Hydrolysed Protein Dog Food Alternatives: An Evidence-Based Comparison

Summary

Hydrolysed protein diets remain a widely used therapeutic approach for dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions, but peer-reviewed evidence indicates clinical failure rates of 20 to 50% and persistent immunological reactivity in a substantial proportion of dogs. Five alternative approaches exist: novel protein diets, limited ingredient formulations, insect-based diets, homemade elimination diets, and plant-based hypoallergenic diets. Each carries distinct strengths and limitations the marketing rarely acknowledges. Novel protein and limited ingredient diets are systematically compromised by commercial mislabelling, with 33 to 83% of products containing undeclared ingredients. Insect-based diets carry tropomyosin cross-reactivity risk for mite-sensitised dogs. Plant-based diets formulated without wheat remove all five of the most prevalent canine food allergens by design, additionally remove every lower-prevalence plant-protein allergen documented in the same evidence base when corn, soy, and rice are also excluded, and align mechanistically with the canine microbiome’s documented capacity for plant fibre fermentation.

Introduction

A growing body of peer-reviewed research has documented the limitations of hydrolysed protein diets in dogs with food allergies and inflammatory gastrointestinal conditions. The diets that veterinarians and owners have been told would eliminate immune recognition often fail to do so in a substantial proportion of allergic dogs.¹⁻³ For owners and clinicians looking beyond hydrolysed protein, five alternative approaches exist. Each carries distinct evidence-based strengths and weaknesses that the category marketing rarely discloses.

This article evaluates each alternative against current peer-reviewed evidence. Where the evidence supports an approach, that is stated. Where it reveals limitations the marketing does not acknowledge, those are stated equally. The aim is to enable dog owners and clinicians to make informed choices based on what the research actually shows, not on what the category marketing claims.

The full evidence base for the case against hydrolysed protein as a default-first therapeutic approach is set out in our companion article, Hydrolysed Protein Dog Food: The Facts Behind Its Efficacy. This article begins by accepting those findings and moves directly to the question owners face when hydrolysed protein has not worked, has not been tolerated, or is not the right starting point for their dog.

Key Takeaways

• Hydrolysed protein diet failure rates of 20 to 50% in peer-reviewed clinical trials justify considering alternatives
• Five major alternatives exist: novel protein, limited ingredient, insect-based, homemade, and plant-based
• Novel protein diets have a sound theoretical principle but 33 to 83% commercial mislabelling rates compromise reliability
• Limited ingredient diets share the manufacturing contamination problem of novel protein diets
• Insect-based diets pose tropomyosin cross-reactivity risk for the substantial subset of dogs with concurrent mite sensitisation
• Homemade elimination diets require veterinary nutritionist supervision for nutritional adequacy
• Plant-based diets formulated without wheat remove all five of the most prevalent canine food allergens by design; excluding corn, soy, and rice removes every additional plant-protein allergen documented at lower prevalence
• The 2026 Waltham catalogue confirmed the canine gut microbiome is functionally optimised for plant fibre fermentation
• Fibre diversity supports microbial diversity, which underpins immune tolerance via the gut-organ axes
• The right alternative depends on the individual dog’s allergen profile, gut health status, and owner circumstances

In This Guide

• What the Evidence Shows About Hydrolysed Protein Limitations
• When Hydrolysed Protein Remains an Appropriate Choice
• The Five Major Alternatives to Hydrolysed Protein Diets
• Novel Protein Diets: Sound Principle, Commercial Reliability Problem
• Limited Ingredient Diets Face the Same Manufacturing Issue
• Insect-Based Diets and the Tropomyosin Cross-Reactivity Risk
• Homemade Elimination Diets Require Professional Supervision
• Plant-Based Diets Formulated Without Wheat Remove All Five Top Allergens by Design
• Why Fibre Diversity and the Gut Microbiome Underpin Any Successful Alternative
• How To Choose the Right Alternative for Your Dog
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Conclusion
• References
• Editorial Information

