兽研尼日利亚某兽医教学医院就诊伴侣动物的人口统计学特征：一项为期13年的回顾性研究（2006-2019） Samuel Sunday Adewumi Ibadan大学 John Olusoji Abiola Ibadan大学 Solomon Oladayo Ojedokun Ibadan大学 Tolani Felicia Ajani Ibadan大学 Praise Oluwatimileyin Owo-Egbeleke Ibadan大学 Olayiwola Toyin Adedeji Ibadan大学 Ayaode Oluwafunso Samuel Ibadan大学 Ayobami Oluwatimileyin Akinsanya Ibadan大学 Taiwo Rianat Lawal Ibadan大学 Daniel Olutola Poopola Ibadan大学 Temidayo Olutayo Omobowale Ibadan大学 研究论文 关键词：伴侣动物，人口统计学，犬，猫，兽医教学医院，尼日利亚，回顾性研究，宠物种群，品种，性别比 第1页/共25页
发布日期：2026年11月1日 DOI：https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10692197/v1 许可： 本作品根据知识共享署名4.0国际许可协议授权。 阅读完整许可 附加声明：未报告存在利益冲突。 第2页/共25页
摘要 背景 伴侣动物种群的最新人口统计学数据对于兽医服务规划、疾病监测和客户教育至关重要，但此类数据在尼日利亚和撒哈拉以南非洲大部分地区仍然稀缺，因为这些地区宠物登记并非强制性要求，且法定疾病通报有限。本研究描述了在Ibadan大学兽医教学医院（UI VTH）——尼日利亚西南部的一家转诊中心——就诊的伴侣动物的人口统计学特征，包括物种、品种、性别、年龄和命名模式。 结果 回顾了2006年1月至2019年5月期间UI VTH的6,102例伴侣动物就诊记录。犬占6,053例就诊（99.2%），其次为猫（25例；0.41%）、非人灵长类和Cuniculus属动物（各6例；0.098%）、禽类（4例；0.066%）、兔（2例；0.033%）和猪（1例；0.016%）。在犬中，Alsatian（德国牧羊犬）是最常见的就诊品种（1,810例；29.9%），其次为Boerboel（960例；15.9%）和Rottweiler（934例；15.4%）。本地（非纯种）猫在猫科就诊中占多数（13/25；52.0%）。雌性犬（3,333例；占记录性别病例的55.2%）多于雄性（2,703例；44.8%），雌性猫（17例；68.0%）同样多于雄性（8例；32.0%）。年龄为104周（约2岁）的犬就诊最频繁（441条记录），记录中最年长的犬为520周（10岁）；记录中最年长的猫为624周（12岁）。“Jack”是最常见的宠物名字（122条记录），其次为“Bruno”（93条）和“Puppy”（78条）。 结论 这项为期13年的回顾性综述证实，在尼日利亚西南部就诊的伴侣动物种群中，犬和大型护卫犬品种（尤其是Alsatian）占主导地位，雌性动物占多数，且就诊集中于成年早期之后的犬。这些发现提供了基线人口统计学概况，可为该地区的兽医服务规划、有针对性的客户教育以及未来的纵向和健康状况监测提供参考。 背景 宠物或伴侣动物通常被定义为主要为了陪伴、娱乐或情感目的而非工作、食用或研究目的而饲养的动物 [1]。犬和猫是全球最受欢迎的伴侣动物，尽管兔、啮齿动物、鸟类、爬行动物、鱼类和其他物种也被广泛饲养 [1]。养宠物与一系列身体和情感益处相关，包括促进锻炼和社交互动，动物辅助治疗被用于 第3页/共25页
在临床人群中实现特定的身体、社交、认知和情感目标。[2–3] 人们养宠物最常见的原因是为了陪伴、安全或动物的审美吸引力[4]，而缺乏时间、住房不合适以及旅行期间难以安排照护则是常被提及的不养宠物的原因[5]。相反，一些伦理学家和动物权利倡导者对伴侣动物饲养的自主性和福利影响提出了担忧[6]。从历史上看，现代意义上的宠物饲养在很大程度上仅限于上层阶级，直到19世纪中叶蓬勃发展的中产阶级出现[1]。在17世纪至19世纪之间的英国，宠物饲养从贵族的追求演变为资产阶级城市文化的一部分，催生了大量的动物和配件商业贸易，甚至出现了有组织的宠物绑架勒索[7–9]。19世纪按品种对狗进行分类以及正式狗展和犬业俱乐部的出现，进一步反映了伴侣动物日益增长的社会和经济价值[8]。全球范围内伴侣动物数量及相关支出大幅增长。在中国，宠物支出从2010年估计的31.2亿美元增至2018年的250亿美元，全国估计有7.55亿只宠物，包括5100万只狗和4100万只猫[10–11]。据估计，意大利有超过4500万只宠物，包括约700万只狗和750万只猫[12]。在英国，调查数据表明全国饲养约1030万只猫和1050万只狗[13]。在美国，估计有7820万只狗和8640万只猫作为宠物饲养，据报道伴侣动物数量与儿童数量之比约为四比一[14–16]。在尼日利亚，养狗用于安保、繁殖、运动、狩猎，在一些社区还作为肉食来源[17]，但世界卫生组织早在1980年估计的全国狗数量为300万至500万只——尚未使用标准化方法进行严格更新[18]。许多司法管辖区通过品种、物种或体型特定的条例来规范宠物饲养，伴侣动物日益成为旨在保障其福利的法律保护对象，尽管关于宠物饲养的伦理和法律地位的争论仍在继续[19–21]。宠物饲养还带来可衡量的环境成本：在美国，据估计狗和猫消耗的膳食能量约占人类人口消耗量的五分之一，并对动物生产的环境影响做出相应贡献[22]。作为宠物饲养的野生动物的非法贸易仍然是全球福利和保护方面的进一步关切[23]。伴侣动物大致分为家养或野生捕获。家养动物是指经过足够长时间的驯化和选择性繁殖，表现出与野生祖先明显的行为和形态差异的动物[24]；考古证据表明，人类饲养狗至少已有12000年[25]。野生捕获的动物在某些环境中也被作为宠物饲养，尽管存在福利关切，且在許多司法管辖区被法律禁止[23]。第4/25页
了解伴侣动物群体的种群结构，包括物种、品种、性别和年龄分布，是兽医服务规划、疾病风险降低以及客户教育和预防保健项目设计的关键第一步[26–27]。若干发达国家通过兽医和宠物行业组织实施的全国性调查常规收集种群数据[14,27]，横断面调查、保险数据库、微芯片登记和临床记录均已被用于描述伴侣动物群体的特征[28–33]。由于兽医行业发达国家的很大比例 owned 宠物至少偶尔就诊于兽医诊所，临床记录（包括可获得的电子健康记录）已被用作描述 owned 伴侣动物群体的实用替代指标[34–38]。然而在尼日利亚和撒哈拉以南非洲大部分地区，宠物登记并非强制，法定疾病通报有限，伴侣动物的种群数据仍然零散且鲜有发表[4,26]。伊巴丹大学兽医教学医院（UI VTH）成立于1981年12月，作为尼日利亚西南部兽医诊疗、教学和研究的转诊中心，其临床登记册因此为描述该地区就诊兽医的伴侣动物群体的种群概况提供了宝贵资源，尽管此前分析不足[27]。犬的种群和健康状况可随年龄发生显著变化，其方式与人类衰老相似，尽管其预期寿命明显更短，了解这些模式已成为国际上伴侣动物研究的一个活跃领域[39]。此前尚未发表过针对西非就诊兽医的伴侣动物群体的可比种群描述。因此本研究利用UI VTH 13年的就诊记录，描述尼日利亚西南部就诊兽医的伴侣动物群体的物种、品种、性别、年龄和命名特征，以建立可定期更新的基线种群概况，用于监测未来趋势并指导兽医服务提供。方法 研究区域与背景 本回顾性横断面研究利用尼日利亚奥约州伊巴丹市伊巴丹大学兽医教学医院（UI VTH）保存的临床记录进行。UI VTH于1981年12月成立，经大学发展委员会和评议会批准，其使命是通过教学、研究和专科转诊兽医服务促进动物健康，是尼日利亚西南部伴侣动物、家畜和野生动物病例的主要转诊中心[27]。数据来源与研究群体 利用该院临床登记册识别2006年1月至2019年5月（13年）期间记录的所有伴侣动物就诊。共识别出6,102次个体就诊 第5/25页
并纳入分析。对于每一条记录，提取在就诊时登记册中常规记录的动物物种、品种、性别、年龄和名字。UI VTH作为尼日利亚西南地区的转诊诊所，犬只构成了研究期间可用记录的绝大多数。数据管理 数据被转录到为本研究设计的Microsoft Excel（Microsoft Corporation，Redmond，WA，USA）数据库中。自由文本的物种和品种条目经过清理，通过将每个条目映射到标准命名法来纠正拼写错误和非标准术语；对于犬和猫的品种，标准品种名称取自既定的犬业俱乐部品种列表，每个非标准条目在首次出现时手动映射，此后自动匹配。由于许多品种仅由少量个体代表，详细的品种层面报告仅限于每个物种内记录最频繁的品种（最多十个，如有）；其余动物仅分类为纯种或杂交。就诊年龄转换为单一单位（周），以标准化跨记录的比较。统计分析 使用描述性统计来表征研究人群的人口学特征（物种、品种、性别、年龄和名字频率）；百分比相对于相关物种或变量的可用记录总数表示，如各表所示。所有分析均使用R统计软件（R Foundation for Statistical Computing，Vienna，Austria）进行。由于本研究主要是描述性和探索性的，正式的推断性检验仅限于特定的预先指定的比较：使用R“coin”包中实现的基于置换的检验来评估就诊年龄（以周计）在物种之间（犬与猫）以及分别在物种内品种组之间是否存在显著差异。伦理声明 本研究未专门使用、检查或采样任何动物；所有数据均回顾性来源于2006年至2019年间UI VTH标准兽医护理期间生成的常规、去标识化临床记录。结果 审查了2006年1月至2019年5月期间UI VTH的6，102份伴侣动物就诊记录。临床登记册中记录了七个物种类别。物种、品种、性别、年龄和名字频率描述如下，并总结于表1–5和图1–7中。第6/25页
物种分布 犬（Canine）占就诊的绝大多数（6，053/6，102条记录；99.2%），其次是猫（Feline；25/6，102；0.41%），差距很大，非人灵长类和兔属物种（各6/6，102；0.098%），禽类物种（4/6，102；0.066%），兔（2/6，102；0.033%）和猪（1/6，102；0.016%）（表1；图1）。物种特异性频率之和（n = 6，097）与分析的就诊总数（n = 6，102）略有差异，反映源登记册中有五条记录的物种信息不完整。表1 2006年1月至2019年5月期间就诊于UI VTH的伴侣动物的物种分布。物种频率占分析记录的百分比（n = 6，102） 犬605399.20% 猫250.41% 灵长类60.10% 兔属60.10% 禽类40.07% 兔20.03% 猪10.02% 图1. 就诊于UI VTH的物种的词云表示（相对频率以字体大小显示）。品种分布 犬品种 在记录最频繁的犬品种中（表2a；图2、3），阿尔萨斯犬（德国牧羊犬）最常见（1，810条记录；占犬的29.9%），其次是Boerboel（960；15.9%）、罗威纳犬（934；15.4%）、杂交犬（474；7.8%）、德国牧羊犬（461；7.6%）、本地品种（435；7.2%）、高加索牧羊犬（310；5.1%）、斗牛犬（250；4.1%）、比特犬（153；2.5%）和萨摩耶犬（76；1.3%）。在源登记册中，尽管“阿尔萨斯犬”和“德国牧羊犬”通常指同一品种，但诊所工作人员将其记录为单独的品种条目；此处两个条目均按原始记录如实报告，未进行合并，以保持源数据的完整性。第7/25页
表2 a. UI VTH记录最频繁的十个犬品种。品种频率占犬的百分比（n = 6，053） 阿尔萨斯犬（德国牧羊犬）181029.90% Boerboel96015.86% 罗威纳犬93415.43% 杂交犬4747.83% 德国牧羊犬4617.62% 本地品种4357.19% 高加索牧羊犬3105.12% 斗牛犬2504.13% 比特犬1532.53% 萨摩耶犬761.26% 猫品种 本地（非纯种）猫在猫就诊中占主导地位（13/25；52.0%），其次是品种未知的猫（11/25；44.0%）和一只外来品种猫（1/25；4.0%）（表2b）。表2 b. UI VTH记录的猫品种。品种频率占猫的百分比（n = 25） 本地1352.00% 未知1144.00% 外来14.00% 灵长类物种 在就诊的六只非人灵长类中，猴是最常见的指定（3/6；50.0%），其次是黑猩猩、狒狒和另一只记录为“Red Peter”的个体（各1/6；各16.7%）（表2c）。第8/25页
表2 c. UI VTH记录的灵长类物种/品种指定。物种/品种指定频率占灵长类百分比（n = 6）猴子350.00%黑猩猩116.67%狒狒116.67%红彼得（按记录）116.67%兔属品种在六例兔属物种就诊记录中，大多数（5/6；83.3%）未记录具体品种指定，一例（1/6；16.7%）记录为Chinchilla（表2d）。表2 d. UI VTH记录的兔属物种品种指定。品种频率占兔属记录百分比（n = 6）未指定583.33%Chinchilla116.67%禽类品种在四例禽类就诊记录中，三例（75.0%）记录为非洲鹦鹉，一例（25.0%）记录为北方鸵鸟，比例约为3：1（表2e）。表2 e. UI VTH记录的禽类品种指定。品种频率占禽类记录百分比（n = 4）非洲鹦鹉375.00%北方鸵鸟125.00%性别分布在犬中，雌性动物数量多于雄性（记录为3，333/6，036；雌性55.2%对雄性44.8%）。猫中观察到类似模式（17/25；雌性68.0%对雄性32.0%）。灵长类性别分布相等（各3/6），兔属物种动物性别分布相等（各3/6，在登记册性别字段中记录为“Rabbit”——见表3脚注），而所有四例禽类就诊记录均记录为雌性（表3；图4）。注：源登记册中六只动物性别字段使用的物种标签（“Rabbit”）与表1中记录的“Rabbit”物种级频率（n = 2）不一致；该总数在数值上对应表1、2d和4c中报告的六条“Cuniculus”记录，该差异——存在于原始临床登记册中——在此透明报告，而非回溯性解决。第9/25页
和4c，该差异——存在于原始临床登记册中——在此透明报告，而非回溯性解决。表3 UI VTH就诊伴侣动物的性别分布，按物种。物种雌性雄性雌性百分比雄性百分比犬科3333270355.22%44.78%猫科17868.00%32.00%灵长类3350.00%50.00%兔属（性别字段记录为“Rabbit”）3350.00%50.00%禽类40100.00%0.00%图4. UI VTH就诊犬的性别分布。年龄分布犬年龄就诊犬中年龄为104周（约2岁）的最常见（441条记录），其次为156周（约3岁；236条记录）和208周（约4岁；135条记录）（表4a；图5）。就诊时记录频率最高的十个年龄均为130周（2.5岁）或以上；十个最常见年龄中未出现2.5岁以下的年龄类别。就诊的最老犬为520周（10岁）。第10/25页
表4 a. UI VTH就诊犬中记录频率最高的十个年龄（以周计）。年龄（周）约年龄（岁）频率占十个最常见年龄的百分比（n = 1，182）1042.044137.31%1563.023619.97%2084.013511.42%1302.5917.70%2605.0847.11%3126.0655.50%3647.0484.06%4168.0322.71%1823.5282.37%52010.0221.86%猫年龄在猫中，25只动物中有6只未记录年龄。在有年龄记录的猫中，52周（1岁）最常见（4条记录）；就诊的最老猫为624周（12岁），最幼为1周（表4b）。第11/25页
表4 b. UI VTH就诊猫的年龄分布（以周计）。年龄（周）频率未知6 524 782 262 6241 481 441 221 131 81 51 31 21 11灵长类、兔属和禽类年龄大多数灵长类未记录年龄（3/6）；在有年龄记录者中，最老为156周。兔属物种动物中，记录年龄范围为11至130周。禽类就诊记录中，2/4只动物未记录年龄；其余两只分别为104周和17周龄（表4c）。第12/25页
表4 c. UI VTH灵长类、兔属和禽类就诊记录的年龄分布（以周计）。物种年龄（周）频率灵长类未知3灵长类1561灵长类391灵长类151兔属1301兔属351兔属301兔属261兔属221兔属111禽类未知2禽类1041禽类171名字频率“Jack”是记录频率最高的宠物名字（122条记录），其次为“Bruno”（93）、“Puppy”（78）、“Smart”（73）、“Terry”（66）、“Max”（64）、“Lucky”（59）、“Bella”（59）、“Princess”（57）和“Captain”（54）（表5；图6、7）。第13/25页
表5 UI VTH记录中最常见的十个宠物名字。名字频率占十个最常见名字的百分比（n = 725）Jack12216.83% Bruno9312.83% Puppy7810.76% Smart7310.07% Terry669.10% Max648.83% Lucky598.14% Bella598.14% Princess577.86% Captain547.45% 讨论 关于伴侣动物种群的最新人口统计数据对于识别高危群体、为兽医服务规划提供信息以及解读未来的流行病学和公共卫生监测具有重要意义[26–27]。在本项对UI VTH记录进行的为期13年的回顾性审查中，我们发现尼日利亚西南部接受兽医诊疗的伴侣动物在物种、品种、性别和年龄类别方面存在显著差异。犬占所有就诊动物的99.2%，猫以0.41%远远位居第二——这一差距远大于伴侣动物行业较为发达国家的通常报告，在这些国家中猫的饲养量接近或超过犬的饲养量[13,16]。这一模式可能反映了文化熟悉度与犬传统上用于安保、以及在尼日利亚部分地区用于狩猎、运动和食用的结合[17]，同时猫作为家庭宠物的需求相对有限；需要开展有针对性的社区研究，以厘清造成这一差异的文化、宗教和环境决定因素[4]。在犬中，阿尔萨斯犬（德国牧羊犬）、波尔波尔犬和罗威纳犬品种占主导地位，这与当地对大型护卫犬种的强烈偏好相一致，反映了犬在許多尼日利亚家庭中作为安保动物的主要角色[17]。“阿尔萨斯犬”和“德国牧羊犬”尽管通常表示同一品种，却在临床登记中被分别记录，加之相当比例的犬仅被记录为“本地”或“杂交”品种，这反映了其他基于兽医记录的人口统计研究中报告的品种确认困难，其中第14/25页
