Randomized Trial to Evaluate Two Dry
Therapeutic Diets for Shelter Dogs with
Acute Diarrhea
S.A. Wennogle, DVMa*
L.E.R Martin, DVMa
F.J. Oleo-Popelka, DVM, PhDa
H. Xu, PhDb
C. Jean-Phillipe, DVM, PhDc
M.R. Lappin, DVM, PhD, DACVIMaa
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
b

Nestle Purina Research, St. Louis, MO 63164

Nestlé PURINA PetCare Europe, Lausanne, Switzerlandc* Corresponding author:E-mail address: sara.wennogle@colostate.edu (S.A. Wennogle).

KEY WORDS: acute diarrhea, low fat,inulin, eicosapentaenoic acid
ABSTRACT
Acute diarrhea is common in dogs housedin animal shelters and is often managed bydietary manipulation. The objective of thisrandomized study was to compare the effectof PURINA VETERINARY DIETS CanineEN® and Hill’s® Prescription Diet i/d®
Canine on acute diarrhea in a populationof young, otherwise healthy shelter dogs.
Shelter dogs (n=24) were eligible for inclusion in the study if diarrhea without blood ortenesmus had been noted for at least 2 days.
Qualifying dogs were randomly assigned to
be fed EN or i/d beginning on Day 0 withfecal scores, appetite, and overall healthstatus monitored daily for the next 14 days.
A total of 14 dogs fed EN and 10 dogs fed
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 13, No. 3, 2015.

i/d completed the study at least through Day
11. Between Days 1 - 7, dogs fed i/d were
2.3 times (95% CI 1.1-5.0) more likely tohave diarrheic stools than dogs fed EN (p=0.042). Although both diets were welltolerated and apparently effective, dogs withacute diarrhea fed PURINA VETERINARYDIETS Canine EN were less likely to havediarrheic stools between Days 1 - 7 thandogs fed Hill’s Prescription Diet i/d Canine.
INTRODUCTION
Acute diarrhea is common in dogs housedin animal shelters, and is often managed bydietary manipulation. Acute diarrhea may
result from many different factors, including
diet change, stress, and viral, bacterial, orparasitic agents. Diet change is typically inevitable in the shelter environment, as often
the previous diet is unknown, and resources

199

typically dictate the use of particular diets.
Stress may play a significant role amongst
the population of dogs housed in animal
shelters, as exposure to novel environmentand routine and social isolation are common,
both of which have been documented tocause stress in the dog. Viral, bacterial, andparasitic agents are also common in the shelter environment. For example, a recent study
that evaluated the prevalence of enteropathogens in dogs with and without diarrhea
entering a Florida shelter found hookworms
in 58% and 48%, Giardia spp in 22% and16%, and canine enteric coronavirus in 2%
and 18%, respectively.
Regardless of the underlying cause, thedevelopment of acute diarrhea negatively
impacts both the individual dog and shelter
resources. The adoption process is often delayed in these cases, which can further limit
already strained shelter resources. In rarecases, intractable diarrhea may even result in
the euthanasia of the dog.
Dietary therapy has long been used as asole or adjunctive therapy for acute diarrhea
in dogs. Depending on the underlying cause,
dietary therapy may be successful as thelone treatment in many cases. The standard
dietary recommendations for acute gastroenteritis traditionally include fasting for
24 to 48 hours, followed by feeding small
amounts of a highly digestible, or “bland”
diet multiple times a day. However, the olddogma of “resting the gut” has been questioned in recent years, especially in cases ofacute diarrhea.
The presumed ideal diet for dogs withacute diarrhea contains highly digestible
protein and carbohydrate sources, and islower in fat than typical diets. Additionally,
ingredients known to be associated with intolerances should be avoided in these diets,and these diets should contain large amountsof readily available electrolytes and vitamins.3 Many diets are commercially available for this purpose, including PURINA
VETERINARY DIETS Canine EN® (EN)and Hill’s® Prescription Diet i/d® Canine(i/d), both highly digestible and low in fat,200