What the Evidence Shows About Hydrolysed Protein Limitations

Hydrolysed protein diets have well-documented clinical failure rates in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions. The Bizikova and Olivry 2016 randomised crossover trial found that 40% of chicken-allergic dogs experienced pruritus flares when fed a commercially available hydrolysed chicken liver diet, despite hydrolysation being marketed as eliminating allergenicity.¹ The Olivry and Bizikova 2010 systematic review concluded that hydrolysate-based commercial diets show reduced but not eliminated immunological and clinical allergenicity, with up to 50% of dogs in controlled studies exhibiting increased clinical signs after ingesting partial hydrolysates derived from foods to which they were hypersensitive.²

The mechanistic basis for these failures has been documented at the molecular level. The Masuda 2020 study demonstrated that 23.7 to 38.7% of food-allergic dogs showed T-lymphocyte activation when exposed to commercial hydrolysed diets, with peptide molecular weights in commercial products typically falling in the 1,500 to 3,500 Da range.³ Roitel and colleagues’ 2017 mass spectrometry analysis identified IgE-reactive proteins of 21 to 67 kDa in commercial hydrolysed dog foods, demonstrating that the molecular weight reduction marketed as eliminating allergenicity often fails in practice.⁴ Bexley and colleagues confirmed nine specific cross-reactive proteins between chicken and fish meats that survive hydrolysis intact.⁵

The full mechanistic and clinical evidence is set out in our companion article on hydrolysed protein efficacy. For the purposes of this comparison piece, the evidence base above establishes the reason the alternatives question is worth asking properly in the first place.

When Hydrolysed Protein Remains an Appropriate Choice

Hydrolysed protein diets retain clinical value in specific scenarios despite their documented limitations. Acknowledging where they remain appropriate is important for editorial honesty and clinical accuracy.

The four scenarios where hydrolysed protein diets remain the appropriate clinical choice are:

• Short-term diagnostic use under veterinary supervision with extensively hydrolysed products. Where peptide molecular weights have been verified below the 1 kDa threshold and the diet is used as a diagnostic elimination tool over the standard 8 to 12 week trial, hydrolysed protein remains the historical clinical reference standard.⁶
• Confirmed multi-protein sensitisation where every commercial novel protein source has either been previously fed to the dog or cannot be confirmed contamination-free. In dogs sensitised to multiple proteins simultaneously, the manufacturing reliability problems of novel protein diets discussed below can outweigh the failure rate problems of hydrolysed diets.
• Inflammatory bowel disease cases with concurrent severe food hypersensitivity where digestive-stress reduction is a primary therapeutic goal alongside allergen avoidance. The pre-digested character of hydrolysed proteins reduces digestive workload independently of allergenicity considerations, which can matter in the acute phase of inflammatory bowel disease management.
• Cases where plant-based formulations have been tried and proven unsuitable for that individual dog. Plant-based diets are not appropriate for every dog. Where a properly formulated plant-based trial has been conducted and clinical signs have not resolved, hydrolysed protein may be the appropriate next step.

Outside these four scenarios, the alternative approaches discussed below warrant evidence-based consideration before hydrolysed protein is selected as the default first therapeutic choice.

The Five Major Alternatives to Hydrolysed Protein Diets

Five distinct approaches exist for managing food allergies and sensitivities in dogs without using hydrolysed protein. They differ in mechanism, evidence base, and practical reliability:

• Novel protein diets introduce a protein source the dog has never previously encountered, working on the principle that immunological naivety to a protein means no pre-existing IgE response.
• Limited ingredient diets restrict the number of ingredients to simplify allergen identification, typically combining one protein source with one or two carbohydrate sources.
• Insect-based diets use cricket, mealworm, or black soldier fly larva proteins, marketed as inherently hypoallergenic due to novelty.
• Homemade elimination diets use whole, single-source ingredients prepared at home, allowing complete control over composition.
• Plant-based hypoallergenic diets remove animal proteins entirely while supplying complete nutrition through carefully formulated plant ingredients.

The evidence for each varies substantially. The following sections evaluate each against current peer-reviewed research.

Novel Protein Diets: Sound Principle, Commercial Reliability Problem

Novel protein diets work on an immunologically sound principle but face a severe commercial reliability problem that the marketing rarely discloses. The principle is straightforward: a dog cannot have a pre-existing IgE response to a protein it has never been exposed to. Replacing a previously fed protein with one the dog has never eaten should, in theory, eliminate the allergic response.