品种通常由非专科工作人员在就诊时记录[36–38]。在猫科就诊病例中，本地（非纯种）猫占多数，且有相当一部分猫的品种记录为未知，提示该群体中猫及其他小型物种的饲养者可能不如犬饲养者那样重视正式的品种分类。本研究中雌性犬和猫的数量多于雄性，这一模式可能反映繁殖活动、生殖或产科问题的就诊率差异，或 underlying owned population 中真实存在的性别失衡；要区分这些解释，需要将就诊主诉与性别及繁殖状态关联的前瞻性数据。在其他地区对犬健康和寿命的性别差异研究中，绝育状态——而非单纯性别——已成为生存和死因的主要决定因素，绝育动物寿命更长，但死因转向肿瘤性和免疫介导性疾病，而未绝育动物仍面临更高的感染性和创伤性死亡风险[40]。在繁殖完整的犬中，有报道称雄性寿命略长于雌性，而在绝育犬中则观察到相反情况，尽管绝育状态的总体效应超过性别本身[41]。UI VTH 登记未记录绝育状态，这是未来前瞻性数据收集的重要变量。就诊最频繁的三个犬年龄——104、156 和 208 周（约 2、3 和 4 岁）——均超出成年早期，且十个最常见就诊年龄中未出现 130 周（2.5 岁）以下的年龄类别。这一模式提示该群体中的犬往往在已经患病后才被带到 UI VTH，而非进行常规预防保健，这与其他地区的报告一致，即饲养者常低估预防性兽医保健的成本和福利意义，且老年宠物接受的医疗关注往往不够持续[42–43]。宠物与饲养者之间密切的物理接触已被充分证明可带来相互的生理和情感益处[44]，这可能部分解释饲养者为何持续愿意为老年宠物寻求兽医诊疗。犬的衰老伴随有充分记录的生理和行为变化，包括感觉运动和认知功能下降、发病率和用药增加以及体况变化，即使在没有明显疾病的情况下也是如此[45–49]。即使在“成功”衰老的犬中，感觉运动控制、认知能力和行为也会出现一定程度的下降，区分正常衰老与需要兽医评估的潜在病理的是这种下降的速率——而非其仅仅存在[50]。由于一旦衰老开始，实际年龄是跨品种健康状况特别一致的预测指标[51–52]，本数据集中就诊集中于老年犬与年龄是该群体兽医就诊的主要驱动因素相一致，反映了其他地区开展的基于诊所和队列的犬衰老与健康状况研究的发现[38–39]。国际研究表明，体型和品种影响犬衰老的时间和死因，大型品种通常比小型品种衰老和死亡更早，尽管死亡率开始上升的年龄在各体型类别间似乎大致相似[51,53–54]。特定第 15/25 页
发病率，包括某些肿瘤性和免疫介导性疾病，也与品种有关[54]，而其他研究发现，一旦将年龄本身纳入考量，品种对行为老龄化的独立影响相对较小[52]。由于本数据集中的品种数据仅限于最常见的犬品种，而对较少见品种仅采用纯种/杂交的二元分类，因此本分析无法正式检验品种对就诊年龄的特异性影响；这是未来利用与品种关联的个体水平临床结局数据开展研究的重要领域。衰老速度的个体差异还受到遗传、环境和社会因素的影响，这些因素与公认的人类衰老和慢性病驱动因素相平行，包括饮食、活动、压力和社会经济状况[55–56]。非生物因素——包括家庭吸烟、肥胖、主人参与度以及更广泛的犬-主人关系——同样已被证明在其他研究中影响犬的健康和寿命[57–59]，并且发现主人报告的与犬共同活动随犬龄增长而减少，这本身又与生活质量下降和兽医参与减少相关[43,60]。主人用来描述老龄化的术语，如“老年”、“高龄”、“超重”和“肥胖”，使用不一致，使主人难以识别何时需要兽医评估；因此建议对所有老年犬进行定期兽医评估，以特别早期发现此类变化[61]，而仅凭主人报告难以可靠地将自然年龄相关的行为和认知变化与病理性衰退区分开来，这进一步强化了对老年动物进行结构化兽医评估的价值[62]。纯种犬和混种犬主人之间的人口学差异也已被证明会混淆表观的品种-行为关联，除非明确加以控制[63–64]，这凸显了在UI VTH未来监测工作中收集主人层面和动物层面人口学数据的价值。宠物命名模式分析虽然对兽医服务规划不太核心，但为了解该人群中人与伴侣动物的关系以及对宠物的文化态度提供了一个便捷窗口。记录中最常见的名字是“Jack”、“Bruno”和“Puppy”，这与国际观察 broadly 一致，即宠物名字经常反映主人与其动物之间亲密的、类似家庭的关系[65]。人与动物纽带的好处，包括对养宠物的老年人而言，已在其他地方得到充分描述[3,66–67]。本研究具有回顾性临床登记数据固有的若干局限性。第一，该登记仅收录因兽医关注而就诊的动物，因此不能假定其代表尼日利亚西南部更广泛的拥有主人的伴侣动物群体，该群体可能包括许多从未就诊于兽医机构的动物。第二，品种、年龄以及在少数情况下性别记录不完整或不一致，并且“Rabbit”和“Cuniculus”这两个物种标签在13年研究期间似乎被诊所工作人员不一致地使用；在发现此类不一致之处，相关表格中予以透明报告，而非回顾性解决，以避免将无法验证的假设引入原始临床数据。第三，登记中未采集主诉、诊断、结局或绝育状态的信息，妨碍了在其他地方利用更详细电子健康记录所开展的那种正式健康状态或生存分析[36–38]；这是UI VTH未来前瞻性数据收集的优先事项。第16/25页
最后，作为一家单中心转诊医院，UI VTH可能无法代表更广泛地区的初级保健兽医就诊模式，与社区层面和多中心数据的比较（这些数据在其他国家日益可得）将有助于加强未来的监测[26,68]。结论 这项对临床记录的13年回顾性审查提供了尼日利亚西南部伴侣动物就诊人群的首批系统性描述的人口统计学特征之一。犬类，尤其是阿尔萨斯犬、布尔博尔犬和罗威纳犬等大型护卫犬品种，在就诊动物中占主导地位；在犬和猫中，雌性动物的数量均超过雄性；而超过成年早期的犬在就诊动物中占比过高，这与年龄是该人群中兽医就诊的重要驱动因素相一致，正如其他地方犬类健康状况和衰老文献所报道的那样[39]。这些发现为未来监测UI VTH的人口统计学和健康状况趋势提供了实用的基线，并凸显了常规标准化数据采集——包括品种命名、性别、绝育状态和主诉——对于支持客户教育、有针对性的预防保健项目和尼日利亚伴侣动物福利政策的价值[69]。此外，可以利用现有登记册和尼日利亚西南部其他教学医院开展后续研究，以全面审查该国宠物的人口统计学特征。声明 出版同意 不适用。未呈现可识别的客户或患者数据；所有记录在分析前均已匿名化。利益冲突 作者声明本研究是在没有任何可能被解释为潜在利益冲突的商业或财务关系的情况下进行的。资助 本研究未获得特定资助。作者贡献 第17/25页
1. S.S.、O.J.和S.O. T.O.撰写了手稿文本2. T.F.、T.R.和P.O.，T. R.编辑并进行了正式分析3. A.O.、P.O.和T.A.执行了数据管理4. O.J.监督了工作5. 1-4. 所有作者审阅了手稿。致谢 作者感谢伊巴丹大学兽医教学医院的工作人员维护了本研究中使用的临床登记册，并感谢他们在汇编数据方面的合作。数据可用性 支持本研究发现的所有数据均可在论文及其补充信息中获取，补充信息也包含在手稿所使用的参考文献中，信息即来源于此。参考文献 1. 哥伦比亚百科全书. 现代欧洲史：宠物. 第6版. 纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社；2006. 2. 监护运动. 宠物星球健康. 2015 [引用2015年2月10日]. 3. Curl AL, Bibbo J, Johnson RA. 遛狗、人与动物的纽带及老年人的身体健康. Gerontologist. 2017;57(5):930-939. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw051. 4. Leslie BE, Meek AH, Kawash GF, McKeown DB. 安大略省宠物饲养的流行病学调查. Can Vet J. 1994;35(4):218-222. 5. 国际宠物搬迁. 纽约国际航运. 2017 [引用2017年1月16日]. 6. McRobbie LR. 我们应该停止饲养宠物吗？为什么越来越多的伦理学家说是的. 卫报. 2017年8月1日. 7. Amato S. 兽性占有：维多利亚时代消费文化中的动物. 多伦多：多伦多大学出版社；2015. 8. Ritvo H. 动物庄园：维多利亚时代的英国人及其他生物. 马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社；1987. 9. Philo C. 动物空间，兽性场所：人与动物关系的新地理学. 伦敦：劳特利奇；1989. 10. Tang A, Bradsher K. 贸易战的最新伤亡者：中国娇养的猫和狗. 纽约时报. 2018年10月22日. 11. 中国宠物市场（CPM）. 2018 [引用2019年8月25日]. 12. Il Messaggero. 意大利4500万只宠物. 罗马：Il Messaggero；2009年9月22日. 13. 布里斯托大学. 英国家猫和犬的数量比想象中更多. 布里斯托：布里斯托大学新闻；2010年2月6日. 第18/25页
14. 美国兽医协会。《美国宠物饲养与人口统计资料手册》。伊利诺伊州绍姆堡：AVMA；2012年。15. Halper D。《动物星球：美国宠物数量与儿童数量之比为4比1》。《标准周刊》。2013年2月1日。16. Hayes S。《世界上最受欢迎的宠物是什么？》PetQuestions.com；2010年[引用日期2011年3月4日]。17. Onyeakagbu A。《如何按巴达格里风格烹制狗肉》。Pulse Nigeria；2018年。18. 世界卫生组织。《犬狂犬病控制指南》。日内瓦：WHO；1980年。19. 捍卫动物组织。2013年[引用日期2013年8月29日]。20. Garner R。《为广义动物保护主义辩护》。载于：Francione GL、Garner R主编。《动物权利辩论》。纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社；2010年。21. Francione GL。《动物、财产与法律》。费城：天普大学出版社；1995年。22. Okin GS。《犬和猫食物消费的环境影响》。PLoS One。2017；12(8)：e0181301。23. Lehmacher W。《非法野生动物贸易：一项230亿美元的产业》。世界经济论坛；2019年。24. Farlex。《免费词典：家养动物》。2012年[引用日期2012年4月27日]。25. Clutton-Brock J。《犬的起源：驯化与早期历史》。载于：Serpell J主编。《家犬：其进化、行为与与人的互动》。剑桥：剑桥大学出版社；1995年。第10-11页。26. Asher L、Buckland EL、Phylactopoulos CI、Whiting MC、Abeyesinghe SM、Wathes CM。《英国伴侣犬数量与人口统计学特征的估计》。BMC Vet Res。2011；7：74。doi：10.1186/1746-6148-7-74。27. 美国兽医协会。《2007年美国宠物饲养与人口统计资料手册》。伊利诺伊州绍姆堡：AVMA；2007年。28. Slater MR、Di Nardo A、Pediconi O、Villa PD、Candeloro L、Alessandrini B、Del Papa S。《意大利中部猫和犬的饲养与管理模式》。Prev Vet Med。2008；85(3-4)：267-294。29. Downes M、Canty MJ、More SJ。《爱尔兰岛宠物犬和猫种群的人口统计学及影响宠物饲养的人为因素》。Prev Vet Med。2009；92：140-149。doi：10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.07.005。30. Serafini CA、Rosa GA、Guimaraes AM、De Morais HA、Biondo AW。《巴西库里蒂巴某街区公寓中家养猫和犬种群的调查》。Zoonoses Public Health。2008；55：402-405。doi：10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01171。31. Egenvall A、Bonnett BN、Olson P、Hedhammar A。《1995年和1996年瑞典投保犬的性别、年龄、品种及发病率和死亡率分布》。Vet Rec。2000；146：519-525。32. Egenvall A、Nodtvedt A、Penell J、Gunnarsson L、Bonnett BN。《用于伴侣动物研究的保险数据：优势与局限性》。Acta Vet Scand。2009；51：42。doi：10.1186/1751-0147-51-42。第19/25页
33. 英国议会.《2015年犬类微芯片植入（英格兰）条例》。伦敦：下议院；2015年。34. Siegel JM. 老年人生活压力事件与医疗服务使用：宠物饲养的调节作用。J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58:1081-1086. 35. Murray JK, Browne WJ, Roberts MA, Whitmarsh A, Gruffydd-Jones TJ. 英国猫和犬的数量及饲养概况。Vet Rec. 2010;166:163-168. doi:10.1136/vr.b4712. 36. O'Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. 犬类健康监测的方法。Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2014;1:2. doi:10.1186/2052-6687-1-2. 37. O'Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. 英格兰初级保健兽医诊所就诊犬中记录的疾病患病率。PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90501. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090501. 38. Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, Kolar LM, Klausner JS. 美国私立兽医诊所检查的犬和猫的健康状况及群体特征。J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999;214:1336-1341. 39. Wallis LJ, Szabo D, Erdelyi-Belle B, Kubinyi E. 宠物犬一生中的人口学变化及其对健康状况的影响。Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:200. doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00200. 40. Hoffman JM, Creevy KE, Promislow DEL. 伴侣犬的生殖能力与寿命及死因相关。PLoS One. 2013;8:e61082. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061082. 41. Hoffman JM, O'Neill DG, Creevy KE, Austad SN. 雌性犬的衰老方式与雄性犬不同吗？J GerontolA Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73:150-156. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx061. 42. Holmes KL, Morris PJ, Abdulla Z, Hackett R, Rawlings JM. 英国犬超重相关的风险因素。J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2007;91:166-167. doi:10.1111/j.1439- 0396.2007.00680_9. 43. Bennett PC, Rohlf VI. 主人与伴侣犬的互动：人口学变量、潜在问题行为、训练参与和共享活动之间的关系。Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;102:65-84. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.009. 44. Edney AT. 伴侣动物与人类健康：概述。J R Soc Med. 1995;88:704-708. doi:10.1177/014107689508801220. 45. Siegal M, Barlough JE. UC Davis犬类全书。纽约：Harper Collins；1995年。46. Courcier EA, Thomson RM, Mellor DJ, Yam PS. 与犬肥胖相关环境因素的流行病学研究。J Small Anim Pract. 2010;51:362-367. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 5827.2010.00933.x. 47. Bellows J, Colitz CMH, Daristotle L, Ingram DK, Lepine A, Marks SL, 等. 犬衰老相关的常见身体和功能变化。J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015;246:67-75. doi:10.2460/javma.246.1.67. 48. Landsberg GM, Hunthausen WL, Ackerman LJ. 衰老对老年宠物行为的影响。见：Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S, 编辑. BSAVA犬猫行为医学手册. 第2版 第20/25页