but differing in some specific nutritional
components. The main differences include
that EN contains inulin as a prebiotic source,
whereas the prebiotic source in i/d is beetpulp. Additionally, EN contains long chain
omega-3 fatty acids, and a larger percentage
of medium chain fatty acids.
The objective of this study was to compare clinical responses to EN or i/d when fed
to otherwise healthy shelter dogs experiencing acute small bowel diarrhea. Based on
differences in the composition of the diets,
the primary hypothesis was that dogs fed
EN would have a faster resolution to normalstools than dogs fed i/d.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals
The experimental design was approved by
the Board of Directors at the five participating animal shelters in north-central Colorado(3 shelters) or southern Wyoming (1 shelter),and by the Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee at Colorado State University. The study dogs were stray, owner-relinquished, or transfers from other shelters. All
observers were trained to objectively assign
a fecal score using a visual guide resulting
in a standardized number associated withthe stool characteristics (7 = watery puddles;
6 = texture but no shape; 5 = moist piles; 4= moist log shape; 3 = normal). All dogs
had small bowel diarrhea (fecal score ≥ 4)that had been recognized for at least 2 days
between Day -2 and Day 1 of the study.
The other inclusion criteria stipulated
that the dogs weigh greater than 10 pounds,
were greater than 3 months, but less than
3 years of age (estimated by the attending
veterinarian for strays), and were eligible for
adoption after resolution of clinical signs,
based on behavioral assessment. A complete physical examination was completed
by a study veterinarian when each dog wasadmitted to the study. Exclusion criteria
eliminated dogs with clinical evidence ofsystemic infectious disease (eg, parvovirus,
canine distemper virus), protracted vomiting(> 4 episodes on days -2 through 0) requiring pharmaceutical intervention, hematoVol. 13, No.3, 2015 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.

chezia, tenesmus, and physical examination
findings of dehydration > 3%, abdominal
masses, or skin changes consistent with foodallergic dermatitis.
Experimental Design
Dogs meeting the inclusion criteria had a fecal sample collected and were administereda combination of febental, pyrantel, andpraziquantel (Drontal Plus Taste Tabs; Bayer
Animal Health) according to manufacturer’s
instructions beginning on Day -3, -2 or -1,
and continued for 3 doses. Feces were alsocollected on Days 7 and 14. Blood (3 ml
total volume) was collected on Day – 2 or
0 depending on the original source of thedog. The dogs were either housed at theparticipating shelter (n=6) in isolation runs
or transported to a Colorado State University
research room (n=18) on Day -1. Once thefinal housing was determined, the dog stayedin that run for the duration of the study. At
the end of the study, intact dogs were neutered and all were adopted to private owners
by the participating shelter.
On Day 0, qualifying dogs were assigned to be fed either EN or i/d kibble for
14 days by coin flip (shelter housed dogs)
or by alternating the diets for each newcase entry (research room). The specified
diet was fed exclusively, and the staff wasinstructed to not offer treats or other food,
until after the study was completed. The
amount of ration to be fed was based on the
dog’s weight and the manufacturer feeding
instructions and was offered twice daily.
Appetite was scored (once daily) after the
food had been with the dog for 30 minutes
according to the following criteria:• 0 = all food consumed• 1 = ½ food consumed• 2 = ¼ food consumed• 3 = no food consumed.
The feces passed during the first defecation of the day were objectively scored using
the visual guide as described above. Body
weight and body condition score (using a
1 - 9 scale) were assessed on Day -2, -1 or
0, and again on Days 7 and 144. Dogs were

exercised a minimum of twice daily, andvomiting or other concerns were assessed
and recorded by the study veterinarian.
AssaysFecal samples from Days -2, 7, and 14
underwent zinc sulfate centrifugation, andwere examined microscopically at 100X
for parasite eggs, oocysts, and cysts (Centerfor Companion Animal Studies, Colorado
State University). In addition, each sample
was evaluated for Giardia spp cysts andCryptosporidium spp oocysts by use of acommercially available immunofluorescentassay (Merifluor Giardia/Cryptosporidium,
Meridian Diagnostics). A complete bloodcount and serum biochemical panel (Clinical
Pathology Laboratory, Colorado State University) were performed on blood collectedon Day – 2 or Day 0 with results to be usedin the general health assessment if progression of clinical illness was noted during thestudy.
Statistical Analysis
This randomized trial was considered apilot study. The daily fecal score data weregrouped into Days 1 - 7, Days 8 - 14, andDays 1 - 14 analyses. The data from one
dog in the i/d group was not included in the
Day 8 - 14 and Day 1 – 14 analyses because
feeding was inadvertently delayed on Day
7, which may have influenced subsequentclinical scoring. Statistical differences between diets in proportions of diarrheic stools
on Days 1 - 7, Days 8 - 14, and Days 1 - 14
were analyzed using logistic regression.
Parasitism as a factor associated with diarrhea was analyzed using logistic regression.
Median day to return to normal stool (fecal
score < 4 for 2 consecutive days) was calculated for each diet and assessed using the
Wilcox rank-sum test. Kaplan-Meier curves
showing time to recovery were drawn, anda log-rank test for equality of survivor functions used to determine difference between
diets in time to recovery. All statisticalanalyses were performed using Stata 11.2.
Significance was defined as P < 0.05 for all
analyses.

Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 13, No. 3, 2015.

201

RESULTS

Figure 1. Percentages of dogs being fed EN (n = 14) or i/d (n = 10)with diarrhea by day of the study. When controlling for day in the
period Days 1 - 7, stools from dogs fed i/d 2.3 times (95% CI 1.1–5.1)
more likely to be diarrheic than those fed EN (p = 0.032). Whencontrolling for diet in the period Days 1 - 7, there was a significant
difference in occurrence of diarrhea on Days 5 (p = 0.009), 6 (p =0.002), 7 (p = 0.002) compared to Day 1.

Between June 2012 and November 2013,
approximately 115 dogs were screened by
the participating shelters and the study veterinarian for entry into the study. Of thosedogs, 52 dogs met the entry criteria andwere entered into the study. A total of 28
of the 52 dogs were subsequently excluded
for various reasons including: behavioral
problems, adoption, or having their fecal
scores normalize by the morning of Day 1 or
2. The remaining qualifying dogs were randomized to be fed EN (14 dogs) or i/d (10dogs). Six dogs completed the study whilehoused at Shelter 1. Eighteen dogs weretransported from their respective shelters(Shelter 2, n = 8; Shelter 3, n = 7; Shelter
4, n = 3) to the facility research room forcompletion of the study.
On Day 0, 7 of 14 dogs fed EN and 4 of
10 dogs fed i/d ate < 100% of the ration offered at the morning feeding; this result was
not significantly different. Of the 14 dogs
fed EN, one dog refused to eat the diet on
Days 0 – 2, but then ate the entire ration offered from Days 3 – 14. Of the 10 dogs fed
i/d, one dog refused to eat the diet on Days

202

0 – 2, but then ate
100% of the ration
offered from Days
4 – 14. When bodyweights were compared between Day
7 and Day 14, somedogs lost weight(EN = 7 dogs; i/d =7 dogs), some dogs
gained weight (EN= 5 dogs; i/d = 2dogs), and there wasno change in weight
for some dogs (EN= 2 dogs; i/d = 1
dog). For dogs fed
EN that lost weight,
the range was 1.1%
to 10.3%, with a median of 3.2%. For
dogs fed i/d that lost
weight, the range
was 1.3% to 6.0%
with a median of 3.2%. None of the dogs
had diarrhea on Day 12 or Day 14 of thestudy and all were successfully adopted.
Gastrointestinal parasites were detectedin the Day – 2 samples of 6 of 14 dogs
(42.9%) fed EN and 5 of 10 dogs (50%) fed
i/d, but the differences between groups were
not significantly different (P = 1). Dogs fed
EN were parasitized with Giardia spp alone(4 dogs), Ancylostoma caninum alone (1dog), or Giardia spp and Cryptosporidium
spp (1 dog). Dogs fed i/d were parasitizedwith Giardia spp alone (3 dogs), Giardia
spp and A caninum (1 dog), or Giardia spp
and Cryptosporidium spp (1 dog). Whencontrolling for diet and day, dogs that wereparasitized at Day -2 were more likely tohave diarrheic stools over time than those
who were not parasitized on Day -2 (p =0.006). Giardia spp cysts were still detectedin the feces collected on Day 7 and Day 14
from 2 of the 10 dogs (20%) parasitized with
Giardia spp on Day -2; the other 8 dogs were
negative. Both dogs initially parasitized by
A caninum and both dogs initially parasitized by Cryptosporidium spp on Day-2 wereVol. 13, No.3, 2015 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.

