The Aderyn Project

A huge thank you to everyone who has helped with the plumage photos so far!
The response has been incredible (and in the midst of it all I was struck with the flu, so apologies for the delay on my end!) But the sample pool is now growing nicely and I can't thank everyone enough 🥳 It has really helped with working through this next part of the theory.
Photo of hatchling Johto as tax 😅

A happy new year to all our followers and supporters!
This is going to be another busy year, and there's a few more trips planned to get as much information as possible 😊
I still need a bit of a bigger sample pool of captive bred barn owls for the study, but this time I need photographs of female barn owls (specifically of the chest to show speckles, the tail, and overall colouration).
These photographs will be used to help with new developments with my theory, and are simply to help show variation in plumage. I have had plenty of male animals for the study, but in order to get as accurate a sample as I can I will need to get more examples of female birds.
If you would like to help or require more information then please either DM this page or email:
[email protected]

All information received will be kept anonymous to protect the identity of anyone who participates 😊

(Included are photographs I have taken of 2 different female birds showing chest plumage and tail feathers, just to give an idea of the sort of images that I currently have to be included in the study)

Hello all!
As you probably all know by now I'm doing a research paper on captive bred barn owls (specifically Tyto alba).
As with all research there has to be many different things looked into to make sure that your theory is thoroughly explored. As such I'm wondering if any of you could help!
I'm looking for photos of captive bred female barn owls (either DNA tested or egg laying), specifically the chest markings and the tail colouration to see if there is a correlation between them and the wild specimens I've been studying.

(I would also like to state that I do not wish to cause any unnecessary panic or worry amongst readers. The purpose of me asking for this information is to further understand the possibilities of plumage differentiation between wild and captive bred owls)

Any willing participants can be provided with further information about the overall study, and sign a consent form if they would allow the photographs to be used as part of the study.
I am following guidance given to me by numerous organisations and ethics committees, as well as the GDPR guidelines, on how to conduct the research, use of data etc.
All participants will be kept completely anonymous.
The finished research will be published in the IBIS (International Journal of Avian Science), but participants will be given a copy of the study for free.
Anyone who would be interested in taking part, or if you would like more information please email: [email protected]
Alternatively you can message me via messenger.

Thank you!

(Photo of a wild specimen being used for plumage analysis)

Another research update!

I had initially hoped that when I started this page (which was ultimately intended for more long-winded science related posts as well as details about my research) I would be posting a bit more regularly. What I didn't expect is for the research to actually take off in so many different directions that my focus would solely be on covering all avenues that have opened up to me, which has meant little time to produce other writings with everything else going on in life as well.
As much as I am incredibly eager to share snippets of everything going on, I cannot of course fo that for many reasons. But rest assured I have had a lot of surprising breakthroughs so far and each breakthrough requires more in depth looks to see if it is relevant, how it is going to steer the work etc etc.
I would once again like to thank everyone who has helped so far because, arguably, without their help I wouldn't have got anywhere with this work.

(Another new avenue to explore has opened up after receiving more data to look over. Patterns are forming in ways I didn't think were possible, and as such I may have to put out a new call for evidence to explore this part of the puzzle further!)