编。费城：Elsevier；2003年。49. Neilson JC, Hart BL, Cliff KD, Ruehl WW. 与犬年龄相关认知功能障碍相关的行为变化患病率。J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218:1787-1791. doi:10.2460/javma.2001.218.1787. 50. Salvin HE, McGreevy PD, Sachdev PS, Valenzuela MJ. 优雅地变老——与犬（Canis familiaris）“成功衰老”相关的行为变化。J Vet Behav. 2011;6:313-320. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.04.004. 51. Kraus C, Pavard S, Promislow DEL. 体型-寿命权衡的分解：为什么大型犬死得早。Am Nat. 2013;181:492-505. doi:10.1086/669665. 52. Salvin HE, McGreevy PD, Sachdev PS, Valenzuela MJ. 品种对认知正常的老年社区犬（Canis lupus familiaris）行为及疾病患病率年龄相关变化的影响。J Vet Behav. 2012;7:61-69. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.002. 53. Fleming JM, Creevy KE, Promislow DEL. 1984年至2004年北美犬的死亡率：对年龄、体型和品种相关死亡原因的调查。J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25:187-198. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.0695.x. 54. Hayward JJ, Castelhano MG, Oliveira KC, Corey E, Balkman C, Baxter TL, 等. 家犬复杂疾病与表型定位。Nat Commun. 2016;7:10460. doi:10.1038/ncomms10460. 55. Kramer AF, Bherer L, Colcombe SJ, Dong W, Greenough WT. 衰老过程中环境对认知和大脑可塑性的影响。J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:M940-M957. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.9.M940. 56. Kennedy BK, Berger SL, Brunet A, Campisi J, Cuervo AM, Epel ES, 等. 老年科学：将衰老与慢性疾病联系起来。Cell. 2014;159:709-713. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.039. 57. Hutchinson N. 评估环境烟草烟雾对生物学年龄标志物的影响：犬模型[博士论文]。格拉斯哥：格拉斯哥大学；2017年。 58. German AJ, Hervera M, Hunter L, Holden SL, Morris PJ, Biourge V, 等. 肥胖犬减重后胰岛素抵抗的改善及血浆炎症性脂肪因子的降低。Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2009;37:214-226. doi:10.1016/j.domaniend.2009.07.001. 59. Robertson ID. 西澳大利亚珀斯市区私人拥有犬中运动、饮食及其他因素与主人感知肥胖的关联。Prev Vet Med. 2003;58:75-83. doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(03)00009-6. 60. Marinelli L, Adamelli S, Normando S, Bono G. 宠物犬的生活质量：主人及犬特征的影响。Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;108:143-156. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018. 61. Larsen JA, Farcas A. 老年犬的营养。Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2014;44:741-759. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.03.003. 62. Szabo D, Gee NR, Miklosi A. 自然还是病理？衰老家庭犬行为与认知体征研究中的差异。J Vet Behav. 2016;11:86-98. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2015.08.003. 第21/25页
63. Turcsan B, Miklosi A, Kubinyi E. 主人感知的混种犬与纯种犬之间的差异。PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172720. 64. Kubinyi E, Turcsan B, Miklosi A. 犬与主人的人口统计学特征及犬人格特质关联。Behav Processes. 2009;81:392-401. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.004. 65. Dotson MJ, Hyatt EM. 理解犬与人的伴侣关系。J Bus Res. 2008;61:457-466. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019. 66. Curl AL, Bibbo J, Johnson RA. 遛狗、人与动物的纽带及老年人的身体健康。Gerontologist. 2016;57(5):930-939. 67. Northern Kentucky Tribune. 肯塔基公共服务新闻中心；2016年。 68. Rowan A, Kartal T. 美国犬种群与犬收容趋势。Animals (Basel). 2018;8(5):68. doi:10.3390/ani8050068. 69. BBC News Online. 虐待宠物法律改革公布。伦敦：BBC；2005年10月14日。 图 图1 提交至UI VTH的物种词云图（相对频率以字体大小显示）。第22/25页
图2 提交至UI VTH的十种最常见犬品种的频率分布。图3 提交至UI VTH的犬品种词云图。第23/25页
图4 提交至UI VTH的犬性别分布。图5 提交至UI VTH时犬年龄（以周计）的词云图。第24/25页
图6 提交至UI VTH的十种最常见宠物名的频率分布。图7 提交至UI VTH的宠物名词云图。第25/25页
查看英文原文▾
Demographic Characteristics of Companion Animals Presented to a Nigerian Veterinary Teaching Hospital: A 13-Year Retrospective Study (2006-2019) Samuel Sunday Adewumi University of Ibadan John Olusoji Abiola University of Ibadan Solomon Oladayo Ojedokun University of Ibadan Tolani Felicia Ajani University of Ibadan Praise Oluwatimileyin Owo-Egbeleke University of Ibadan Olayiwola Toyin Adedeji University of Ibadan Ayaode Oluwafunso Samuel University of Ibadan Ayobami Oluwatimileyin Akinsanya University of Ibadan Taiwo Rianat Lawal University of Ibadan Daniel Olutola Poopola University of Ibadan Temidayo Olutayo Omobowale University of Ibadan Research Article Keywords: Companion animals, Demographics, Dogs, Cats, Veterinary teaching hospital, Nigeria, Retrospective study, Pet population, Breed, Sex ratio Page 1/25
Posted Date: November 1st, 2026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10692197/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported. Page 2/25
Abstract Background Up-to-date demographic data on companion-animal populations are essential for veterinary service planning, disease surveillance and client education, yet such data remain scarce in Nigeria and much of sub-Saharan Africa, where pet registration is not compulsory and statutory disease notification is limited. This study describes the demographic characteristics species, breed, sex, age, and naming patterns of companion animals presented to the University of Ibadan Veterinary Teaching Hospital (UI VTH), a referral center for South-Western Nigeria. Results Records of 6,102 companion-animal consultations at UI VTH between January 2006 and May 2019 were reviewed. Dogs accounted for 6,053 presentations (99.2%), followed by cats (25; 0.41%), non-human primates and Cuniculus-species animals (6 each; 0.098%), avian species (4; 0.066%), rabbits (2; 0.033%) and swine (1; 0.016%). Among dogs, the Alsatian (German Shepherd Dog) was the most frequently presented breed (1,810; 29.9%), followed by the Boerboel (960; 15.9%) and Rottweiler (934; 15.4%). Local (non-pedigree) cats predominated among feline presentations (13/25; 52.0%). Female dogs (3,333; 55.2% of records with sex recorded) outnumbered males (2,703; 44.8%), and female cats (17; 68.0%) similarly outnumbered males (8; 32.0%). Dogs aged 104 weeks (approximately 2 years) were most frequently presented (441 records), and the oldest dog recorded was 520 weeks (10 years); the oldest cat recorded was 624 weeks (12 years). "Jack" was the most common pet name (122 records), followed by "Bruno" (93) and "Puppy" (78). Conclusions This 13-year retrospective review confirms that dogs and large guarding breeds, particularly the Alsatian, dominate the companion-animal population presenting for veterinary care in South-Western Nigeria, with a preponderance of female animals and a concentration of presentations among dogs beyond early adulthood. These findings provide a baseline demographic profile that can inform veterinary service planning, targeted client education, and future longitudinal and health-status surveillance in the region. Background A pet or companion animal is generally defined as an animal kept primarily for companionship, entertainment or compassion rather than for work, food or research purposes [1] . Dogs and cats are the most popular companion animals worldwide, although rabbits, rodents, birds, reptiles, fish and other species are also widely kept [1] . Pet ownership is associated with a range of physical and emotional benefits, including facilitation of exercise and social interaction, and animal-assisted therapy is used to Page 3/25
