Quoted by T. Quick, 'Puppy Love: Domestic Science, “Women's Work,” and Canine Care,' Journal of British Studies 58 (2) (2019), pp. 289-314.
Description:

'The proliferation of Lactol and similar foods contributed to a more general reconceptualization of dog feeding as a scientific endeavor. Ads for Spratt’s MaltMilk, Vigor, and MartinMilk all emphasized their chemical nutritional credentials... Such rhetoric spilledover into the dog advice literature of the period. Mrs. Leslie Williams, a toy dog breeder whose treatise on puppy rearing carried advertisements for Lactol on its end pages, bemoaned the practice of underfeeding mother bitches and puppies (“infants”) in an effort to minimize their adult size. Williams noted that the only results of such practices were to increase the prevalence of rickets andother ailments. [note: 'Mrs. Leslie Williams, The Puppy Manual: A Guide to Rearing Puppies from Birth to Maturity, 3rd ed. (London, 1913), 11–12.']' (297)

'Increasingly prevalent portrayals of occupations such as teaching, nursing, and cooking as appropriately “womanly” helped constitute new forms of connection between science, medicine and domesticity... These connections in turn contributed to the enrolment of dogs within veterinary, generative, and nutritional scientific ideals. While Williams’s above-mentioned treatise contrasted the “sour tempers” and “dirty habits” of puppies bred in kennels with the mannered bearing of puppies lucky enough to have “clever house dogs” (tutored by women) as parents, it also condemned the “old-fashioned plan of rearing” in which owners and breeders forced puppies onto a “sloppy foods” diet of “bread and milk, milk puddings, porridge and so on.” Such a regime, Williams claimed, would result in anemia, worm infestation and, ultimately, loss of life. “Rational diet,” on the other hand, helped build “firm tissues” and warded off illness. [note: 'Williams, Puppy Manual, 4, 19–20.']' (300)

'Food and feeding enjoyed a prominent place in the professional lives of canine nurses... Nurses managed feeding regimes during whelping, when dogs fell ill, and when dogs (such as was often the case with toys) were found to be constitutionally unsuited to conventional feeding regimes. How to Save Our Dogs recommended “fortifying” products such as Bovril and Benger’s (human) milk food for dogs afflicted with distemper, “Parish’s Chemical Food” as a treatment of rickets, and Lactol, administered with Mayhew’s adapted feeding bottle, for hand-rearing. An advertisement for Sherley & Co.’s product appeared at the back of the volume. [note: 'Collins and Campbell, How to Save Our Dogs, 11, 16, 24, 77, inside back cover. Similar advice andadvertising appeared in Williams’s Puppy Manual, 14, 17, 50, 52, inside back cover. On late nineteenth-century medicinal foods, see Lisa Haushofer, “Between Food and Medicine: Artificial Digestion, Sickness,and the Case of Benger’s Food,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 73, no. 2 (April 2018):168–87.]' (303)

'for many women breeders and owners, general house staff were not to be relied upon for such tasks [as cleaning kennels]. Williams contended that “although servants may very well do the cleaning under one’s own direction … they are … generally quite unreliable.” [note: 'Williams, The Puppy Manual, 16.']' (305-306)