↓ Skip to main content

Undeclared animal species in dry and wet novel and hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats detected by microarray analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Undeclared animal species in dry and wet novel and hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats detected by microarray analysis
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12917-018-1528-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Ricci, Daniele Conficoni, Giada Morelli, Carmen Losasso, Leonardo Alberghini, Valerio Giaccone, Antonia Ricci, Igino Andrighetto

Abstract

Although the European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF) stated that labels must be accurate and provide detailed information on the ingredients, mislabeling of pet food has been documented by several authors. This phenomenon is of particular concern when related to products used as elimination diets for the diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR) in dogs and cats because the presence of undeclared ingredients may negatively interfere with the trial and prevent the veterinarian from making an appropriate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to shed light upon the problem of contamination and mislabeling in both dry and wet novel protein diets (NPDs) and hydrolyzed protein diets (HPDs) using a microarray-based commercial kit which tests for the presence of 19 animal species. Of the 40 analyzed products (9 dry NPDs, 22 wet NPDs, 6 dry HPDs and 3 wet HPDs), ten presented a content that correctly matched the label, while five did not contain the declared animal species, twenty-three revealed the presence of undeclared animal species, and two had a vague label that did not allow the evaluation of its accuracy. The most frequently contaminants identified in both dry and wet pet foods were pork, chicken and turkey. The presence of undeclared animal species was higher in dry than wet pet foods; furthermore, a lower number of contaminating animal species was identified in HPDs than NPDs (4 vs 10), and a lower number of contaminated HPDs (6 out of 9, 67%) than contaminated NPDs was detected (24 out of 31, 77%). Thirteen out of 14 brands tested presented at least one mislabeled product. Mislabeling seems to be a widespread issue in pet foods used as elimination diets. Contamination can occur in all types of products used for the purpose, although dry NPDs are the main issue. Due to the high risk of contamination, particular attention should be given to both the selection of raw material suppliers and the production process.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Unspecified 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,173,900
of 24,457,696 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#134
of 3,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,822
of 333,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#4
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,457,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.