achieve specific physical, social, cognitive and emotional goals in clinical populations [2–3] . People most commonly acquire pets for companionship, security or the aesthetic appeal of the animal [4] , whereas lack of time, unsuitable housing and difficulty arranging care during travel are commonly cited reasons for not owning a pet [5] . Conversely, some ethicists and animal-rights advocates have raised concerns regarding the autonomy and welfare implications of companion-animal ownership [6] . Historically, pet keeping in the modern sense was largely restricted to the upper classes until the emergence of a thriving middle class in the mid-nineteenth century [1] . Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries in Britain, pet keeping evolved from an aristocratic pursuit into a fixture of bourgeois urban culture, generating a substantial commercial trade in animals and accessories, and even organized pet theft for ransom [7–9] . The categorization of dogs by breed and the emergence of formal dog shows and kennel clubs in the nineteenth century further reflected the increasing social and economic value placed on companion animals [8] . Companion-animal populations and associated spending have grown substantially worldwide. In China, expenditure on pets rose from an estimated US$3.12 billion in 2010 to US$25 billion in 2018, with an estimated 755 million pets nationally, including 51 million dogs and 41 million cats [10–11] . Italy has been estimated to have over 45 million pets, including approximately 7 million dogs and 7.5 million cats [12] . In the United Kingdom, survey data indicate approximately 10.3 million cats and 10.5 million dogs are kept nationally [13] . In the United States, an estimated 78.2 million dogs and 86.4 million cats are kept as pets, with companion animals reported to outnumber children roughly four to one [14–16] . In Nigeria, dogs are kept for security, breeding, sport, hunting and, in some communities, as a source of meat [17] , but the national dog population estimated at 3–5 million by the World Health Organization as far back as 1980 - has not been rigorously updated using standardized methods [18] . Many jurisdictions regulate pet ownership through breed, speciesor sizespecific ordinances, and companion animals are increasingly the subject of legal protections intended to safeguard their welfare, even as debate continues over the ethics and legal status of pet ownership [19–21] . Pet keeping also carries a measurable environmental cost: in the United States, dogs and cats have been estimated to consume approximately one-fifth of the dietary energy consumed by the human population and to contribute proportionately to the environmental impacts of animal production [22] . Illegal trade in wild animals kept as pets remains a further welfare and conservation concern globally [23] . Companion animals are broadly categorized as domesticated or wild-caught. A domesticated animal is one that has been tamed and selectively bred over a sufficiently long period to exhibit marked behavioral and morphological differences from its wild progenitors [24] ; archaeological evidence suggests that dogs have been kept by humans for at least 12,000 years [25] . Wild-caught animals are also kept as pets in some settings despite welfare concerns and, in many jurisdictions, legal prohibition [23] . Page 4/25
Understanding the demographic structure of a companion-animal population including species, breed, sex and age distribution is a critical first step in veterinary service planning, disease-risk reduction and the design of client-education and preventive care programmes [26–27] . Demographic data are routinely collected in several developed countries through national surveys conducted by veterinary and petindustry organizations [14,27] , and cross-sectional surveys, insurance databases, microchip registries and clinical records have all been used to characterize companion-animal populations [28–33] . Because a high proportion of owned pets in countries with developed veterinary sectors attend a veterinary practice at least occasionally, clinical records, including electronic health records where available, have been used as a practical proxy for describing owned companion-animal populations [34–38] . In Nigeria and much of sub-Saharan Africa, however, pet registration is not compulsory, statutory disease notification is limited, and demographic data on companion animals remain fragmented and rarely published [4,26] . The University of Ibadan Veterinary Teaching Hospital (UI VTH), established in December 1981, functions as a referral center for veterinary care, teaching and research across South-Western Nigeria, and its clinical register therefore offers a valuable, if previously under-analyzed, resource for describing the demographic profile of the veterinary-visiting companion animal population of the region [27] . Dogs' demographic and health status can change considerably with age in ways that parallel human ageing despite their markedly shorter life expectancy, and understanding these patterns has become an active area of companion-animal research internationally [39] . No comparable demographic description has previously been published for a West African veterinary-visiting companion-animal population. The present study therefore used 13 years of consultation records from the UI VTH to describe the species, breed, sex, age and naming characteristics of the companion-animal population presenting for veterinary care in South-Western Nigeria, to establish a baseline demographic profile that can be updated periodically to monitor future trends and inform veterinary service delivery. Methods Study area and setting This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using clinical records held at the University of Ibadan Veterinary Teaching Hospital (UI VTH), Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. UI VTH was established in December 1981 following approval by the University's Development Committee and Senate, with a mandate to advance animal health through teaching, research and specialized referral veterinary services, and it serves as a major referral center for companion-animal, livestock and wildlife cases across South-Western Nigeria [27] . Data source and study population The hospital's clinical register was used to identify all companion-animal consultations recorded between January 2006 and May 2019 (13 years). A total of 6,102 individual consultations were identified Page 5/25
and included in the analysis. For each record, the species, breed, sex, age and name of the animal, as routinely captured in the register at the point of presentation, were extracted. UI VTH functions as a referral clinic for the South-Western region of Nigeria, and dogs constituted the great majority of records available for the study period. Data management Data were transcribed into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) database designed for this study. Freetext species and breed entries were cleaned to correct misspellings and non-standard terminology by mapping each entry to a standard nomenclature; for dog and cat breeds, standard breed names were taken from established kennel-club breed lists, with each non-standard entry mapped manually on first occurrence and matched automatically thereafter. Because many breeds were represented by only a small number of individuals, detailed breedlevel reporting was restricted to the most frequently recorded breeds within each species (up to ten, where available); remaining animals were classified only as purebred or crossbred. Age at presentation was converted to a single unit (weeks) to standardize comparison across records. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the demographic profile of the study population (species, breed, sex, age and name frequencies); percentages are expressed relative to the total number of records available for the relevant species or variable, as indicated in each table. All analyses were performed using R statistical software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Because this study was primarily descriptive and exploratory, formal inferential testing was restricted to specific pre-specified comparisons: a permutation-based test implemented in the R 'coin' package was used to assess whether age at presentation (in weeks) differed significantly between species (dogs versus cats) and, separately, between breed groups within species. Ethics statement No animals were used, examined or sampled specifically for this study; all data were derived retrospectively from routine, de-identified clinical records generated during standard veterinary care at UI VTH between 2006 and 2019. Results Records of 6,102 companion-animal consultations at UI VTH between January 2006 and May 2019 were reviewed. Seven species categories were recorded in the clinical register. Species, breed, sex, age and name frequencies are described below and summarized in Tables 1–5 and Figs. 1–7. Page 6/25