**Photo is from my latest research trip where I got to examine various specimens to include in my current sample pool

Barn owls are quite possibly one of Britain's favourite birds. Their appearance enigmatic, serene, and found on all sorts of items available to purchase.
Owls are seen as symbols of wisdom and, in some cases, death (be it as a messenger if the dead or as an omen of impending death) and the Barn Owl definitely falls into this demographic. Also known as the 'ghost owl' for their haunting style of flight through the night sky and ghostly white colouration, they were once commonplace around farmers fields (also earning the nickname 'the farmers friend') ridding the areas they quarter of unwanted rodents.
In recent years, Britain's wild barn owl population has suffered ups and downs, but it has more often than not been subject to declines in numbers. This trend isn't new. After reading 'The Complete Owl' by Michael Leach (a fantastic read if anyone is interested), it is stated that it is a real possibility that barn owls could be lost from the British landscape. Despite this being a slightly older book, with the copyright being dated as 1992, the decline in numbers still prevails today. The current population sees an increase, but the population is still classed as vulnerable due to the yearly fluctuations. As to how many barn owls there are in the UK at present? Nobody knows for sure. I'm avoiding the AI generated notes on Google which states there's around 12,000 to 14,000 pairs due to the general in accuracy of AI generated captions - it also strikes me as lazy to rely on such generated captions.
To date there’s only ever been one reliable UK Barn Owl population estimate carried out from 1995 to 1997 – almost 4,000 pairs (+/- 30%) (Toms et al. 2000). In the absence of a more recent national survey, the annual State of the UK Barn Owl Population reports available through the barn owl trust provide the most up to date overview. The 2024 breeding season saw 5,691 potential nest sites surveyed, and 1,789 of these sites held active barn owl nests. Nesting occupancy for 2024 was 39% above average according to the trust, which topped last year's numbers and matched those of 2022.
Barn owl breeding success can vary massively from year to year, depending on environmental conditions. Mild winters, for example, result in more birds surviving the winter, which obviously means the potential of more individuals being able to breed.
As stated, exact figures are generally unknown in regard to population size. But there is evidence that from the late eighteenth century that their numbers grew rapidly. This is no coincidence as around that time, a series of 'enclosures acts' forced landowners to mark and protect their fields. This introduces the hedgerow into the environment and gives rise to a now incredibly important new type of habitat. This habitat massively favoured the barn owl. The hedgerows and the rise of cereals being grown presented the barn owl with an abundance of food availability, thus boosting their numbers. This is an example of how humans shaping the landscape can benefit a species. It is sad to say that this age of plenty did not last long. The growth of the hunting estate and all the challenges this introduced. Large carnivores and all birds of prey were nearly eradicated, barn owls included. Humans continued to change the landscape through intensified farming techniques, which meant numbers continued to decline.
Barn owls also suffer terribly in the cold, with mortality rates being at their highest in the winter. The success of the owls seems intrinsically tied to that of rodent populations, their main food source. Less rodents mean less food. Less food means a diminished chance of survival, especially in winter when they need more food to stay warm due to their naturally high metabolic rate. Active Barn owls have low body fat reserves (generally around 5% of their overall body weight). Flying and hunting burns up energy very quickly, as does trying to stay warm. If an owl goes without food during this time, their fat reserves are used up, and the owl will die of starvation.
A lack of prey due to humans altering the landscapes has been a major factor in the barn owls success. Our devastation of hunting habitat, introduction of pesticides and rodenticides, and even our influence on the climate has presented the barn owls with an uphill battle like never before. It isn't all doom and gloom. As awareness campaigns highlight the plight these enigmatic and much-loved birds face, it has allowed people to make more informed and 'owl friendly' decisions. From not using rodenticides to putting up nest boxes in suitable habitats, there are many things that individuals and companies are doing to help prevent us from losing these birds from our native species list.
I encourage people to check out the barn owl trust for population reports and for ways you can help with monitoring the population.

Every year, the first Saturday in September is International Vulture Awareness Day (IVAD). A day dedicated to Vultures in all their glory!
Vultures are incredibly important animals - they're the unsung heroes that keep our natural world in balance. But they are, as a species, some of the most threatened species on our planet. 14 of the 23 species are sadly threatened with extinction as of September 2025, making them perhaps the most threatened bird groups on the planet.
These birds, as I have discussed previously, are keystone species that are intrinsically linked to our survival. Yet threats such as poisoning (accidental and deliberately), use in traditional medicine, poaching, habitat loss, and deaths due to man made changes such as via collisions with power lines and road traffic accidents

I absolutely adore vultures, I always have, and I get incredibly giddy when presented with the opportunity to see them. They are quirky and designed perfectly to fulfil their roles as nature's most effective clean-up crew. Sadly it's their looks that put many people off, that and their portrayals as villainous evil beings (pointing fingers at you there Disney with your 'Vile Vulture' portrayal in Snow white that seems to have left a lasting impression on many.....) that are harbingers of death.
Imagine having your entire species judged because of how you were dressed for work because, ridiculous as it may sound, that is exactly what is happening to vultures. The featherless heads, angular features, heavy hooked beaks, and sturdy clawed feet are deemed to make them ugly and undesirable. They are designed to fulfil a niche role, and that niche role is vital to maintaining sustainable and healthy ecosystems. Through them doing their job and 'just being themselves' ,efficiently consuming the carcasses of the deceased and other organic waste, vultures are attributed to preventing the spread of deadly diseases that would devastate wildlife, livestock, and humans.
Vultures benefit our world in so many ways, from economic benefits to potentially reducing carbon emissions. Without these incredibly unique animals existing, the consequences for our environment could be severe.
**Photos are my own, taken at the new Heart of Africa exhibit at Chester Zoo, apart from the last 3, which are taken in the aviary near the Asiatic lions.

