{"title":"与宠物兔营养推荐相比,对宠物兔和农场兔市售饲粮的营养充分性进行评估。","authors":"Z Osório-Santos, V M Suzuki","doi":"10.1111/jsap.13902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the prevalence of nutritional adequacy of commercial rabbit feeds and explore the impact of target species, premium claims and the intended purpose (farm vs. pet) on the nutritional content and adequacy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search on the Google Shopping platform identified 47 complete rabbit feeds from various brands. The feeds were categorised by purpose (farm or pet) and target species (mono-species or multi-species), and the nutritional guarantees were compared with established recommendations for pet rabbits. Differences between groups were analysed using non-parametric statistical methods, and any inadequacies were quantified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nutritional inadequacies were identified in 77% of the feeds. Common issues included excessive maximum calcium (57%) and insufficient crude fibre (35%). Multi-species feeds were more likely to contain inadequate levels of protein, fibre and energy compared to mono-species feeds. Farm feeds frequently exceeded calcium limits. Although hay provision is essential for maintaining rabbit welfare, recommendations for hay inclusion were often absent from the feed labels.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>This study reveals significant nutritional inadequacies in commercial rabbit feeds, particularly in multi-species products. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved feed formulations and regulatory oversight. To avoid potential nutritional deficiencies or excesses and to support optimal rabbit health, veterinarians and pet owners should carefully and critically evaluate feed labels.</p>","PeriodicalId":17062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the nutritional adequacy of commercially available diets for pet and farm rabbits compared to pet rabbit nutritional recommendation.\",\"authors\":\"Z Osório-Santos, V M Suzuki\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jsap.13902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the prevalence of nutritional adequacy of commercial rabbit feeds and explore the impact of target species, premium claims and the intended purpose (farm vs. pet) on the nutritional content and adequacy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search on the Google Shopping platform identified 47 complete rabbit feeds from various brands. The feeds were categorised by purpose (farm or pet) and target species (mono-species or multi-species), and the nutritional guarantees were compared with established recommendations for pet rabbits. Differences between groups were analysed using non-parametric statistical methods, and any inadequacies were quantified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nutritional inadequacies were identified in 77% of the feeds. Common issues included excessive maximum calcium (57%) and insufficient crude fibre (35%). Multi-species feeds were more likely to contain inadequate levels of protein, fibre and energy compared to mono-species feeds. Farm feeds frequently exceeded calcium limits. Although hay provision is essential for maintaining rabbit welfare, recommendations for hay inclusion were often absent from the feed labels.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>This study reveals significant nutritional inadequacies in commercial rabbit feeds, particularly in multi-species products. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved feed formulations and regulatory oversight. To avoid potential nutritional deficiencies or excesses and to support optimal rabbit health, veterinarians and pet owners should carefully and critically evaluate feed labels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Small Animal Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13902\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13902","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the nutritional adequacy of commercially available diets for pet and farm rabbits compared to pet rabbit nutritional recommendation.
Objectives: To assess the prevalence of nutritional adequacy of commercial rabbit feeds and explore the impact of target species, premium claims and the intended purpose (farm vs. pet) on the nutritional content and adequacy.
Materials and methods: A systematic search on the Google Shopping platform identified 47 complete rabbit feeds from various brands. The feeds were categorised by purpose (farm or pet) and target species (mono-species or multi-species), and the nutritional guarantees were compared with established recommendations for pet rabbits. Differences between groups were analysed using non-parametric statistical methods, and any inadequacies were quantified.
Results: Nutritional inadequacies were identified in 77% of the feeds. Common issues included excessive maximum calcium (57%) and insufficient crude fibre (35%). Multi-species feeds were more likely to contain inadequate levels of protein, fibre and energy compared to mono-species feeds. Farm feeds frequently exceeded calcium limits. Although hay provision is essential for maintaining rabbit welfare, recommendations for hay inclusion were often absent from the feed labels.
Clinical significance: This study reveals significant nutritional inadequacies in commercial rabbit feeds, particularly in multi-species products. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved feed formulations and regulatory oversight. To avoid potential nutritional deficiencies or excesses and to support optimal rabbit health, veterinarians and pet owners should carefully and critically evaluate feed labels.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP) is a monthly peer-reviewed publication integrating clinical research papers and case reports from international sources, covering all aspects of medicine and surgery relating to dogs, cats and other small animals. These papers facilitate the dissemination and implementation of new ideas and techniques relating to clinical veterinary practice, with the ultimate aim of promoting best practice. JSAP publishes high quality original articles, as well as other scientific and educational information. New developments are placed in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary. The target audience is veterinarians primarily engaged in the practise of small animal medicine and surgery.
In addition to original articles, JSAP will publish invited editorials (relating to a manuscript in the same issue or a topic of current interest), review articles, which provide in-depth discussion of important clinical issues, and other scientific and educational information from around the world.
The final decision on publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Board and ultimately with the Editor. All papers, regardless of type, represent the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the Editor, the Association or the Publisher.
The Journal of Small Animal Practice is published on behalf of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and is also the official scientific journal of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association