Species distribution Dogs (Canine) accounted for the overwhelming majority of presentations (6,053/6,102 records; 99.2%), followed at a considerable distance by cats (Feline; 25/6,102; 0.41%), non-human primates and Cuniculus species (6/6,102; 0.098% each), Avian species (4/6,102; 0.066%), Rabbit (2/6,102; 0.033%) and Swine (1/6,102; 0.016%) (Table 1; Fig. 1). The sum of species-specific frequencies (n = 6,097) differs marginally from the total number of consultations analyzed (n = 6,102), reflecting five records with incomplete species information in the source register. Table 1 Species distribution of companion animals presented to UI VTH, January 2006-May 2019. SpeciesFrequencyPercentage of records analyzed (n = 6,102) Canine605399.20% Feline250.41% Primate60.10% Cuniculus60.10% Avian40.07% Rabbit20.03% Swine10.02% Figure 1. Word-cloud representation of species presented to UI VTH (relative frequency shown by font size). Breed distribution Canine breeds Among the most frequently recorded dog breeds (Table 2a; Figs. 2, 3), the Alsatian (German Shepherd Dog) was most common (1,810 records; 29.9% of dogs), followed by the Boerboel (960; 15.9%), Rottweiler (934; 15.4%), Crossbred dogs (474; 7.8%), German Shepherd (461; 7.6%), Local breed (435; 7.2%), Caucasian Shepherd (310; 5.1%), Bulldog (250; 4.1%), Pit Bull Terrier (153; 2.5%) and Samoyed (76; 1.3%). In the source register, "Alsatian" and "German Shepherd" were recorded as separate breed entries by clinic staff despite conventionally referring to the same breed; both entries are reported here exactly as originally recorded, without merging, to preserve the integrity of the source data. Page 7/25
Table 2 a. Ten most frequently recorded dog breeds at UI VTH. BreedFrequencyPercentage of dogs (n = 6,053) Alsatian (German Shepherd Dog)181029.90% Boerboel96015.86% Rottweiler93415.43% Crossbred4747.83% German Shepherd4617.62% Local breed4357.19% Caucasian Shepherd3105.12% Bulldog2504.13% Pit Bull Terrier1532.53% Samoyed761.26% Feline breeds Local (non-pedigree) cats predominated among feline presentations (13/25; 52.0%), followed by cats of unknown breed (11/25; 44.0%) and one exotic-breed cat (1/25; 4.0%) (Table 2b). Table 2 b. Cat breeds recorded at UI VTH. BreedFrequencyPercentage of cats (n = 25) Local1352.00% Unknown1144.00% Exotic14.00% Primate species Among the six non-human primates presented, the Monkey was the most frequent designation (3/6; 50.0%), followed by Chimpanzee, Baboon and one further individual recorded as "Red Peter" (1/6 each; 16.7% each) (Table 2c). Page 8/25
Table 2 c. Primate species/breed designations recorded at UI VTH. Species/breed designationFrequencyPercentage of primates (n = 6) Monkey350.00% Chimpanzee116.67% Baboon116.67% Red Peter (as recorded)116.67% Cuniculus breeds Among the six Cuniculus-species presentations, the majority (5/6; 83.3%) were recorded without a specific breed designation, and one (1/6; 16.7%) was recorded as Chinchilla (Table 2d). Table 2 d. Cuniculus-species breed designations recorded at UI VTH. BreedFrequencyPercentage of Cuniculus records (n = 6) Not specified583.33% Chinchilla116.67% Avian breeds Of the four avian presentations, three (75.0%) were recorded as African Parrot and one (25.0%) as Northern Ostrich, an approximate 3:1 ratio (Table 2e). Table 2 e. Avian breed designations recorded at UI VTH. BreedFrequencyPercentage of avian records (n = 4) African Parrot375.00% Northern Ostrich125.00% Sex distribution Among dogs, female animals outnumbered males (3,333/6,036 recorded; 55.2% female versus 44.8% male). A similar pattern was observed in cats (17/25; 68.0% female versus 32.0% male). Sex distribution was equal among primates (3/6 each) and among Cuniculus-species animals (3/6 each, recorded under "Rabbit" in the sex field of the register - see footnote to Table 3), while all four avian presentations were recorded as female (Table 3; Fig. 4). Note: the species label used for the sex field of six animals in the source register ("Rabbit") does not match the species-level frequency recorded for "Rabbit" in Table 1 (n = 2); this total instead corresponds numerically to the six "Cuniculus" records reported in Tables 1, 2d Page 9/25
and 4c, and the discrepancy - present in the original clinical register - is reported here transparently rather than resolved retrospectively. Table 3 Sex distribution of companion animals presented to UI VTH, by species. SpeciesFemaleMale% Female% Male Canine3333270355.22%44.78% Feline17868.00%32.00% Primate3350.00%50.00% Cuniculus (recorded as "Rabbit" in sex field)3350.00%50.00% Avian40100.00%0.00% Figure 4. Sex distribution of dogs presented to UI VTH. Age distribution Canine age Dogs aged 104 weeks (approximately 2 years) were most frequently presented (441 records), followed by dogs aged 156 weeks (approximately 3 years; 236 records) and 208 weeks (approximately 4 years; 135 records) (Table 4a; Fig. 5). All ten of the most frequently recorded ages at presentation were 130 weeks (2.5 years) or older; no age category under 2.5 years appeared among the ten most common ages. The oldest dogs presented were 520 weeks (10 years) of age. Page 10/25
Table 4 a. Ten most frequently recorded ages (in weeks) among dogs presented to UI VTH. Age (weeks) Approx. age (years) FrequencyPercentage of the ten most common ages (n = 1,182) 1042.044137.31% 1563.023619.97% 2084.013511.42% 1302.5917.70% 2605.0847.11% 3126.0655.50% 3647.0484.06% 4168.0322.71% 1823.5282.37% 52010.0221.86% Feline age Among cats, age was not recorded for 6 of 25 animals. Among cats with a recorded age, 52 weeks (1 year) was most frequent (4 records); the oldest cat presented was 624 weeks (12 years) and the youngest was 1 week (Table 4b). Page 11/25
Table 4 b. Age distribution (in weeks) among cats presented to UI VTH. Age (weeks)Frequency Unknown6 524 782 262 6241 481 441 221 131 81 51 31 21 11 Primate, Cuniculus and avian age Age was not recorded for the majority of primates (3/6); among those with recorded age, the oldest was 156 weeks. Among Cuniculus-species animals, recorded ages ranged from 11 to 130 weeks. Among avian presentations, age was unrecorded for 2/4 animals; the remaining two were 104 weeks and 17 weeks of age (Table 4c). Page 12/25
Table 4 c. Age distribution (in weeks) among primate, Cuniculus and avian presentations at UI VTH. SpeciesAge (weeks)Frequency PrimateUnknown3 Primate1561 Primate391 Primate151 Cuniculus1301 Cuniculus351 Cuniculus301 Cuniculus261 Cuniculus221 Cuniculus111 AvianUnknown2 Avian1041 Avian171 Name frequency "Jack" was the most frequently recorded pet name (122 records), followed by "Bruno" (93), "Puppy" (78), "Smart" (73), "Terry" (66), "Max" (64), "Lucky" (59), "Bella" (59), "Princess" (57) and "Captain" (54) (Table 5; Figs. 6, 7). Page 13/25
