Demographic survey of veterinarians employed in western Canada

Abstract

The objective of this study was to generate demographic data on veterinarians working in western Canada. A sample of 551 veterinarians was randomly selected from a population of 2474 veterinarians employed in western Canada, 425 (77.1%) of whom responded to the survey. The respondents were evenly split between males (53.1%) and females (46.9%). More than half (58.0%) of the private practitioners practised exclusively on companion animals (small animals and horses), while 2.9% devoted 100% of their time to food animals. There were 351 respondents who had had ≥ 2 employers since graduation; 80% of those who had begun their careers in companion animal (CA) practice had remained in this type of practice, while 54.3% of those who had begun their careers in mixed animal practice had switched to CA practice. Analyses of wage and workload data from 85 full-time veterinary employees showed that CA practitioners worked the fewest hours/week (47.0), had the least number of evenings on-call/month (3.7), and earned the highest hourly wage ($35.79) as compared with non-CA practitioners.

Introduction

There is a paucity of peer-reviewed reports relating to the demographics of the Canadian veterinary profession and none that are specific to the profession in western Canada. One of the first Canada-wide demographic studies, published in 1961, reported that there were 2266 registered veterinarians in Canada, equating to ~12.5 veterinarians/100 000 Canadians (1,2). Of these, 37.9% (859) were “general practitioners,” 9.8% (222) were small animal (SA) practitioners, 30.0% (688) were public service veterinarians employed by the federal and provincial governments, and 21.9% (497) were involved in academia, research, specialized practice, industry, or were listed as unclassified or inactive. Approximately 15 y later, Nielsen et al (3) reported that there were ~3000 veterinarians employed in Canada, or ~13.1 veterinarians/100 000 Canadians. Their report provided a breakdown of the time that veterinarians devoted to each segment of the profession: rural practice 32.2%, urban practice 31.4%, public service 26.8%, and “other” 9.6%. The veterinary profession was now dividing its time equally among urban practice, rural practice, and the public service. More recently, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) reported that there were 11 200 licensed veterinarians in Canada, or ~34.0 veterinarians/100 000 people (4,5). No data were provided on individual practitioners, but the report stated that of the 2865 veterinary clinics in Canada, 58.9% were classified as companion animal, 29.4% as mixed animal, and 11.7% as “large” animal practices. If this breakdown of clinics is a reliable surrogate indicator of the structure of the veterinary profession, the majority of private practitioners are now involved in companion animal practice.

Based on this information, the population of veterinarians has been increasing at a faster rate than has the population of Canada. And, within the private practice sector, companion animal practice is emerging as the principal practice type. This latter trend is not unique to the Canadian veterinary profession, both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) report that ≥ 60% of their practitioners are small animal (SA) practitioners, while 10% to 15% service the food animal industry (6,7).

The purpose of the study was twofold: 1) to describe the demographics, as well as some of the educational and employment characteristics, of veterinarians employed in western Canada, and 2) to identify factors associated with veterinarians’ career path choices. This report addresses the 1st objective, while a follow-up article will address the 2nd objective.

Materials and methods

Survey design

The Delphi survey technique (8,9) was used in the development of the survey. Details of the survey design have been described previously (10). The survey is available for online viewing (11).

Survey instrument

The survey consisted of 58 questions, grouped into 4 sections. Section 1, “Background information,” obtained data from early in the veterinarian’s childhood to the time of entry into veterinary college. Veterinarians were asked about their province of origin; whether they had an urban or rural background (upbringing); the population of the center (community) that they were raised in or nearest to; their involvement in 4-H (clubs that foster the development of agricultural skills); their prior education and academic degrees obtained; and whether they had a close friend or relative who was a veterinarian. Section 2, “Employment history,” required respondents to complete a table relating to past and current positions of employment. Specifically, they were asked to provide the percentage of time they devoted to each species, their employment status (casual, part-time, or full-time), and whether they were an employee or a practice owner (partner or sole owner). Data on annual earnings (wages, bonuses, and dividends) and employee benefits were also obtained. Section 3, “Factors influencing career paths in veterinary medicine,” began with a series of questions on how the respondent’s career path had evolved from the time of her or his preveterinary program to the present. Respondents were also asked about their summer work and educational experiences (veterinary college) and how these experiences influenced their choice of a career. This section included questions on job satisfaction and factors that influenced their career path choices. Section 4, “Demographics,” obtained data on the respondent’s age, gender, marital status, the number and ages of their children, and their parents’ level of education.

Sampling procedure

The target population was veterinarians employed in western Canada. The sampling frame was generated from the veterinary directories of the 4 western provincial veterinary medical associations: British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association (BCVMA), Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association (SVMA), and the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA). The SVMA and AVMA directories included the 2005 graduates, while the BCVMA and MVMA directories were current to 2004. Out-of-province veterinarians were excluded from the sampling frame, as were social members, retired members, and veterinarians who were not associated with a specific employer (locum tenens). No effort was made to contact veterinarians who were working in a veterinary-related industry (agriculture), but who were no longer registered with a provincial veterinary association.