negative on Day 7 and Day 14.
The median values for the first day of
normal stool (fecal score < 4) for dogs fed
EN or i/d were Day 3 and Day 5, respectively. However, this difference was not significantly different (P = 0.13). In addition,
when the speed to recovery was comparedusing the log-rank test, there was no significant difference between the groups (P =0.15). However, when controlling for day inthe period Days 1 - 7, stools from dogs fed
i/d were 2.3 times (95% CI 1.1–5.1) more
likely to be diarrheic than those fed EN (Figure 1; P = 0.032). When controlling for dietin the period Days 1 - 7, there was a significant difference in occurrence of diarrhea on
Days 5 (P = 0.009), 6 (P = 0.002), and 7 (P =0.002) compared to Day 1 suggesting diarrhea was resolving in both groups. Diarrhea
was uncommon in any dog during Days 8– 14, and statistical differences between thegroups were not noted in this period (Days
12 and 14 were omitted from this analysis
because no dogs had diarrhea on these days)(Figure 1).
DISCUSSION
Both gastrointestinal diets studied here are

Table 1. Nutrient analyses of the diets studied.
Hill's ®Prescription Diet i/d® Canine Dry

Nutrients
Protein : %dry matter
25.72

Fat : %

13.67

Carbohydrate: %Crude fiber: %

26.06
11.57

54.64

6.09

5.90

Total Dietary Fiber : %10.03

Soluble Fiber : %0.79

Insoluble Dietary Fiber : %dry matter

51.87
2.66

Ash : %PURINA VETERINARY
DIET® EN® Canine Dry

9.23

1.83

9.29

7.41
1.87

Calcium : ppm

10803

11408

Potassium : ppm

8015

5902

Phosphorus : ppm

8513

Sodium : ppm

4195

Chloride : %

0.98

8126
3546
1.08

Copper : ppm

12.24

13.49

Magnesium : ppm

981

682

Iron : ppm

306

Manganese : ppm
Zinc : ppm

Medium-chain fatty acids(C8:0-C12:0): %

27

186

403
66

181

% in fat% in fat

ND*

0.52

Eicosapentaenoic acid
(C20:5n3): %

0.56

19.91

*ND = non-detectable.

Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 13, No. 3, 2015.

203

formulated to provide complete and balanced nutrition, and the nutrient analyses
of both diets are shown in Table 1. Overall,this study demonstrated that feeding diets
formulated specifically for gastrointestinal
disorders benefits dogs with acute diarrhea.
Although we did detect a difference between
the diets, this study was limited by multiple
factors.
The high spontaneous resolution ratereported in this study emphasizes how difficult it can be to perform controlled studies
on dogs with acute diarrhea. This study was
also limited by its small sample size. Because of the difficulty of obtaining appropriate candidates from the shelter population,
the dogs were obtained from multiple different shelters, and some dogs were housed intheir shelter environment, while others weretransported to CSU to complete the study.
Although these variables may have contributed to stress in these patients, we feel thatstress is ubiquitous in this population, andwould likely play a role no matter where thestudy was carried out. Another major potential limitation of this study related to fecal
scoring. While the majority of stools werescored by masked observers, some were
not. The diets are visually different and somasking was difficult in this study design.
However, we believe that the objective useof the visual guide lessened the potential for
bias.
Despite the limitations, and the fact thatboth diets are very well suited for dogs withacute diarrhea, we did find that diarrhea wasless common in the dogs fed EN during theDay 1 –7 treatment period. These results
might be explained by the lower fat content,
higher percentage of total fat derived frommedium-chain fatty acids, higher percentage
of soluble fiber including inulin, a prebiotic,
and increased levels of eicosapentaenoic
acid (C20:5n3) found in the EN diet.
Whether the differences in fat content
of the diets studied herein contributed to theresults of the study is unknown (Table 1).
Some believe that increased levels of dietary
fat can reduce digestibility by delaying gas-