Table 5 Ten most frequently recorded pet names at UI VTH. NameFrequencyPercentage of the ten most common names (n = 725) Jack12216.83% Bruno9312.83% Puppy7810.76% Smart7310.07% Terry669.10% Max648.83% Lucky598.14% Bella598.14% Princess577.86% Captain547.45% Discussion Up-to-date demographic data on companion-animal populations are important for identifying populations at risk, informing veterinary service planning and interpreting future epidemiological and public-health surveillance [26–27] . In the present 13-year retrospective review of UI VTH records, we identified marked differences across species, breed, sex and age categories among companion animals presenting for veterinary care in South-Western Nigeria. Dogs accounted for 99.2% of all presentations, with cats a distant second at 0.41% - a far greater disparity than is typically reported in countries with more developed companion-animal sectors, where cat ownership approaches or exceeds dog ownership [13,16] . This pattern likely reflects a combination of cultural familiarity and the traditional use of dogs for security and, in parts of Nigeria, for hunting, sport and food [17] , together with comparatively limited demand for cats as household pets; targeted community-based studies would be needed to disentangle the cultural, religious and environmental determinants underlying this disparity [4] . Among dogs, the predominance of the Alsatian (German Shepherd Dog), Boerboel and Rottweiler breeds is consistent with a strong local preference for large guarding breeds, reflecting the primary role of dogs as security animals in many Nigerian households [17] . That "Alsatian" and "German Shepherd" were recorded as separate entries in the clinical register, despite conventionally denoting the same breed, together with the sizeable proportion of dogs recorded only as "Local" or "Crossed" breed, mirrors the difficulty of breed ascertainment reported in other veterinary-record-based demographic studies, where Page 14/25
breed is typically recorded by non-specialist staff at the point of presentation [36–38] . Local (nonpedigree) cats predominated among feline presentations, and a substantial minority of cats were recorded with breed unknown, suggesting that owners of cats and other minor species in this population may be less engaged with formal breed classification than dog owners. Female dogs and cats outnumbered males in this study, a pattern that could reflect breeding activity, differential presentation rates for reproductive or obstetric complaints, or a true sex imbalance in the underlying owned population; distinguishing between these explanations would require prospective data linking presenting complaint to sex and reproductive status. Where sex differences in health and longevity have been examined in dogs elsewhere, neuter status - rather than sex alone - has emerged as the principal determinant of both survival and cause of death, with neutered animals living longer but shifting cause of death toward neoplastic and immune-mediated disease, while intact animals remain at greater risk of infectious and traumatic mortality [40] . Among reproductively intact dogs, males have been reported to live marginally longer than females, whereas among neutered dogs the reverse has been observed, although the overall effect of neuter status exceeds that of sex itself [41] . Neuter status was not captured in the UI VTH register and represents an important variable for future prospective data collection. The three most frequently presented dog ages − 104, 156 and 208 weeks (approximately 2, 3 and 4 years) - were all beyond early adulthood, and no age category under 130 weeks (2.5 years) appeared among the ten most common ages at presentation. This pattern suggests that dogs in this population are more often brought to UI VTH once they are already unwell rather than for routine preventive care, consistent with reports elsewhere that owners often under-recognize the cost and welfare implications of preventive veterinary care and that older pets tend to receive less consistent medical attention [42–43] . Close physical proximity between pets and their owners is well documented to confer mutual physical and emotional benefits [44] , which may partly explain owners' continued willingness to seek veterinary care for ageing pets. Ageing in dogs is accompanied by well-documented physiological and behavioral changes, including declines in sensorimotor and cognitive function, increases in morbidity and medication use, and changes in body condition, even in the absence of overt disease [45–49] . Even in dogs ageing "successfully", some decline in sensorimotor control, cognitive ability and behavior is expected, and it is the rate of such decline - rather than its mere presence - that distinguishes normal ageing from underlying pathology warranting veterinary assessment [50] . Because chronological age is a particularly consistent predictor of health status across breeds once senescence has begun [51–52] , the concentration of presentations among older dogs in this dataset is consistent with age being a principal driver of veterinary attendance in this population, mirroring findings from clinic-based and cohort studies of canine ageing and health status conducted elsewhere [38–39] . Body size and breed are known to influence the timing of senescence and cause of death in dogs internationally, with larger breeds generally ageing and dying earlier than smaller breeds, although the age at which mortality begins to rise appears broadly similar across size classes [51,53–54] . Specific Page 15/25
morbidities, including certain neoplastic and immune-mediated conditions, have also been linked to breed [54] , while other work has found comparatively little independent effect of breed on behavioral ageing once age itself is accounted for [52] . Because breed data in the present dataset were limited to the most common canine breeds and a binary purebred/crossbred classification for less common breeds, the present analysis could not formally test for breed-specific effects on age at presentation; this represents an important area for future study using individual-level clinical outcome data linked to breed. Individual variation in the pace of senescence is also influenced by genetic, environmental and social factors that parallel recognized drivers of human ageing and chronic disease, including diet, activity, stress and socio-economic circumstances [55–56] . Non-biological factors - including household smoking, obesity, owner engagement and the wider dog-owner relationship - have similarly been shown to influence canine health and longevity elsewhere [57–59] , and owner-reported shared activity with dogs has been found to decline as dogs age, which is itself associated with reduced quality of life and reduced veterinary engagement [43,60] . The terms owners use to describe ageing, such as "senior", "geriatric", "overweight" and "obese", are applied inconsistently, complicating owner recognition of when veterinary assessment is warranted; regular veterinary assessment of all older dogs has therefore been recommended specifically to detect such changes early [61] , and natural age-related behavioral and cognitive change can be difficult to distinguish reliably from pathological decline using owner report alone, reinforcing the value of structured veterinary assessment in older animals [62] . Demographic differences between purebred and mixed-breed owners have also been shown to confound apparent breed-behavior associations unless explicitly controlled for [63–64] , underscoring the value of collecting owner- as well as animal-level demographic data in future surveillance efforts at UI VTH. Analysis of pet-naming patterns, while less central to veterinary service planning, offers an accessible window into human-companion-animal relationships and cultural attitudes toward pets in this population. "Jack", "Bruno" and "Puppy" were the most common names recorded, broadly consistent with international observations that pet names frequently reflect close, family-like relationships between owners and their animals [65] . The benefits of the human-animal bond, including for pet-owning older adults, have been well described elsewhere [3,66–67] . This study has several limitations inherent to retrospective clinical-register data. First, the register captures only animals brought for veterinary attention and therefore cannot be assumed to represent the wider owned companion-animal population of South-Western Nigeria, which likely includes many animals that never attend a veterinary facility. Second, breed, age and, in a minority of cases, sex were incompletely or inconsistently recorded, and the species labels "Rabbit" and "Cuniculus" appear to have been used inconsistently by clinic staff over the 13-year study period; where such inconsistencies were identified, they are reported transparently in the relevant tables rather than resolved retrospectively, to avoid introducing unverifiable assumptions into the original clinical data. Third, no information on presenting complaint, diagnosis, outcome or neuter status was captured in the register, precluding formal health-status or survival analysis of the kind conducted using more detailed electronic health records elsewhere [36–38] ; this represents a priority for future prospective data collection at UI VTH. Page 16/25