Welfare practice evolution.

In this write-up, I intend to discuss how animal welfare has evolved over time. It's a subject that has been flitting about in my mind for some time and is often brought to the forefront by hearing conversations referring to the concept in some way. It's usually sparked by those who have a limited view or a 'rooted' opinion of the matter, as I'm often curious to understand how their views are formed.
(For context, when I say 'rooted,' I mean it to describe someone who is stuck on a particular view).
Now I'm a part of a few different social and professional circles, some overlap, others don't. For the most part, everyone is pretty open-minded on a variety of subjects. In regards to the animal side of things there are some who aren't actively in an animal related field who are fully aware of new changes etc, but they are always curious to hear about it and learn more - which is amazing as growth is incredibly important, especially in this modern world!
But there will always be those who seem to stay stuck. Hyper-focused on how things were, and, in some cases, sadly refusing to accept the change even if it's a positive one. That's just the way things are.
Change is scary, but it is inevitable.
The biggest changes (but also the ones that remain practically unknown to so many) are those that occur in the pursuit of betterment in regard to animal welfare. Our knowledge and understanding of how things work is forever growing and improving, and this is allowing us to adjust practice for the benefit of those we seek to care for. Through altering how we care for animals using our newly acquired knowledge, we are able to give them better, healthier, happier lives.
This development of our understanding and knowledge will also not stop - we will always be learning something new, and this knowledge will constantly allow us to act in ways that forge and shape better futures...... if we choose too.
Sometimes ego, ignorance, laziness, and perhaps even fear will hold us back and fail to allow growth. The concept of animal welfare hasn't been spared of this. There are sadly those that operate from a place of ego as opposed to putting the animals first. One such example of this is those of 'pseudo sanctuaries', think of the tiger king Netflix series, and you should graciously be able to smell the ego of particular individuals dripping through your speakers 😹
Zoo's, sanctuaries and aquariums are one of the most notable attractions that have seen the more noticed changes, particularly in the eyes of the general public (especially as they are changes that so many can easily reflect on and see). The changes are obviously well known to those within the industry. That's a given. But these places rely on the general public to remain operational, so their perception of such things matters a great deal. As such, it has to be some pretty big, noticeable changes in most cases for a perception to be changed as a whole.
This is not me in any way declaring that the general public is dumb, far from it, in fact! It's more so a notion to the rather awful starting points that such places evolved from..... let me explain.
When a 'zoo' first started becoming an attraction for the public to marvel at, there was practically no welfare safeguarding in place for the animals. There is no way that even I, as an avid supporter of zoos today, could condone such places back then. I have actually seen an original cage a few years ago that was on show in London. It was a literal iron barred cage, about 5 feet tall and 2X2ft wide/deep. Iron grate for the bottom. This was an original bear cage for the menagerie at the tower of London. The animal inside had no way of moving and was subjected to a very short life in total ridged confinement. It was a heartbreaking sight, if I'm honest, but the point of it being shown was a comparison to highlight how advanced modern zoos have become. It was, in my opinion, a fantastic way to show how far things had come because you could physically see the difference right there in front of you.
Not every zoo is going to get it perfect every time, but most give 100% and learn from the errors should they make them. I am aware that in other countries the welfare practices can be very different (and I sadly find that it's the ones with subpar standards that seem to be used as an example of how they're all still terrible), so for ease of understanding I'd like to clarify that my writing is focusing on standards in the UK. I am very hard pushed to find a zoo in the UK nowadays that isn't working on growth and improving constantly. Even some of the zoos that weren't that great when I was a child rapidly transformed and became incredible vessels of hope for species preservation. The days of small, unnatural cages are, thankfully, a thing of the past here. I think (but I'm happy to be corrected) that it was Gerald Durrell that began the move to making replicas of the animals natural environments in captivity and giving them top quality care - basically breaking the mould of existing systems at the time. Or he was one of the first to do it anyway 😅 I thoroughly recommend reading his book 'A zoo in my luggage' for tales on that subject 😀
Legal framework ensures and enforces this, of course! But nowadays, zoos act as conservation hubs to help save species - through research and study, captive breeding, and release into the wild when possible. They are contrastingly different places compared to when they first started; visually, ethically, and operationally.
The way we care for our pets has changed over time. For example, our understanding of stressors has allowed us to understand how certain things affect our animals and allow us to adjust and act accordingly. Things like nutrition too have been studied far more and this has led to an ease in availability of better quality foods. I'm thankful that our new understanding of things has allowed us to move on from some of the rather awful practices that were considered 'the norm' for so long. This has allowed us to have a more positive experience (in most cases) with the animals we share our lives with.
At the end of the day, things have changed to help us improve how we care for animals. And it will continue to do so. Every day is a school day, and it's natural that our understanding of things continually improves, allowing us to act better for those around us.

