The Prime Minister's website has received a petition for a new law making it compulsory to microchip pets in the UK.

If you wish to support this petition, please click here and add your name: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MicrochipPets/

The full petition reads:

"I am a responsible pet owner and have both my parrots and dog microchipped. I genuinely believe that all pets (where possible) should be microchipped.

I feel that it should be mandatory and is part of being a responsible pet owner. This should act as a "licence". I strongly beleive that this course of action will protect many discarded, stolen and mistreated pets every year as there will be no escape for the owners as the pet can be traced back to them.

I appreciated that due to size and temperament some pets may not be able to be microchipped, but certainly dogs, cats, horses, valuable / larger birds, rabbits etc should be.

I hope you agree that £30 for a microchip is good value, if owners cannot afford this then they shouldnt be considering a pet in the first place.

Please can you give this idea serious consideration as I feel we must do something to protect the pets that do not have a voice in our society."

Gil Riley of the Pool House Veterinary Hospital in Lichfield, Staffordshire has won the annual Petplan Equine Vet of the Year Award. 

The Award was announced at the 21st annual Animal Health Trust (AHT) Equestrian Awards gala dinner held at the Lancaster Hotel in London last Thursday.

Horse owners from all over the UK nominated vets who had gone above and beyond the call of duty. A short list of three finalists was then drawn up and the winner selected by an independent panel consisting of: Peter Webbon AHT Chief Executive and Equine Vet, Alison Bridge Editor-in-Chief of Horse & Rider Magazine, Chris House President of the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) and Jo Whitaker Marketing Development Manager for Petplan.

Peter Webbon of the AHT said "We received a record number of nominations this year and the standards were incredibly high.  However, Gil was nominated by over 100 clients and we felt he was truly deserving of this award."

Alison Andrew, Marketing Manager for Petplan said: "This award recognises the amazing hard work and commitment of people within the equine veterinary profession and those who provide outstanding service to horse owners."

Gil joined the Pool House Veterinary Group and Equine clinic practice to expand his equine skills after working in a mainly agricultural practice in Wales and is jointly responsible for the Equine part of the Practice. He has subsequently been awarded the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Certificate in Equine Practice and he is particularly interested in lameness and laminitis.  He also recently acted as British Team Vet at the International Driving Trials in Germany.

Gil said: "Everyday I feel like I'm pulling the greatest trick in that I get paid for doing what I love. To receive further recognition with this award almost feels greedy. I'm tremendously flattered and indebted to all my clients who nominated me."

In his acceptance speech Gil praised his team for their dedication and support without whom, he said this would not have been possible. Special thanks went to his proud wife Emma on the evening of their fifth wedding anniversary.

The Animal Health Trust Equestrian awards are designed to recognise the outstanding achievements made by horses, riders, owners and trainers throughout the equestrian world. Since the Petplan Charitable Trust was founded in 1994 it has raised over £5million, almost £500,000 of which has been donated to the AHT to fund research and development.

The WikiQuiz project - a free online question and answer tool which enables vets, vet students and vet nurses to test their knowledge - is now online thanks to £4,770 of funding from the RCVS Trust.

WikiQuiz is a new resource to enable vets and students to structure and direct their learning, and links directly to information on WikiVet, the free research and academic collaboration resource put together by over 40 academics, veterinary surgeons and students from the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Nottingham, and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC).  However, unlike its namesake Wikipedia, WikiVet is designed to be an accurate, peer-reviewed source of information for the veterinary profession and tailored to the undergraduate veterinary curriculum. Some of the material is also of interest to veterinary nurses, in particular those pursuing advanced professional qualifications.

Nick Short, Head of E-Media at the RVC said: "WikiQuiz is purpose-built for vets and students to structure and direct their learning. The questions and answers in WikiQuiz will help vets and veterinary students and work out what topics they might need to study, and link them directly to relevant information published on WikiVet.

"The Wikipedia concept is familiar and popular with students and vets; however, the information on the site can lack quality and relevance", he continued.  "In creating WikiVet, we've used the look and feel of Wikipedia - but by making WikiVet available only to veterinary students, surgeons and nurses, introducing a peer-review system and appointing an editorial board to oversee the site, we can ensure the information published is relevant and accurate.