The problem is that commercial novel protein diets are systematically contaminated with undeclared ingredients. The Olivry and Mueller 2018 critically appraised topic review, examining 17 peer-reviewed studies plus one abstract on this question, found that across the literature, the median rate of undeclared ingredients in commercial pet foods was 45%. **Specifically for pet foods marketed as “novel” or “limited” ingredient diets for use in elimination trials, the contamination rate ranged from 33% to 83%.**⁷

The Pagani 2018 University of Turin study tested 11 limited-antigen wet diets using PCR analysis. The most striking finding from that study illustrates the reliability problem in concrete terms: one sample was labelled as containing duck as its sole animal protein source. PCR analysis detected DNA from turkey, chicken, and horse, with no duck DNA found at all. Across the 11-product sample, 6 (54.5%) showed undeclared ingredients in diets specifically marketed for elimination trial use.⁸

The Ricci 2018 microarray study tested 40 products across 14 brands and found that 13 of 14 brands (92%) had at least one mislabelled product.⁹ The Horvath-Ungerboeck 2017 PCR analysis study confirmed the same systemic problem with commercial elimination diets.¹⁰

The implication for dog owners considering novel protein diets is uncomfortable but important: the theoretical advantage of immunological naivety to a novel protein only delivers clinical benefit if the diet actually contains only that novel protein. The peer-reviewed evidence shows that for between one third and four fifths of commercial novel protein products, this cannot be assumed.

Three practical consequences follow:

• Veterinary-prescribed dietetic diets from manufacturers with verified production controls offer better reliability than over-the-counter novel protein products, though they remain subject to the same manufacturing risks documented in the peer-reviewed literature.
• Sequential exposure to multiple novel proteins through commercial channels can erode the available pool of genuinely novel proteins. A dog who has been through chicken, beef, then lamb, then duck, then venison via mislabelled products may have been functionally exposed to all of them without the owner ever knowing.
• PCR or microarray testing of the specific product batch is not commercially available to individual dog owners, leaving owners unable to verify what they are actually feeding.

Novel protein remains a legitimate clinical approach in the hands of veterinary dermatologists working with verified product lines. As a general consumer solution, the manufacturing reliability problem documented in peer-reviewed evidence is severe enough to warrant scepticism of over-the-counter products marketed for elimination trial use. A novel protein approach to managing canine food allergies is examined in further detail in our companion article.

Limited Ingredient Diets Face the Same Manufacturing Issue

Limited ingredient diets share the same commercial mislabelling problem as novel protein diets, because the two categories overlap substantially in the marketplace and in the peer-reviewed evidence.

Limited ingredient diets simplify allergen identification by reducing the number of ingredients in the food, typically to a single protein source paired with one or two carbohydrate sources. The principle is to make it easier to identify which specific ingredient triggers a dog’s reaction by minimising the number of candidates. As with novel protein, the principle is theoretically sound.

The Pagani 2018 study tested limited-antigen wet diets specifically, finding the same 54.5% contamination rate noted above.⁸ The Olivry and Mueller 2018 review explicitly grouped novel and limited ingredient diets together when reporting the 33 to 83% mislabelling range for elimination-diet-marketed products.⁷ Ricci 2018 found chicken DNA, turkey DNA, beef DNA, or other undeclared proteins in products marketed as containing only single defined protein sources.⁹

For dogs with confirmed multiple food allergies, this matters substantially. A limited ingredient diet that contains undeclared chicken, turkey, or beef DNA cannot serve its diagnostic purpose if the dog reacts to any of those undeclared proteins. The diet appears to fail when the failure is actually a manufacturing reliability problem, not a clinical failure of the limited ingredient approach itself.

The practical position for limited ingredient diets mirrors that for novel proteins. Veterinary-prescribed limited ingredient diets from manufacturers with verified production controls offer better reliability than over-the-counter products. The same manufacturing scepticism applies. The same peer-reviewed evidence base supports that scepticism.

Insect-Based Diets and the Tropomyosin Cross-Reactivity Risk

Insect-based diets are widely marketed as hypoallergenic on the basis of immunological novelty, but peer-reviewed evidence reveals a specific cross-reactivity concern that the marketing rarely discloses.