Finally, as a single-centre referral hospital, UI VTH may not be representative of primary-care veterinary attendance patterns across the wider region, and comparison with community-level and multi-centre data, as increasingly available in other countries, would strengthen future surveillance [26,68] . Conclusions This 13-year retrospective review of clinical records provides one of the first systematically described demographic profiles of companion animals presenting for veterinary care in South-Western Nigeria. Dogs, and large guarding breeds such as the Alsatian, Boerboel and Rottweiler in particular, dominated presentations; female animals outnumbered males among both dogs and cats; and dogs beyond early adulthood were disproportionately represented among clinic attendees, consistent with age being an important driver of veterinary attendance in this population, as reported in canine health-status and ageing literature elsewhere [39] . These findings provide a practical baseline against which future demographic and health-status trends at UI VTH can be monitored, and they highlight the value of routine, standardized data capture - including breed nomenclature, sex, neuter status and presenting complaint - to support client education, targeted preventive-care programmes and companion-animal welfare policy in Nigeria [69] . Furthermore, a follow-up study can be conducted on the available register and other teaching hospitals in the south-west of Nigeria for a comprehensive review of the demography of pets in the Nation. Declarations Consent for publication Not applicable. No identifiable client or patient data are presented; all records were anonymized before analysis. Conflict of interests The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Funding No specific funding was received for this research. Author Contribution Page 17/25
1. S.S., O.J., and S.O. T.O. wrote the manuscript text2. T.F., T.R., and P.O., T. R. edited and did the formal analysis3. A.O., P.O., and T.A. performed data curation4. O.J. supervised the work5. 1-4. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledged the staff of the University of Ibadan Veterinary Teaching Hospital for the maintenance of the clinical register used in this study and their cooperation in compiling the data. Data Availability All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information which is also in the references used for the manuscript where information were sourced. References 1. The Columbia Encyclopedia. History of Modern Europe: Pets. 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press; 2006. 2. Guardianship Movement. Pet Planet Health. 2015 [cited 2015 Feb 10]. 3. Curl AL, Bibbo J, Johnson RA. Dog-walking, the human-animal bond and older adults' physical health. Gerontologist. 2017;57(5):930-939. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw051. 4. Leslie BE, Meek AH, Kawash GF, McKeown DB. An epidemiological investigation of pet ownership in Ontario. Can Vet J. 1994;35(4):218-222. 5. International Pet Relocation. NY International Shipping. 2017 [cited 2017 Jan 16]. 6. McRobbie LR. Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes. The Guardian. 2017 Aug 1. 7. Amato S. Beastly Possession: Animals in Victorian Consumer Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2015. 8. Ritvo H. The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987. 9. Philo C. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations. London: Routledge; 1989. 10. Tang A, Bradsher K. The trade war's latest casualties: China's coddled cats and dogs. New York Times. 2018 Oct 22. 11. China Pet Market (CPM). 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 25]. 12. Il Messaggero. 45 milioniglianimalidomestici in Italia. Rome: Il Messaggero; 2009 Sep 22. 13. University of Bristol. UK domestic cat and dog population larger than thought. Bristol: University of Bristol News; 2010 Feb 6. Page 18/25
14. American Veterinary Medical Association. U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, IL: AVMA; 2012. 15. Halper D. Animal Planet: pets outnumber children 4 to 1 in America. The Weekly Standard. 2013 Feb 1. 16. Hayes S. What are the most popular pets around the world? PetQuestions.com; 2010 [cited 2011 Mar 4]. 17. Onyeakagbu A. How to prepare dog meat, Badagry style. Pulse Nigeria; 2018. 18. World Health Organization. Guidelines for Dog Rabies Control. Geneva: WHO; 1980. 19. In Defense of Animals. 2013 [cited 2013 Aug 29]. 20. Garner R. A defense of a broad animal protectionism. In: Francione GL, Garner R, editors. The Animal Rights Debate. New York: Columbia University Press; 2010. 21. Francione GL. Animals, Property, and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1995. 22. Okin GS. Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0181301. 23. Lehmacher W. Illegal wildlife trade: a $23 billion business. World Economic Forum; 2019. 24. Farlex. The Free Dictionary: domestic animal. 2012 [cited 2012 Apr 27]. 25. Clutton-Brock J. Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell J, editor. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. p.10-11. 26. Asher L, Buckland EL, Phylactopoulos CI, Whiting MC, Abeyesinghe SM, Wathes CM. Estimation of the number and demographics of companion dogs in the UK. BMC Vet Res. 2011;7:74. doi:10.1186/1746-6148-7-74. 27. American Veterinary Medical Association. U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook 2007. Schaumburg, IL: AVMA; 2007. 28. Slater MR, Di Nardo A, Pediconi O, Villa PD, Candeloro L, Alessandrini B, Del Papa S. Cat and dog ownership and management patterns in central Italy. Prev Vet Med. 2008;85(3-4):267-294. 29. Downes M, Canty MJ, More SJ. Demography of the pet dog and cat population on the island of Ireland and human factors influencing pet ownership. Prev Vet Med. 2009;92:140-149. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.07.005. 30. Serafini CA, Rosa GA, Guimaraes AM, De Morais HA, Biondo AW. Survey of owned feline and canine populations in apartments from a neighbourhood in Curitiba, Brazil. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008;55:402-405. doi:10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01171. 31. Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Olson P, Hedhammar A. Gender, age, breed and distribution of morbidity and mortality in insured dogs in Sweden during 1995 and 1996. Vet Rec. 2000;146:519-525. 32. Egenvall A, Nodtvedt A, Penell J, Gunnarsson L, Bonnett BN. Insurance data for research in companion animals: benefits and limitations. Acta Vet Scand. 2009;51:42. doi:10.1186/1751-0147- 51-42. Page 19/25
33. Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015. London: House of Commons; 2015. 34. Siegel JM. Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: the moderating role of pet ownership. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58:1081-1086. 35. Murray JK, Browne WJ, Roberts MA, Whitmarsh A, Gruffydd-Jones TJ. Number and ownership profiles of cats and dogs in the UK. Vet Rec. 2010;166:163-168. doi:10.1136/vr.b4712. 36. O'Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. Approaches to canine health surveillance. Canine Genet Epidemiol. 2014;1:2. doi:10.1186/2052-6687-1-2. 37. O'Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt DC. Prevalence of disorders recorded in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in England. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90501. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090501. 38. Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, Kolar LM, Klausner JS. Health status and population characteristics of dogs and cats examined at private veterinary practices in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999;214:1336-1341. 39. Wallis LJ, Szabo D, Erdelyi-Belle B, Kubinyi E. Demographic change across the lifespan of pet dogs and their impact on health status. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:200. doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00200. 40. Hoffman JM, Creevy KE, Promislow DEL. Reproductive capability is associated with lifespan and cause of death in companion dogs. PLoS One. 2013;8:e61082. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061082. 41. Hoffman JM, O'Neill DG, Creevy KE, Austad SN. Do female dogs age differently than male dogs? J GerontolA Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73:150-156. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx061. 42. Holmes KL, Morris PJ, Abdulla Z, Hackett R, Rawlings JM. Risk factors associated with excess body weight in dogs in the UK. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2007;91:166-167. doi:10.1111/j.1439- 0396.2007.00680_9. 43. Bennett PC, Rohlf VI. Owner-companion dog interactions: relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;102:65-84. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.009. 44. Edney AT. Companion animals and human health: an overview. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:704-708. doi:10.1177/014107689508801220. 45. Siegal M, Barlough JE. UC Davis Book of Dogs. New York: Harper Collins; 1995. 46. Courcier EA, Thomson RM, Mellor DJ, Yam PS. An epidemiological study of environmental factors associated with canine obesity. J Small Anim Pract. 2010;51:362-367. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 5827.2010.00933.x. 47. Bellows J, Colitz CMH, Daristotle L, Ingram DK, Lepine A, Marks SL, et al. Common physical and functional changes associated with aging in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015;246:67-75. doi:10.2460/javma.246.1.67. 48. Landsberg GM, Hunthausen WL, Ackerman LJ. The effects of aging on behavior in senior pets. In: Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S, editors. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. 2nd Page 20/25
ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2003. 49. Neilson JC, Hart BL, Cliff KD, Ruehl WW. Prevalence of behavioral changes associated with agerelated cognitive impairment in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001;218:1787-1791. doi:10.2460/javma.2001.218.1787. 50. Salvin HE, McGreevy PD, Sachdev PS, Valenzuela MJ. Growing old gracefully-behavioral changes associated with 'successful aging' in the dog, Canis familiaris. J Vet Behav. 2011;6:313-320. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.04.004. 51. Kraus C, Pavard S, Promislow DEL. The size-life span trade-off decomposed: why large dogs die young. Am Nat. 2013;181:492-505. doi:10.1086/669665. 52. Salvin HE, McGreevy PD, Sachdev PS, Valenzuela MJ. The effect of breed on age-related changes in behavior and disease prevalence in cognitively normal older community dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. J Vet Behav. 2012;7:61-69. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.002. 53. Fleming JM, Creevy KE, Promislow DEL. Mortality in North American dogs from 1984 to 2004: an investigation into age-, size-, and breed-related causes of death. J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25:187-198. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.0695.x. 54. Hayward JJ, Castelhano MG, Oliveira KC, Corey E, Balkman C, Baxter TL, et al. Complex disease and phenotype mapping in the domestic dog. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10460. doi:10.1038/ncomms10460. 55. Kramer AF, Bherer L, Colcombe SJ, Dong W, Greenough WT. Environmental influences on cognitive and brain plasticity during aging. J GerontolA Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:M940-M957. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.9.M940. 56. Kennedy BK, Berger SL, Brunet A, Campisi J, Cuervo AM, Epel ES, et al. Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell. 2014;159:709-713. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.039. 57. Hutchinson N. Evaluating the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on biological age markers: a canine model [PhD thesis]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow; 2017. 58. German AJ, Hervera M, Hunter L, Holden SL, Morris PJ, Biourge V, et al. Improvement in insulin resistance and reduction in plasma inflammatory adipokines after weight loss in obese dogs. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2009;37:214-226. doi:10.1016/j.domaniend.2009.07.001. 59. Robertson ID. The association of exercise, diet and other factors with owner-perceived obesity in privately owned dogs from metropolitan Perth, WA. Prev Vet Med. 2003;58:75-83. doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(03)00009-6. 60. Marinelli L, Adamelli S, Normando S, Bono G. Quality of life of the pet dog: influence of owner and dog's characteristics. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;108:143-156. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018. 61. Larsen JA, Farcas A. Nutrition of aging dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2014;44:741-759. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.03.003. 62. Szabo D, Gee NR, Miklosi A. Natural or pathologic? Discrepancies in the study of behavioral and cognitive signs in aging family dogs. J Vet Behav. 2016;11:86-98. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2015.08.003. Page 21/25
63. Turcsan B, Miklosi A, Kubinyi E. Owner perceived differences between mixed-breed and purebred dogs. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172720. 64. Kubinyi E, Turcsan B, Miklosi A. Dog and owner demographic characteristics and dog personality trait associations. Behav Processes. 2009;81:392-401. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.004. 65. Dotson MJ, Hyatt EM. Understanding dog-human companionship. J Bus Res. 2008;61:457-466. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019. 66. Curl AL, Bibbo J, Johnson RA. Dog-walking, the human-animal bond and older adults' physical health. Gerontologist. 2016;57(5):930-939. 67. Northern Kentucky Tribune. Kentucky Center for Public Service Journalism; 2016. 68. Rowan A, Kartal T. Dog population & dog sheltering trends in the United States of America. Animals (Basel). 2018;8(5):68. doi:10.3390/ani8050068. 69. BBC News Online. Pet abuse law shake-up unveiled. London: BBC; 2005 Oct 14. Figures Figure 1 Word-cloud representation of species presented to UI VTH (relative frequency shown by font size). Page 22/25
Figure 2 Frequency distribution of the ten most common dog breeds presented to UI VTH. Figure 3 Word-cloud representation of dog breeds presented to UI VTH. Page 23/25
Figure 4 Sex distribution of dogs presented to UI VTH. Figure 5 Word-cloud representation of dog age (in weeks) at presentation to UI VTH. Page 24/25
Figure 6 Frequency distribution of the ten most common pet names presented to UI VTH. Figure 7 Word-cloud representation of pet names presented to UI VTH. Page 25/25