Hi there!
I am in the process of doing research that aims to investigate an issue I have seen numerous times over the last few years amongst captive bred barn owls, that being cases of 'sudden and unexplained deaths'.
(I would also like to state that I do not wish to cause any unnecessary panic or worry amongst readers. I do not believe it is a common occurrence, but one that does require research into such cases. Such cases I am looking into are the bird being young, no older than 8, that has suddenly died with no prior signs of ill health, and no indication as to why, etc)
As such, I am now asking if people with information of such occurrences would be willing to help with providing information that will be used to help to determine why such occurrences happen.
Any willing participants would be provided with an information brief about the study, sign a disclaimer if they would like to participate, and asked to either fill out a questionnaire or provide me with as much relevant information as possible.
I am following guidance given to me by numerous organisations and ethics committees, as well as the GDPR guidelines, on how to conduct the research, use of data, etc.
All participants will also be kept completely anonymous.
The finished research will be published in the IBIS (International Journal of Avian Science), but participants will be given a copy of the study for free.
Anyone who would be interested in taking part, or if you would like more information, please email: [email protected]
Thank you!

Pet stores: points to consider from an ex worker

By now, if you are a regular reader, you would have probably established that i have worked in many animal related environments. Some were good, fantastic, in fact! But some really were not. In this write-up, I will discuss some of the realities of working in a pet store.....
As a child, i dreamed of helping animals. This naturally pointed towards becoming a vet because, as a child (with no real understanding of such fields at this point), a veterinarian was the top tier when thinking about saving and helping animals. Fast forward a few years, and my last year in high school saw me get my first pet shop job to see me through what I *thought* was going to be a college course in animal management.
**DISCLAIMER**
(I will not be posting names of extinction colleagues or names of establishments i worked in for privacy reasons. I worked in 2 different stores, and both were incredibly different in every aspect. One was well run, with animal welfare being a pivotal point to uphold. The other was not and was very shortlived as a place of employment due to the lack of care or welfare. This post is not meant to bash pet stores either, but rather highlight the realities of these establishments)