The Premrov Bajuk 2021 study, published in Animals (Basel), tested canine sera from mite-allergic and non-mite-allergic dogs against yellow mealworm protein extracts. The study identified 17 different mealworm proteins binding to canine IgE, including tropomyosin, alpha-amylase, and Tm-E1a cuticular protein, all of which are known cross-reacting IgE-binding allergens.¹¹ The authors concluded that dogs allergic to mites “may clinically express also the cross-reactivity with mealworm proteins.”

The molecular basis for this cross-reactivity is tropomyosin, a highly conserved regulatory protein involved in muscle contraction. Tropomyosin is a pan-allergen across the arthropod phylum, meaning the same protein sequence appears with high homology in dust mites, storage mites, crustaceans, cockroaches, and insects.¹² For dogs sensitised to mites, which is a substantial subset of dogs with atopic dermatitis, insect-based proteins are not immunologically novel at all. They share their major allergenic epitopes with proteins the dog’s immune system has already learned to recognise.

This has direct clinical implications. The dogs most likely to be steered toward insect-based diets for hypoallergenic reasons are dogs with multiple confirmed sensitivities, often including environmental allergens. Mite sensitisation is common in this population. Recommending an insect-based diet for a mite-sensitised dog without testing for cross-reactivity risks triggering the same immune response the diet was supposed to avoid.

The same molecular concern applies to other insect protein sources. The 2024 case report on black soldier fly larva diets noted that the black soldier fly genome contains two tropomyosin variants with molecular structures potentially allergenic to vertebrates.¹¹ The marketing claim that insect protein is inherently hypoallergenic for dogs is not supported by the molecular evidence for dogs with concurrent mite or crustacean sensitisation.

Insect-based diets may still be appropriate for dogs without mite sensitisation, particularly where environmental sustainability is a primary consideration. The honest editorial position is that the hypoallergenic claim should not be made universally without pre-screening for mite-specific IgE or other arthropod allergen reactivity.

Homemade Elimination Diets Require Professional Supervision

Homemade elimination diets allow complete owner control over ingredients but require veterinary nutritionist supervision to remain nutritionally adequate over the elimination trial duration.

The theoretical appeal of homemade elimination diets is straightforward. The owner controls every ingredient. There is no risk of manufacturing contamination because there is no manufacturing process. A genuinely novel protein source paired with a genuinely novel carbohydrate source can be prepared at home with confidence about composition.

The practical limitations are also significant. Standard elimination trial protocols require 8 to 12 weeks of exclusive feeding for the immune system to clear pre-existing reactions and for clinical signs to resolve.¹³ Maintaining nutritional adequacy over that duration with only one protein source and one or two carbohydrate sources is difficult without professional guidance. Specific concerns include calcium-to-phosphorus ratio, essential fatty acid balance, micronutrient adequacy particularly for taurine, vitamin E, zinc, and the B vitamins, and ensuring the protein source delivers adequate quantities of essential amino acids.

For growing puppies and adolescent dogs, the nutritional adequacy concerns are amplified. Inadequate calcium or phosphorus during growth can cause permanent skeletal abnormalities. Inadequate essential fatty acids can compromise neurological development.

The clinical position for homemade elimination diets is that they remain a legitimate diagnostic tool when used as a short-term diagnostic protocol under veterinary nutritionist supervision, with a clear endpoint at which the owner transitions to a nutritionally complete formulation. As a long-term feeding strategy, homemade elimination diets carry too much nutritional risk to recommend without ongoing professional support.

Plant-Based Diets Formulated Without Wheat Remove All Five Top Allergens by Design

Plant-based hypoallergenic diets, when properly formulated without wheat and the lower-prevalence plant-protein allergens, address the food allergy problem through a different mechanism than the four alternatives above. They remove the most prevalent allergens by design rather than attempting to manage exposure through novelty or molecular alteration.