"We are hugely grateful to the RCVS Trust for supporting this project."

Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said:  "Veterinary undergraduates and veterinary surgeons alike need to be able to assess where there are any gaps in their knowledge as part of planning their learning and development.  The WikiQuiz resource helps them to do this.

"Using good quality online tools and information can save vets and students valuable time - which is one reason why we chose to support WikiQuiz.  The WikiVet project also fits very well with the online Library services provided to vets, veterinary nurses and students by the Trust."

Veterinary surgeons, students and nurses can apply for a free log-in to WikiVet at http://www.wikivet.net/.

Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

The deadline for candidate nominations for the RCVS and VN Council elections is fast approaching - so please hurry if you plan to stand.

There are six seats on the RCVS Council, and two on the VN Council, due to be filled in the 2010 election, but candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010.

Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence. We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards - and, like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients."

The elections will be held in March, and decided by all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who use their vote. The results will be announced early in May, with those elected taking their seats at RCVS Day in July and serving four-year terms.  

All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.

Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members' expenditures on hotels and travel are reimbursed. Their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.

Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk  or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council can be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk). All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.  

Practices will be able to offer customers increased support for their worming programmes in 2010, as part of a new initiative from Eqvalan® manufacturer, Merial.  

Eqvalan product manager Claire Edmunds said: "The SMART worming campaign is designed to encourage owners to Simply Monitor, Assess Risk and, if necessary, Treat with the most appropriate wormer.

"We know that worming can be confusing for horse owners, so the SMART approach is designed to help them manage their worming programmes more easily, whilst also ensuring that wormers are used in a way that may help prevent the development of resistance.

Practices purchasing Eqvalan Duo during February and March can get 4 tubes free when they purchase 20. In addition, to kick start the SMART campaign for each order on the above offer, Merial will supply 20 free Worm Egg Count vouchers worth £10/€10 each. For those practices with their own testing facilities, the company is also offering promotional support to help encourage increased uptake and client buy-in.

Claire added: "As well as continuing with the successful free worm egg count campaign available for practices during February and March, owners will also have access to a personalised on-line planner, as well as text and email alerts.

"The campaign is being supported with new point of sale material and a prominent consumer advertising campaign. In addition we also have an extensive VN SQP CPD training programme planned for 2010. 

"With the consensus of expert opinion on the future of worming firmly behind the use of targeted programmes incorporating worm egg counts, there has never been a more important time to get closer to clients and help them with their worming strategies."  

If you would like further information, please contact your local territory manager or call the Merial Customer Support Centre on 0845 601 4236. 

Bayer Animal Health, maker of Advocate, has announced that it will be running its 'Be Lungworm Aware' campaign in April.

The company says the campaign aims to help raise awareness of Angiostrongylus vasorum amongst dog owners and support the veterinary practice as a source of further information. The initiative will be backed by a national TV and print advertising campaign.  Media vet Joe Inglis will also be supporting the initiative and will be talking about Angiostrongylus vasorum during a series of radio and web broadcasts.

Bayer has produced new support materials, including an updated lungworm PR pack. The materials are designed to allow veterinary practices to educate owners on the disease, whilst helping to raise the profile of the practice in the local community.

Meanwhile, the research carried out by the company has revealed some interesting insights into dog owners' understanding of lungworm.

Despite awareness being fairly high with nearly half of owners claiming to know about the condition, 84% of this group did not know any of the clinical signs associated with the infection, while only 60% were aware that the disease could be fatal if left untreated.   Understanding of how dogs become infected was also relatively low with only 24% of owners recognising the role of slugs and snails as the intermediate host for the parasite.  As well as playing a vital role in alerting owners to the emergence of the disease, the veterinary practice was cited as the primary source of information that owners would refer to if they needed advice on treating this parasite.

Eric Morgan from the University of Bristol said: "Angiostrongylus vasorum appears to be continuing its spread to new locations in the UK. It is therefore important that dog owners are educated on the infection and the signs to look out for, to enable them to seek treatment before it is too late."

For further details, or to order the new practice materials, please contact your Bayer representative or ring 0845 2574798 quoting 'Be Lungworm Aware'.

The Veterinary Wound Healing Association (VWHA) has become the third veterinary association to make a new home on VetSurgeon.org.