204

tric emptying.5 Additionally, undigested fatsthat reach the ileum or colon may contributeto the creation of pro-inflammatory hydroxyl
fatty acids, which may be damaging to themucosa, and may also result in diarrhea.5
Furthermore, medium-chain fatty acids arehydrolyzed and absorbed faster than longchain fatty acids, and require less enterocyte
reprocessing, contributing to increased digestibility when compared to diets containing a higher percentage of long-chain fatty
acids.6 Human studies have also indicatedthat MCT’s may be beneficial in patientswith pancreatitis7 and children with acutediarrhea.8 In summary, the lower fat content, and higher percentage of fat suppliedby medium-chained fatty acids, may havecontributed to the EN group having less diarrheic stools than the i/d group during Days
1-7 of the study.
The soluble fiber source in EN isinulin-derived from chicory root which is awell-known prebiotic that promotes digestive health.9 Multiple previous studies havedemonstrated that when fed to dogs, purified
inulin or chicory increases the amount ofbifidobacteria in feces when compared tocontrols.10,11,12 The presence of bifidobacteria in the feces has long been used as agauge of gastrointestinal health and prebiotic potential.9 Additionally, chicory has
been demonstrated to reduce the amountof fecal clostridia in dogs, when compared
to controls.10 A recent paper describing the
fecal microbiome of dogs with acute diarrhea demonstrated a significant increase in
Clostridium perfringens when compared tohealthy dogs.13 Therefore, it is possible thatthe inulin content in EN contributed to thefindings reported in our study. However, i/dprovides soluble fiber from beet pulp that
presumably would have a similar benefit inthis group of dogs.
Eicosapentaenoic acid is a long chain
omega-3 fatty acid with anti-inflammatory
effects.14 Studies that specifically evaluate
the ability of omega-3 fatty acids to reduce
intestinal inflammation in dogs and cats arelacking. However, in humans with ulcerVol. 13, No.3, 2015 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.

ative colitis, the addition of fish oil, which isrich in long chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA
and DHA, to the diet allowed for diminishedusage of anti-inflammatory medications,and demonstrated a reduction in inflammatory mediators.15 Consequently, many in theveterinary field feel that their use is justified for patients with presumed or biopsydemonstrated intestinal inflammation, andtheir presence in the EN diet may have been
in a factor in the studies reported findings.
Some veterinary internists are concerned
about gastrointestinal side effects that could
develop when supplementing omega-3 fatty
acids. However, vomiting or diarrhea in one
study of different supplementation levels
showed side-effects were uncommon andvariable.16
As is common in the shelter environment, many of the dogs in this study wereparasitized. Parasitized dogs were more
likely to have diarrhea. However, there weresimilar percentages of parasitism between
groups prior to instituting dietary therapy.
All dogs were administered febantel-pyrantel-praziquantel, regardless of parasitism status. Dogs were most commonly parasitizedwith Giardia spp or Ancylostoma caninum,
both of which would be expected to respondto febantel-pyrantel-praziquantel. While thisdrug is not a treatment for Cryptosporidium
spp, both dogs parasitized by this organism
developed normal stools over the courseof the study. Additionally, both dogs with
Giardia spp cysts noted in their feces onboth Day 7 and Day 14 had normal stools by
Day 6 and Day 10, respectively, suggestingthat dietary manipulation likely contributed
to the improvement in their fecal scores.
The dog that developed a normal fecal scoreby Day 6 was in the EN group; the dog thatdeveloped a normal fecal score by Day 10
was in the i/d group. The Giardia spp results
demonstrated that not all treated dogs will
have negative test results in the short term
which is similar to what has been shown inother studies.17 Thus, the primary goal ofGiardia spp treatment should be normalization of the stools, and dietary manipulation
can be beneficial in these cases.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 13, No. 3, 2015.

It is unknown exactly why some of thedogs lost weight on the fed diets; however,
it is suspected that this was simply due topatient variability and the fixed amountfed. This is a good reminder that althoughfeeding guidelines are very valuable, they
do not apply uniformly to the patient, as
energy requirements can vary significantly
in individuals of the same weight class. It
is therefore important to remind pet guardians that feeding guidelines are averages,
and may need to be adjusted based on theirindividual pet’s response to the diet, withhelp from their veterinary practitioner.
CONCLUSIONSIn conclusion, this study demonstrates thatdogs with acute diarrhea can benefit frombeing fed diets formulated specificallyfor gastrointestinal disorders. The resultspresented indicate that PURINA VETERINARY DIET Canine EN and Hills Science
Diet i/d canine are well suited for the speedy
resolution of acute diarrhea in dogs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Valeria
Scorza and Madeline Fujishiro for their assistance with this project.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
This study was funded by Nestle Purina
Research. While two of the authors (HX,CJP) are employees of the sponsor, none of
the authors benefitted financially from thiswork.
REFERNECES
1.
2.