First and foremost, a pet store is a store/business at the end of the day, and this means that if they sell livestock, then they too are classed as 'stock'. For the most part, any respectable store would want to sell good quality stock, and to ensure they can attain this, any stores selling live animals will have strict protocols in place. This protocol, however, doesn't ensure everything will be sunshine and roses. Your livestock being in good health is the key to a sale. When new animals come into the store, they have to be quarantined. This basically too determine the health of the animals before they can be offered up for sale. In my personal experience, this also allows staff to assess an animals temperament and take action to help socialise and desensitise them before sale is considered (this, for me, was especially true for hamsters *shudders*). I have lost count of the amount of animals I took home to socialise them and they went on to be sold with no problem 😊 The first job I had before opening the store to the public was to do 'livestock checks'. Not just the feeding/watering and spot checking bedding, I also mean removing any deceased animals or moving any that didn't look 100% off show (back to quarantine). Where there is livestock, there is also dead stock, and I learned the hard way that many animals sourced by pet stores do just 'drop off'. This can be put down to many factors, but when I worked in stores, the majority of companion animals were sourced from almost warehouse like supply chains that were mass breeding farms to meet demand. Overbreeding, poor genetics, and stress being the most common reasons for suddenly dropping off. Thankfully, now in the UK, this has changed, with stricter regulations put on breeding animals. But there are still some of the suppliers that I have had stores source from still in operation, so even though there may not be as many animals being bred from repeatedly and welfare regulations being stricter, I would still hesitate a guess that in regards to stress factors the animals could still behave in the same way. When I worked in stores back then many animals would be sold to stores from suppliers as young as possible, sometimes right after they finished being weaned, as this is when they are considered as being most sellable due to the cuteness factor. UK laws now state that animals can be sold in a bid to improve on welfare. Referring back to quarantine procedures , most stores have a minimum of a week for quarantine in my experience. When I mentioned stress before as a reason for animals suddenly and inexplicably dropping off the stress of moving from mothers to being in transit is a lot for some animals to take, and they can take a while to recover from that. The rodents seem to have an alarmingly high tendency for cannibalism when bred under these conditions, so it was not unusual to receive a shipment of animals and find many half eaten bodies in there as well. Rodents that were sourced from local, hobby breeders, however, never suffered that problem in my own experience, which is why one establishment i worked in favoured such animals as stock because everything about them was better. Fish, however, have the highest mortality, and from accounts I've been researching into to write this blog, it is still true to this day. I feel that the complexity of fish keeping is vastly understated in the majority of generalised pet stores (the stores dedicated purely to fish keeping though are far more knowledgeable on this and as such you get better animals and advice from these places).
Everything i have just explained makes them sound like terrible places, but the vast majority really aren't! There will always be some places within any industry that just aren't great, and it is therefore generally up to the customer/consumer to do their own research to learn how to identify what a healthy specimen should look/behave/smell like to ensure they are selecting animals in good health. And be sure to ask plenty of questions! Provided the staff aren't actually rushed off of their feet, of course 😅
Another thing that relies on you doing your own research is in regards to some of the edible products that are available to purchase. In this department, it can be VERY easy to fall victim to what is essentially a marketing scheme, because you would assume that surely if something is being marketed for pets, then it has to be OK, right? Unfortunately, this isn't exactly the case all the time. In regards to food and treats, you would hope that everything is 100% safe, but there have been amounting cases of treats being found out to be totally unsuitable for pet consumption. The most commonly cited example of this in the UK is rawhide products. These products are sold cheaply and are said to be 'great, long lasting chews for your pets to enjoy'. Rawhide, however, has been proven to cause multiple health issues in dogs, but it more commonly causes intestinal blockages and ruptures requiring costly emergency surgeries to correct. Thankfully it seems many places are moving away from stocking rawhide products and, in my experience, I only see 'bargain' outlets (such as B&M, home bargains, etc) selling it here in the UK. While there is some quality assurance on the treats and chews that stock the shelves, there have been cases where production has changed ingredients to save on costs and those ingredients are not in any way suitable for pets to consume. This leads me to my next point - many of the top brands you see adorning shelves en masse are not as great as they make out to be.
When i worked in one of the pet stores, I was given the opportunity to attend a canine nutrition course run by the pet food brand Royal Canin. The course was insightful, to say the least, but you know the phrase "ignorance is bliss"? Yeah, well, it turns out wanting to be more knowledgeable so I could be better at my job came with a dose of becoming disheartened. The reason? Putting it bluntly, the majority of the readily available pet food that this well-known companies are producing is straight-up crap. At the time of me writing this (the year is 2025), it would have been 16 years since I attended this course, and not a lot has changed. But! There are now more companies out there now that are producing more quality, species appropriate food, so I guess that that is a positive on that note. The downside to this positive is that it sadly costs more. Better quality ingredients mean a higher cost, which is ultimately why these big brands produce foods that are cheap - the ingredients are lower quality, and therefore cheaper, meaning profit is forever climbing.
