spectrum -lactamase (ESBL) E. coli • Clostridium difficile • Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) • Salmonella spp Found both in healthcare facilities & raw meat and poultry

  6. Strategy: Follow dogs over 1 year, test every 2 months • Data on confounders: • Types of places visited • Consumption of raw animal foods • Consumption of natural pet treats • Antimicrobial exposure • Age • Breed • Drinking from toilets • Coprophagia

  7. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli

  8. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli OR ~ 1.0 Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli

  9. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.01-3.73 Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli

  10. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12-1.17

  11. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli OR 10.9, 95% CI 4.2-28.0 Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli

  12. Total dogs: 196 • Non-raw feeders (n=156) • 1 (0.6%) VRE • 8 (5.1%) MRSA • 40 (25.6%) C. diff • 12 (7.7%) Sal • 32 (20.1%) E. coli Results • Raw feeders (n = 40) • 0 (0%) VRE • 1 (2.5%) MRSA • 5 (12.5%) C. diff • 19 (47.5%) Sal • 31 (77.5%) E. coli OR 13.3, 95% CI 5.4-34.6

  13. Specific to Salmonella spp… Raw feeders shed Salmonella spp for prolonged periods • 7 dogs tested positive twice in a row • 2 dogs tested positive 3x • 1 dog tested positive 4x Important to note: the stools of all Salmonella+ dogs were normal

  14. Raw diet Non-raw diet Identities of Salmonella serotypes (n=47)  (One of) most common Salmonella serotype in Canadians with lab-confirmed salmonellosis Number of positive specimens

  15. Conclusion • Dogs that consume raw diets are considerably more likely to carry Salmonella than dogs that do not • These dogs also appear to be considerably more likely to carry ESBL E. coli • Just because dogs are shedding doesn’t mean people are going to get sick… • Therapy dogs that consume raw diets should be barred from interacting with people in healthcare settings

  16. Acknowledgments Nicol Janecko and her crew at the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses My committee: David Waltner-Toews Scott Weese Richard Reid-Smith Andrew Peregrine

More Related