↓ Skip to main content

Investigation into the animal species contents of popular wet pet foods

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 653)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
21 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Investigation into the animal species contents of popular wet pet foods
Published in
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13028-015-0097-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabella R Maine, Robert Atterbury, Kin-Chow Chang

Abstract

The use of the generic term "meat and animal derivatives" in declared ingredient lists of pet foods in the European Union is virtually universal. In the wake of the 2013 "horse meat scandal" in the human food chain, we examined the presence and authenticity of animal sources (cow, chicken, pig and horse) of proteins in a range of popular wet pet foods in the United Kingdom. Seventeen leading dog and cat foods were sampled for the relative presence of DNA from each of the four animal species by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. No horse DNA was detected. However, there was detection at substantial levels of unspecified animal species in most products tested. In 14 out of 17 samples, bovine, porcine and chicken DNA were found in various proportions and combinations but were not explicitly identified on the product labels. Of the 7 products with prominent headline descriptions containing the term "with beef", only 2 were found to contain more bovine DNA (>50%) than pig and chicken DNA combined. There is a need for the pet food industry to show greater transparency to customers in the disclosure of the types of animal proteins (animal species and tissue types) in their products. Full disclosure of animal contents will (a) allow more informed choices to be made on purchases which are particularly important for pets with food allergies, (b) reduce the risk of product misinterpretation by shoppers, and

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 24%
Student > Master 9 22%
Other 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#277,801
of 18,003,555 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#2
of 653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,354
of 234,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,003,555 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 653 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 234,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them