VWHA President Jacintha Wilmink said: "We're very excited about joining VetSurgeon.org and how it will allow our members to connect with each other and share information quicker and more easily than ever before".

In common with the other associations, the VWHA is making its content available for all VetSurgeon members to access, however only VWHA members can submit cases to its section for discussion, or participate in the VWHA forum. Jacintha added: "We hope that the cases and discussions in our section of the site will be of value to all practitioners, and that many more of you will want to join the association and participate".

Information about the benefits of joining the VWHA is available here.

Novartis Animal Health's year long campaign to drive pet-owner awareness of the importance of worming pets regularly got off to a rather damp start in London today, with 63 people in doggy suits - mostly company employees I gather - running around the capital accompanied by two 'pooch vans'.

The 'Worm Patrol' team will be visiting veterinary practices over the summer to help promote, set up and run Pet Worming Awareness Days and attend practice open days. Veterinary practitioners will have access to the Worm Patrol support kit including the branded pooch van, Chewy the dog mascot and a worm patrol ambassador. Additional support will include educational leaflets for owners, giveaways and waiting room materials.

Maggie Fisher, Chairperson of the European Scientific Counsel for Companion Animal Parasites is backing the campaign. She said: "Raising awareness of worm control throughout the life of cats and dogs is important, particularly when it is reported that 80 percent of children kiss their pet and 21 percent let them lick their fingers after sharing food. While the risk may be relatively low, the consequences can be serious, especially in children.

"It's important that pet owners take responsibility for their animals and we are pleased that initiatives such as the Worm Patrol and 'Pet Worming Awareness Days' will help practices highlight the risk that endoparasites pose to humans and companion animals in a novel and light-hearted way."

To arrange for the Worm Patrol to visit to your practice, or for further information about setting up a Pet Awareness Worming Day, please contact your Novartis Animal Health Territory Manager or Novartis Animal Health UK Ltd on +44 (0)1276 694402.

Alstoe Animal Health has introduced a new, palatable joint nutrient supplement for horses.

According to the company, the benefits of feeding equine joint nutrient supplements to assist with maintaining mobility and supporting health joint function has been well documented, but until now, their flavours have often had to be disguised by mixing them into the feed in an attempt to ensure compliance.

Easeflex Equine palatable pellets include alfalfa, an equine favourite which has been used in the USA for some time, and shown to be readily accepted by horses, without the need to mix with the feed.

Alstoe says Easeflex Equine contains high levels of glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulphate, which are important in the production of glycosaminoglycans, and which have chondroprotective properties that aid in the natural renewal of cartilaginous tissue. Easeflex Equine palatable pellets also include MSM (methyl-sulphonyl-methane), a source of bioavailable sulphur, a key component of connective tissue and important in the synthesis of articular cartilage. Antioxidants are also present to help prevent damage by free radicals, as well as the essential trace minerals, copper, zinc and manganese.

Easeflex Equine palatable pellets can be fed to horses, ponies and donkeys of any age. The company recommends initial daily feeding of a double loading quantity for the first four to six weeks, thereafter reducing to a maintenance level or as directed by the veterinary surgeon. The amount of pellets to be fed depends on the weight of the animal, one small scoop containing 28g of pellets can be a daily dose for a horse of up to 450kg. Easeflex Equine palatable pellets are available in 1.7kg and 4.54kg tubs.

Hill's Pet Nutrition has highlighted recent studies which, the company says, prove that feeding a food enriched with omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils to dogs with osteoarthritis results in a reduction in NSAID dosage of up to 25%¹, owner observed improvements in clinical signs³, and improved weight bearing ability^{2, 7}

The claim that food can effectively support medical treatment follows in the wake of two published and one in press study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association (JAVMA). These demonstrate that omega-3 enriched food (in this case Hill's Prescription Diet j/d Canine) has significant  effects on weight bearing and helps reduce NSAID dosage by up to 25 per cent, when fed to dogs with osteoarthritis ^{1, 2,3}. 

According to Hill's, the research demonstrates that in dogs the high levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from fish oils can down-regulate the cartilage degrading enzyme aggrecanase¹. In vitro studies have also identified that EPA resulted in a reduction in the amount of degraded cartilage residue produced⁴. High levels of omega-3 fatty acids can also help to reduce inflammation^5,6.