The Mueller, Olivry, and Prélaud 2016 critically appraised topic review identified the most common food allergens in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions, derived from analysis of 297 dogs across the published literature. The top five by prevalence are beef at 34%, dairy at 17%, chicken at 15%, wheat at 13%, and lamb at 5%.¹⁴ The same review documented additional offending food sources at lower prevalence: soy at 6%, corn at 4%, egg at 4%, and rice at 2%, alongside pork and fish each at 2%.¹⁴

Four of the top five canine food allergens are animal-derived. A plant-based diet removes all four. A plant-based diet formulated without wheat removes the fifth as well. A plant-based diet formulated without wheat, corn, soy, and rice goes further still by also removing every documented lower-prevalence plant-protein allergen identified in the same evidence base.

This is the strongest mechanistic argument for plant-based as a first-line alternative consideration for dogs with food allergies. It is not a claim that plant-based is suitable for every dog. It is a claim that a plant-based diet formulated without wheat, corn, soy, and rice removes every plant-derived allergen documented in the canine cutaneous adverse food reaction literature, while also removing four of the five most prevalent allergens overall, before any individual diagnostic work begins.

The peer-reviewed evidence on plant-based diet outcomes in dogs has expanded substantially in recent years. The Knight 2022 study surveyed 2,536 dog guardians on health outcomes after at least one year on conventional meat, raw meat, or vegan diets, reporting fewer indicators of illness in the vegan-fed group.¹⁵ The Knight 2024 analysis of the same dataset applied demographic controls and confirmed the pattern with stronger statistical robustness.¹⁶ The methodological caveat in both papers is that guardian-reported data is not equivalent to randomised controlled trial evidence. The findings should be read as suggestive rather than conclusive.

The Linde 2024 clinical study, published in PLoS One, took a different approach. The researchers tracked dogs on a commercial plant-based diet over 12 months with clinical examinations, complete blood counts, serum biochemistry, and bodyweight monitoring. The dogs maintained clinical, nutritional, and haematological health markers within reference ranges throughout the study period.¹⁷ This is clinical evidence rather than guardian-reported evidence, providing a different tier of methodological strength.

The Dodd 2022 University of Guelph study surveyed North American owners of dogs fed meat-based or plant-based diets and found comparable owner-perceived health outcomes across diet types.¹⁸ As an independent academic study from a major veterinary school, it adds a non-advocacy-affiliated voice to the evidence base.

Plant-based hypoallergenic formulation is the dietary strategy Bonza is built around. Our Superfoods & Ancient Grains complete food is formulated without wheat, corn, soy, rice, beef, chicken, lamb, dairy, or egg. The full philosophy behind our hypoallergenic plant-based formulation is explored in our dedicated article on the subject.

Why Fibre Diversity and the Gut Microbiome Underpin Any Successful Alternative

The mechanistic case for plant-based diets extends beyond simple allergen avoidance. The 2026 Waltham Petcare Science Institute catalogue of the canine gut microbiome, published in Microbiome, established that the canine gut is functionally optimised to ferment plant fibre.

The Castillo-Fernandez 2026 study analysed 501 faecal samples from 107 healthy dogs across the United States, United Kingdom, and France, identifying over 900 new canine-specific bacterial strains and reconstructing 5,753 metagenome-assembled genomes. The most clinically significant finding for the dietary alternatives question is that canine gut bacteria possess an average of 71 carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) per species, spanning capabilities for cellulose, hemicellulose, starch, and chitin fermentation. The study found that 37.5% of canine gut species possess butyrate-producing capacity, rising to 45.6% when measured by abundance.¹⁹

The implication is direct: the canine gut microbiome is built to ferment diverse plant fibres into short-chain fatty acids, principally butyrate, propionate, and acetate. These metabolites are the primary molecular messengers between the gut microbiome and the rest of the body, underpinning immune tolerance, intestinal barrier function, and the gut-organ axes the brand’s “One Gut. Whole Dog.” philosophy is built around. The full implications are explored in our dedicated treatment of the Waltham catalogue findings and in our analysis of how dogs actually digest plant ingredients.

