Study summary · Dogs · Nutritional adequacy · Stockman et al., 2013
A recipe can look varied and still leave nutrient gaps.
Most sampled recipes fell short of at least one nutrient benchmark. This was an analysis of recipes, not a trial measuring illness in dogs.
Why this study matters
An attractive ingredient list cannot show whether the amounts of all essential nutrients fit together. Recipe instructions matter too: an unspecified supplement or an unclear quantity can change what ends up in the bowl.
How the study worked
Samples
Adult-dog recipes from books, websites and veterinary texts.
What happened?
Computer-based nutrient calculations; 15 prepared recipes also underwent laboratory checks.
The comparison
Published adult-maintenance nutrient benchmarks.
What was measured?
Estimated nutrient adequacy and clarity of instructions.
What the researchers found
| Outcome | Reported result | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrient shortfalls | 95% missed at least one benchmark; over 83% missed several. | These are recipe findings, not rates of clinical deficiency. |
| Instructions | 92% required assumptions about preparation, ingredients or supplements. | Reproducibility is part of recipe quality. |
| Laboratory cross-check | 15 recipes were also prepared and analysed. | A limited cross-check supports, but does not validate every calculation. |
Source access: paper record and UC Davis research report.
What strengthens the evidence?
A broad set of sources helps show whether the issue is confined to a single recipe collection. A laboratory cross-check adds a useful comparison with calculated composition. Explicitly assessing instructions recognises that nutritional adequacy depends on what can actually be prepared.
What limits the conclusions?
Selection from available sources is not a census of all homemade diets. Calculations depend on ingredient data and assumptions. The study does not establish that every home-prepared diet is inadequate, or measure how often a shortfall causes disease. This entry was checked against the indexed paper and the authors’ university report; a complete full-text appraisal remains pending.
What the researchers concluded
The researchers advised using recipes formulated or assessed by a board-certified veterinary nutritionist.
Evidence.pet interpretation
Read this as evidence about formulation quality, not a verdict on the idea of preparing food at home. “Contains nutritious ingredients” and “meets a complete nutrient specification” are different claims. A measured or calculated shortfall also needs to be distinguished from a diagnosed deficiency in an animal. The useful question is how the complete recipe was evaluated, including exact ingredient quantities and supplements, and whether substitutions would change that evaluation. Rotating appealing recipes should not be assumed to correct a gap unless the combined nutrient supply has actually been assessed.
Funding and author interests
UC Davis reported support from its Center for Companion Animal Health. Jennifer Larsen co-owned DVM Consulting Inc., which licensed the analysis software.
Read the original research
Stockman J, Fascetti AJ, Kass PH, Larsen JA. Evaluation of recipes of home-prepared maintenance diets for dogs. JAVMA. 2013;242(11):1500–1505. doi:10.2460/javma.242.11.1500.
Evidence.pet editorial summary · Study ID STU-011 · Source checked 22 September 2026. Strengths, limitations and interpretation are our editorial assessment, not a formal evidence grade.
Sources checked: indexed paper and UC Davis research report. Full-text appraisal pending.