The sample size was based on the authors’ previous demographic research and on the assumption of a 50% response rate. The sample was generated by a systematic random sampling procedure that selected approximately every 5th veterinarian from the sampling frame. Because the Western College of Veterinary Medicine (WCVM) contributes an inordinately high proportion of academic and educational (interns, residents, and graduate students) members to the SVMA directory, 53 WCVM-based veterinarians, having either an academic or educational license, were excluded from the sampling frame.

Survey administration

The survey was administered by a company specializing in the survey design and administration (Insightrix, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan). Repeated attempts were made to interview all respondents by telephone. Those that could not be reached by phone were sent either a fax or an e-mail directing them to complete the survey on-line. Once the initial wave of respondents tailed-off, a 2nd fax/e-mail was sent to the nonresponders. For the 3rd reminder, nonresponders were mailed a copy of the survey along with instructions urging them to complete the survey by telephone, on-line, or by mail. All the data were collected from June–September, 2006.

Statistical analyses

Private practitioners were categorized by practice type according to the percentage of time they spent on each species. Veterinarians involved exclusively (100%) in SA and/or equine practice were classified as CA practitioners; veterinarians who spent 1% to 50% of their time on food animals were categorized as mixed animal (MA) practitioners; and those who spent > 50% of their time on food animals (beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, and poultry) were classified as predominantly food animal (FA) practitioners.

Respondents who were raised on a farm or acreage were collectively categorized as having a rural upbringing, whereas those from a town/city were labeled as having an urban upbringing. The sizes of centers in which they were raised or were nearest to (those raised on a farm/acreage) were as follows: < 5000, 5001–10 000, 10 001–50 000, 50 001–100 000, and > 100 000. Small centers were defined as centers having a population of ≤ 50 000, while large centers had a population of > 50 000 people.

Respondents reported their annual earnings by selecting from 11 earnings brackets ranging from < $50 000 to > $150 000/y. All brackets increased in increments of $10 000/y, except for the lowest bracket (< $50 000/y), the penultimate bracket ($130 000–$149 999/y), and the highest bracket (> $150 000/y). Midpoint values were calculated for each bracket, while the lowest, penultimate, and highest ranges were converted to $25000/y, $140 000/y, and $170 000/y, respectively. Only the annual salary and hourly wage data for veterinarians employed full-time in private practice were analyzed. To control for age as a confounding factor, the annual salary and hourly wage data were adjusted (standardized) to 35 y of age by using the following formula: Adjusted salary = reported salary + (age difference) × (constant); where age difference = (35 - reported age) and the constant was the regression coefficient for age from the linear regression of age on salary. Adjusted mean hourly wage rates were calculated by dividing the respondents’ adjusted annual salaries by 48 wk (allowing 4 wk for holidays and vacation time) and by the mean number of hours worked/wk.

The standardization procedure and all analyses were done by using statistical software (SPSS, Version 14; Chicago, Illinois, USA; Statistix, Version 8.1; Tallahasee, Florida, USA). A combination of descriptive and analytical statistics were used to assess the data at a significance level of P < 0.05 (two-tailed). Student’s t-test was used to analyze the salary data by gender. Unweighted least squares regression was used to analyze salary by age, gender, and province of work; dummy variables were created for the provinces. Annual salary and hourly wage data were analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with a Scheffé post-hoc pairwise comparison test; if variances were unequal (Bartlett’s Test of Equal Variances), the Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric analysis of variance was used.

Results

Sample profile and background data

The sample consisted of 551 veterinarians chosen from a sampling frame of 2474, yielding a sampling fraction of 22.3%. The overall response rate was 77.1% (425/551), 299 (70.4%) of which completed the survey on-line and 126 (29.6%) by telephone. The numbers (percent) of respondents by province were: British Columbia (BC) 160 (69.2%), Alberta (AB) 152 (82.6%), SK 68 (93.2%), and Manitoba (MB) 45 (70.3%).

Table 1 shows the breakdown of the sampling frame, which is essentially the veterinary profession in western Canada, by year of graduation. The profile of the sample is very similar to that of the sampling frame, which is also similar to the profile of those who responded to the survey (“respondents”).

Table 1.

Stratification of the sampling frame, sample, and respondents by year of graduation. The columns show both the absolute number and percentage of veterinarians in each 5-year graduation interval (cohort)

	Sampling framea		Sample		Respondentsb
Year of graduation	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
1951–1955	6	0.2	2	0.4	1	0.2
1956–1960	9	0.4	2	0.4	2	0.5
1961–1965	36	1.5	15	2.7	10	2.4
1966–1970	99	4.0	16	2.9	14	3.3
1971–1975	221	9.0	43	7.8	37	8.7
1976–1980	290	11.8	76	13.8	54	12.7
1981–1985	328	13.4	74	13.4	61	14.4
1986–1990	376	15.3	81	14.7	55	12.9
1991–1995	402	16.4	87	15.8	66	15.5
1995–2000	379	15.4	87	15.8	72	16.9
2001–2005	308	12.6	68	12.3	53	12.5
Totals	2474	100.0	551	100.0	425	100.0

^aThese data were derived from the provincial veterinary directories.