Believe it or not, most of the brands available to buy in the UK in their vast quantities and ranges are actually owned by some of the biggest companies in the world. These are: Mars Inc., Nestlé, and Colgate palmolive. Procter and Gamble used to be one of the big multinational companies to make pet foods, namely the Iams, Eukanuba, and Natura brands. But it has since divested its pet food business to Mars Inc.
In the UK in 2024, Mars Petcare UK reportedly generated £601.6 million, while Nestle UK Ltd had a revenue of £434.4 million. American figures do vary greatly, but they highlight the fact that pet food is big business. Now you would think with all that revenue that it would contain decent ingredients. Yet sadly, the majority of the ingredients in their kibble is classed as 'filler' - think unnecessary wheats and unspecified byproducts - that makes production cheaper and more profitable
Because pets are big business and are clearly worth millions, and with the market being dominated by these big 3, there's a lot of competitive marketing. Yes, a strategic marketing team is employed to provide the writing and packaging design to make it sellable - think bright colours, a well placed cheery image, and carefully curated words and phrases, such as: 'carefully chosen, high quality ingredients ' (which if my art degree taught me anything, it's that the wording really mirrors the marketing teams tactics to a tee - carefully chosen, high quality ingredients in the form of buzzwords and feel good imagery). My recommendation? Instead of falling for the marketing teams to feel good packaging, the first port of call when selecting food for your pets should be to look at the ingredients. If the first ingredients listed (which are the most populous ones in the recipe) are items like corn/corn meal, wheats/cereals, 'meals', and animal products of an unspecified origin or quantity (for example: beef meals), then you are looking at a cheap filler based meal which is not tailored to the needs of the animal it is intended to feed. Instead, look for whole ingredients - fresh or dried meats (fresh chicken, dehydrated turkey, raw herring, etc), whole vegetables, chicken fat in lower quantities, etc. I love the Eden and Orjen brands as the ingredients are fantastic in their foods. The ingredients listed in their foods are a good example of what good food composition should look like.
Another note on determining decent brands - just because it says vet recommended or prescription diet on the packaging, or if a vet stocks/prescribes, it does not mean it is decent quality food. Hills' science plan is a perfect example of this. These prescription diets are so so bland (and I have included a couple in my screenshots of ingredients to prove a point) and have very little inquisitive terms of decent protein in that they are not great long term. As a short-term recovery diet, they *can* help, but the way people buy this food long term because of the marketing is scary. Hills (especially true in the USA) have a large budget to spend on 'beneficial ' contracts with veterinary practices and big pet stores. Their ingredients are quite literally nothing but cheap filler, and in all honesty, it would probably be better off suited for feeding poultry than a dog. But because of their mass availability and the use of the word 'prescription' and 'vet approved' on the packaging, it further elaborates the illusion of good quality. As i said, the diet may help an individual when fed it, and I'm not suggesting in any way it doesn't, but the quality of the recipe and ingredients is far from great despite its extensive marketing.
Again, it's not just the food and treats that aren't 100% safe for your pets, and this is especially true with the expansion of pet suppliers being widely available to the public online like never before. The toys can be a bit off in their materials composition, too. It is so easy to get carried away and buy the brightest ,most gaudy toy available, but these may not be suitable for your pets to play with. Rope toys are the worst to me, as in when dog and bird toys are made of cheap rope (especially the tug-o-war style toys for dogs). It frays far too quickly and easily during play and risks, causing major blockages in the digestive tract.
Many bird toys are also, in my opinion, made of materials that are not suitable for the animals they are intended to be used by. A glaring example of this is parrot toys being made out of thin plastics and metals. A parrots (even parakeets) beaks are very strong, and they shred things so easily, and the types of materials I've mentioned become sharp when broken during play, which of course can cause multiple injuries. As I've mentioned earlier, being able to shop online also means we have access to cheaper toys we consider bargains. The likes of retailers like shein and temu offer very cheap toys that are made of materials you shouldn't let your pet chew (several plush toy items have been found to test positive for chemicals like formaldehyde) and do not have the durability that other, more trusted brands do. Saying this, I would recommend that whenever shopping for potential items online, a good thing to do is check the reviews. Scour other user reviews to see if any issues with the product crop up. If they do, you can obviously steer clear and find something better rated instead. This isn't to say "don't ever buy instore", but the ease of availability even when out and about to gain access to the Internet makes it possible to research the product there and then if you are in doubt about something.
Now pet shops are, as i said, amazing for the most part. And in my honest opinion working in a well managed one is incredibly rewarding and actually really fun! But there is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes, and the reality of it can be quite shocking for some. I wouldn't say they are particularly unethical places as a whole, and working in a small family run one that prioritised welfare (some things that were different for example was choosing local hobbyist breeders over the mass bred suppliers, and stocking majority higher quality brand foods etc over the cheaper ones) can allow me to formulate that kind of opinion. At the end of the day though it is a business and they need to make sales (just like the suppliers) to stay open and afloat, which is why so many will have a wide variety of selections so that they can cater to all budgets.
As always, the decision should always be made by the customer, and that is why it is essential and the responsibility of the customer to do their research so they can make the best decisions for their pets.