The Marshall-Jones 2023 study, also from the Waltham group with Castillo-Fernandez as co-author, demonstrated that a specific prebiotic fibre blend (sugar beet pulp, galacto-oligosaccharides, and cellulose) increased Shannon diversity index and shifted beta diversity in senior dogs. The findings provide direct intervention evidence that fibre type, not just fibre quantity, drives microbial diversity.²⁰

A 2025 mSystems study took the analysis further by comparing three fibre profiles directly. The low-starch high-fibre formulation specifically enriched Butyricicoccus pullicaecorum and Bacteroidetes, producing significantly higher butyric and propionic acid concentrations than higher-starch comparators. Fibre composition rather than fibre quantity drove the SCFA production response.²¹

The clinical implication for dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions is that an alternative dietary approach that supplies fibre diversity for microbial fermentation is mechanistically aligned with the gut-skin axis and the gut-immune axis. A diet that removes the most prevalent allergens (the plant-based approach) and simultaneously supports microbial diversity through diverse fibre sources (which a well-formulated plant-based diet does naturally) operates at two levels rather than one.

This mechanistic alignment is why fibre diversity matters for canine gut health and why Bonza’s formulation philosophy emphasises a structured panel of plant fibres rather than a single concentrated fibre source. For dogs requiring additional targeted gut microbiome support beyond what diet alone delivers, the Biotics prebiotic, probiotic, and postbiotic supplement provides Calsporin® probiotic, TruPet™ and L. helveticus HA-122 postbiotics, and a triad of prebiotic fibres.

How To Choose the Right Alternative for Your Dog

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

The five major alternatives to hydrolysed protein dog food are not equally supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Novel protein diets and limited ingredient diets share a documented commercial mislabelling problem severe enough to compromise the elimination trial for which they are sold. Insect-based diets pose a tropomyosin cross-reactivity risk for mite-sensitised dogs that the marketing rarely discloses. Homemade elimination diets require veterinary nutritionist supervision to remain nutritionally adequate. Plant-based hypoallergenic diets formulated without wheat remove all five of the most prevalent canine food allergens by design, additionally remove every lower-prevalence plant-protein allergen documented in the same evidence base when corn, soy, and rice are also excluded, and align mechanistically with the canine microbiome’s documented capacity for plant fibre fermentation.

The right alternative for any individual dog depends on that dog’s specific allergen profile, gut health status, prior dietary exposure, and owner circumstances. Hydrolysed protein retains a place in the clinical toolkit for specific scenarios, particularly diagnostic short-term use with extensively hydrolysed verified products. As a default first therapeutic choice for most dogs with food sensitivities, however, the peer-reviewed evidence does not support its position. Better-aligned alternatives exist, and the strongest of them, when formulated properly, addresses food allergy and gut health simultaneously through a mechanism the canine microbiome is built to support.

This is what “One Gut. Whole Dog.” means in practice. The gut microbiome is not one feature among many. It is the central system through which dietary alternatives either succeed or fail. Choose accordingly.

