To feed or not to feed: Counterconditioning in the veterinary clinic

Feeding small amounts of nutritious treats to animals in the veterinary practice is often avoided because of the fear that such practices may increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia (AP) in animals that end up being sedated. However, no data support that assumption; indeed the opposite can be argued-not feeding treats could potentially increase the frequency of AP. AP risk is a function of many factors including the type of procedure carried out and the choice of sedative; avoiding heavy sedation and emetic compounds should thus be a higher priority than avoiding treat feeding. Not feeding treats at the veterinary clinic is a choice that leads to increased stress in animals, difficulty in diagnosis, and risks to personnel. In contrast, feeding treats to animals visiting the veterinary clinic reduces stress, may facilitate diagnosis and reduce risks to staff involved in handling animals that could respond with defensive aggression if anxiety levels rise. It is also plausible that treat feeding reduces the number of animals that are sedated because of fear or aggression-thus effectively reducing the number of AP cases rather than increasing it. In conclusion, the trade-off between these alternatives strongly suggests that treat feeding should be the norm rather than the exception in the veterinary clinic.