The two studies that were recently published confirm that feeding a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids aids in the management of osteoarthritis in dogs^2,3. The randomized double-blinded controlled trials were carried out over three and six months respectively and involved a total of 165 dogs identified as suffering from mild to moderate osteoarthritis. After collating the results from almost 25,000 trial days, researchers were able to confirm a significant 'clinical improvement' from feeding a food fortified with fatty acids.

In the first study described in JAVMA, researchers found evidence that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oils resulted in improvements in weight bearing². Objective measurement using force plate gait analysis demonstrated that dogs fed a test food fortified with fatty acids were seven times as likely to show improved weight bearing compared with dogs fed a control food.

In the second study, through a detailed questionnaire, owners also observed significant improvements in their dog's osteoarthritic condition³.  Improvements observed covered the following signs: difficulty in rising from rest, limping, stiffness, soreness when touched, yelping or whimpering in pain, aggression, lagging on walks, reluctance to play and overall activity level.

Adrian Pratt, Veterinary Affairs Manager for Hill's Pet Nutrition, manufacturer of Prescription Diet j/d, which is enriched with omega-3 fatty acids, hailed the results as a breakthrough in the field of nutrigenomics (the study of the effects of nutrition on gene expression): "This research points the way to a new model for the management of osteoarthritis, using a clinically proven food to interrupt the cycle of damage and cartilage degradation, alongside graded levels of NSAIDs and proactive programmes to manage weight and adjust exercise routines. Clinicians now have the conclusive proof they need to recommend feeding omega-3 enriched food to ameliorate the signs of osteoarthritis in clients' pets and to adjust NSAID doses accordingly." 

For further information on Hill's Prescription Diet j/d, please contact your Hill's Territory Manager or call 0800 282438.

References
1. A multicenter study of the effect of a therapeutic food supplemented with fish oil omega-3 fatty acids on the Carpofen dosage in dogs with osteoarthritis. Fritsch A, Allen T, Dodd C, JAVMA in press
2. Evaluation of the effects of dietary supplementation with fish oil omega-3 fatty acids on weight bearing in dogs. Roush J, Cross A, Renberg W, Dodd C, Sixby K, Fritsch A, Allen T, Jewell, Richardson D, Leventhal P, Hahn K, JAVMA Vol 236 No 1, Jan 2010 pp67-73
3. Multicenter veterinary practice assessment of the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on osteoarthritis in dogs. Roush J, Dodd C, Fritsch A, Allen T, Jewell D, Schoenherr W, Richardson D, Leventhal P, Hahn K, JAVMA Vol 236 No 1, Jan 2010 pp 59-66
4. Eicosapentaenoate supplementation abrogates canine articular cartilage degeneration in in vitro explant culture systems, Caterson B, Cramp J, Little C B et al, Hills European Symposium on osteoarthritis and joint health 2005 14-19
5.  Dietary modification of inflammation with lipids, P C Calder, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2002 345-358
6.  Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and inflammatory mediator production, James M J, Cleland L G, Gibson R A, Am J Clin Nut 2000: 71 suppl 343S- 358S
7.  Vasseur PB, Johnson AL, Budsberg SC, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of the efficacy of carprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1995; 206 (6): 807-811.

Alstoe Animal Health is launching Nelio, a four-way breakable flavoured tablet version of the ACE inhibitor benazepril hydrochloride at BSAVA Congress.

The Nelio range for the treatment of congestive heart failure in dogs and chronic renal insufficiency in cats is presented as a flavoured clover-shaped scored tablet, which is easily divisible into halves or quarters. Nelio is presented in 5mg and 20mg tablets for dogs and 5mg for cats. The company says the new product will allow for more accurate dosing by bodyweight.

In addition, Alstoe is introducing a 120mg sized Dolagis chewable flavoured tablet, which contains the largest amount of carprofen in a single tablet on the veterinary market. As with the 50mg version, the 120mg tablet can be broken into half and quarter portion doses. Alstoe says the combination of these two sizes now affords even greater versatility for veterinary surgeons who need to prescribe for different weights of patient.