References

1. Bizikova P, Olivry T. A randomized, double-blinded crossover trial testing the benefit of two hydrolysed poultry-based commercial diets for dogs with spontaneous pruritic chicken allergy. Vet Dermatol. 2016 Aug;27(4):289-e70. doi: 10.1111/vde.12302. PMID: 27307314.
2. Olivry T, Bizikova P. A systematic review of the evidence of reduced allergenicity and clinical benefit of food hydrolysates in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions. Vet Dermatol. 2010 Feb;21(1):32-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2009.00761.x.
3. Masuda K, Sato A, Tanaka A, Kumagai A. Hydrolyzed diets may stimulate food-reactive lymphocytes in dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2020 Feb 18;82(2):177-183. doi: 10.1292/jvms.19-0222. PMID: 31875597. PMC: PMC7041975.
4. Roitel O, Bonnard L, Stella A, Schiltz O, Maurice D, Douchin G, Jacquenet S, Favrot C, Bihain BE, Couturier N. Detection of IgE-reactive proteins in hydrolysed dog foods. Vet Dermatol. 2017 Dec;28(6):589-e143. doi: 10.1111/vde.12473. PMID: 28770578.
5. Bexley J, Kingswell N, Olivry T. Serum IgE cross-reactivity between fish and chicken meats in dogs. Vet Dermatol. 2019 Feb;30(1):25-e8. doi: 10.1111/vde.12691. PMID: 30378189.
6. Cave NJ. Hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2006 Nov;36(6):1251-1268, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2006.08.008. PMID: 17085233.
7. Olivry T, Mueller RS. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (5): discrepancies between ingredients and labeling in commercial pet foods. BMC Vet Res. 2018 Jan 22;14(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1346-y. PMID: 29357847. PMC: PMC5778722.
8. Pagani E, Soto Del Rio MLD, Dalmasso A, Bottero MT, Schiavone A, Prola L. Cross-contamination in canine and feline dietetic limited-antigen wet diets. BMC Vet Res. 2018 Sep 12;14(1):283. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1571-4. PMID: 30208880. PMC: PMC6136174.
9. Ricci R, Conficoni D, Morelli G, Losasso C, Alberghini L, Giaccone V, Ricci A. Undeclared animal species in dry and wet novel and hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats detected by microarray analysis. BMC Vet Res. 2018 Jun 27;14(1):209. doi: 10.1186/s12917-018-1528-7. PMID: 29945610.
10. Horvath-Ungerboeck C, Widmann K, Handl S. Detection of DNA from undeclared animal species in commercial elimination diets for dogs using PCR. Vet Dermatol. 2017 Aug;28(4):373-e86. doi: 10.1111/vde.12431. PMID: 28247445.
11. Premrov Bajuk B, Zrimšek P, Kotnik T, Leonardi A, Križaj I, Jakovac Strajn B. Insect Protein-Based Diet as Potential Risk of Allergy in Dogs. Animals (Basel). 2021 Jul 1;11(7):1942. doi: 10.3390/ani11071942. PMID: 34209808.
12. Broekman H, Knulst A, den Hartog Jager S, Monteleone F, Gaspari M, de Jong G, Houben G, Verhoeckx K. Effect of thermal processing on mealworm allergenicity. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015 Sep;59(9):1855-64. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201500138. PMID: 26016447.
13. Eisenschenk MNC. The role of diet, nutrition, and supplements in canine atopic dermatitis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2025 Mar;55(2):189-198. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2024.11.003. PMID: 39725577.
14. Mueller RS, Olivry T, Prélaud P. Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (2): common food allergen sources in dogs and cats. BMC Vet Res. 2016 Jan 12;12:9. doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0633-8. PMID: 26753610. PMC: PMC4710035.
15. Knight A, Huang E, Rai N, Brown H. Vegan versus meat-based dog food: Guardian-reported indicators of health. PLoS One. 2022 Apr 13;17(4):e0265662. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265662. PMID: 35417464.
16. Knight A, Bauer A, Brown HJ. Vegan versus meat-based dog food: Guardian-reported health outcomes in 2,536 dogs, after controlling for canine demographic factors. Heliyon. 2024 Aug 5;10(17):e35578. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35578. PMID: 39319144.
17. Linde A, Lahiff M, Krantz A, Sharp N, Ng TT, Melgarejo T. Domestic dogs maintain clinical, nutritional, and hematological health outcomes when fed a commercial plant-based diet for a year. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0298942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298942.
18. Dodd S, Khosa D, Dewey C, Verbrugghe A. Owner perception of health of North American dogs fed meat- or plant-based diets. Res Vet Sci. 2022 Aug;149:36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2022.06.002.
19. Castillo-Fernandez J, Gilroy R, Jones RB, et al. Waltham catalogue for the canine gut microbiome: a complete taxonomic and functional catalogue of the canine gut microbiome through novel metagenomic based genome discovery. Microbiome. 2026;14(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40168-025-02265-w.
20. Marshall-Jones ZV, Patel KV, Castillo-Fernandez J, Lonsdale ZN, Haydock R, Staunton R, Amos GCA, Watson P. A Novel Prebiotic Fibre Blend Supports the Gastrointestinal Health of Senior Dogs. Animals (Basel). 2023 Oct 14;13(20):3214. doi: 10.3390/ani13203214. PMID: 37894015.
21. Response of the gut microbiome and metabolome to dietary fiber in healthy dogs. mSystems. 2025. PMID: 39714168.

Editorial Information

Field	Value
Published	28/05/2025
Last Updated	15/05/2026
Reviewed by	Glendon Lloyd, Dip.Canine.Nutrition, Dip.Dog.Nutrigenomics
Next Review	15/05/2027
Author	Glendon Lloyd
Disclaimer	This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute veterinary advice. Always consult a qualified veterinarian before making changes to your dog’s diet or supplement regimen.