3.

4.

Hennessy, M.B.: Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal
responses to brief social separation. Neuroscienceand Biobehavioral Reviews 1997; 21:11–29.
Tupler, T., Levy, J.K., Sabshin, S.J., Tucker, S.J.,
Greiner, E.C., & Leutenegger, C.M.: Enteropathogens identiﬁed in dogs entering a Florida animal
shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. Journal of
American Veterinary Medical Association 2012;
241: 338–343.
Laflamme, D.P., Xu, H., Cupp, C.J., Kerr, W.W.,
Ramadan, Z. & Long, G.M.: Evaluation of canned
therapeutic diets for the management of cats withnaturally occurring chronic diarrhea. Journal ofFeline Medicine and Surgery 2012; 14:669–677.
Laflamme, D.P.: Development and Validation of a
Body Condition Score System for Dogs. Canine
Practice July/August 1997; 22:10-15.

205

5.

Davenport, D.J. & Remillard, R.L.: Acute Gastroenteritis and Enteritis. In: Hand, M.S., Thatcher,
C.D., Remillard, R.L., Roudebush, B.J., eds. Small
Animal Clinical Nutrition. 5th edition. Topeka, KS:
Mark Morris Institute, 2010: 1056-1058.
6. Gross, K.L., Yamka, R.M. & Khoo, C.: Macronutrients. In: Hand, M.S., Thatcher, C.D., Remillard,
R.L., et al, eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition.
5th edition. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute;
2010: 96-97.
7. Shea, J.C., Bishop, M.D., Parker, E.M., Gelrud, A.
& Freedman, S.D.: An enteral therapy containing medium-chain triglycerides and hydrolyzed
peptides reduces postprandial pain associated withchronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2003; 3(1):36–40.
8. Tanchoco, C.C., Cruz, A.J., Rogaccion, J.M., et al:Diet supplemented with MCT oil in the management of childhood diarrhea. Asia Pacific Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 2007;16(2): 286-92.
9. Hooda, S., Minamoto, Y., Suchodolski, J.S., Swanson K.S.: Current start of knowledge: The Canine
Gastrointestinal Microbiome. Animal HealthResearch Reviews 2012; 13: 78-88.
10. Russel, T.J.: The Effect of Natural Sources of
Non-Digestible Oligosaccharides on the Fecal
Microflora of the Dog and Effects on Digestion.
Missouri: 1998; Friskies R & D centre, FriskiesEurope.
11. Beynen, A.C., Baas, J.C., Hoekemeijer, P.E., etal: Fecal bacterial proﬁle, nitrogen excretion andmineral absorption in healthy dogs fed supplemental oligofructose. Journal Animal Physiology andAnimal Nutrition 2002; 86: 298–305.

206

12. Swanson, K.S. & Fahey Jr, G.C.: Prebiotics impacts on companion animals. In: G.R. Gibson, G.R.
and Rastall R.A. eds. Prebiotics Development andApplication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons;
2006: 213–236.
13. Suchodolski, J.S., Markel, M.E., Garcia-Mazcorro,
J.F., et al: The fecal microbiome in dogs withacute diarrhea and idiopathic inflammatory bowel
disease. Plos ONE 2012; 7: e51907.
14. Leblanc, C.J., Horohov, D.W., Bauer, J.E.,
Hosgood, G. & Mauldin, G. E.: Effects of dietary
supplementation with fish oil on in vivo productionof inflammatory mediators in clinically normal
dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research
2008; 69: 486–493.
15. Stenson, W.F., Cort, D., Rodgers, J., et al:Dietary
supplementation with fish oil in ulcerative colitis.
Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 116: 609-614.
16. Lenox, C.E. & Bauer, J.E.: Potential adverse
effects of omega-3 fatty acids in dogs and cats.
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 2013; 27:
217–226.
17. Miró, G., Mateo, M., Montoya, Vela, E. &Calonge, R.: Survey of intestinal parasites in straydogs in the Madrid area and comparison of theefficacy of three anthelmintics in naturally infected
dogs. Parasitology Research 2007; 100: 317-320.

Vol. 13, No.3, 2015 • Intern J Appl Res Vet Med.