^bThese data were collected from the survey.

Most (70.6%) of the respondents were raised in western Canada, 14.3% came from other regions of Canada, 3.5% were raised in the USA, and 11.5% were raised outside North America. Approximately a 3rd (31.3%) of the respondents were raised on a farm, 11.8% on an acreage, and 56.9% in a town/ city. Of the 130 respondents who provided data on their farm background, 3.8% (n = 5) came from a grain operation, 23.8% (n = 31) from a livestock operation, and 72.3% (n = 94) from a mixed operation. Figure 1 shows the size of the centers that the respondents were raised in or nearest to, versus their current place of employment.

Figure 1.

Breakdown of respondents (%) by the size of the center in which they were raised in or nearest to, versus where they are currently employed (n = 425).

Figure 2 is a population pyramid showing the gender and age profile of the respondents. Respondents were nearly evenly split between males (53.1%) and females (46.9%). The mean age of the males (49.4 y) was greater than that of the females (40.7 y) (P = 0.01).

Figure 2.

Population pyramid showing the age profile of all the respondents by gender (n = 424). The number of respondents per age strata are shown on the x-axis and the age ranges are provided on the central y-axis.

Veterinary education

Two-thirds (68%) of the respondents graduated from the WCVM, 15.5% from the Ontario Veterinary College, 2.6% from the Atlantic Veterinary College, 0.5% from Faculté de médecine vétérinaire (University of Montreal), and 13.4% from “other” colleges; “other” included veterinarians from > 30 other colleges. The average respondent had spent 3.5 y in a preveterinary program. Forty percent of those who graduated prior to 1970 had obtained an academic degree/diploma prior to entering veterinary college compared with 64% of those who graduated in the last 5 y. The mean (median) educational debt for the most recent cohort of graduates was $51 774 ($50 000).

Employment demographics

Of the 425 respondents, 347 (81.6%) were private practitioners, 32 (7.5%) public service veterinarians, 15 (3.5%) academics, 17 (4.0%) “other,” and 14 (3.3%) did not complete this question. Three-hundred and forty-five of the 347 private practitioners provided data on the percentage of time they devoted to each species. By using the previously described methodology for categorizing veterinarians by practice type, the breakdown of private practitioners was as follows: 200 (58.0%) CA, 81 (23.5%) MA, and 64 (18.5%) FA. Further analyses showed that 2.9% (n = 10) of practitioners devoted 100% of their time to FA practice, while 58.0% were exclusively CA practitioners. Of the CA practitioners, 82.0% (n = 164) devoted 100% of their time to SA practice, 5.5% (n = 11) devoted 100% of their time to horses, and 12.5% (n = 25) divided their time between the two. Within the MA category, 43.2% (n = 35) devoted ≤ 10% of their time to food animals.

Of the 345 private practitioners, 180 (52.2%) were males and 165 (47.8%) were females. Analysis by gender and practice type showed that 67.9% (n = 112) of females versus 48.9% (n = 88) of males were engaged in CA practice (crude OR = 2.2; CI = 1.4–3.4; P < 0.0001), whereas 29.4% (n = 53) of males and 6.7% (n = 11) of females were involved in FA practice (crude OR = 5.8; CI = 2.9–11.7; P < 0.0001). There was no difference (P = 0.48) in the percentage of females and males involved in MA practice.

Table 2 shows the breakdown of the respondents by gender, employment type, ownership status, and employment status (full-time, part-time, casual, maternity/paternity leave). Females and CA practitioners were less likely than their counterparts to have been working on a full-time basis, while males, FA practitioners, and sole practice owners were the groups most likely to be working on a full-time basis. Regarding practice ownership, 80.5% of males versus 44.9% of females were practice owners (partners or sole owners), as opposed to employees.

Table 2.

Cross-tabulation of respondents (%) by employment status (full-time, part-time, casual, and maternity/paternity leave) and gender, employment type, and ownership status (employee, partner, or sole owner). Full-time veterinarians worked > 35 h/wk, part-time veterinarians worked ≤ 35 h/wk, and a casual veterinarian worked irregular hours or on a seasonal basis

	Full-time (n = 319)	Part-time (n = 72)	Casual (n = 12)	Mat/Pat (n = 8)
Gender (n = 411)
Males (n = 218)	89.0	6.4	4.6	0
Females (n = 193)	64.8	30.1	1.0	4.1
Weighted mean	77.6	17.5	2.9	1.9
Employment type (n = 402)
CA (n = 195)	71.3	24.1	3.1	1.5
MA (n = 81)	80.2	12.3	2.5	4.9
FA (n = 64)	86.5	6.3	4.7	1.6
Academia (n = 15)	86.7	13.3	0	0
Government (n = 32)	81.3	15.6	3.1	0
Other (n = 15)	86.7	13.3	0	0
Weighted mean	77.6	17.4	3.0	2.0
Practice ownership status (n = 342)
Employee (n = 127)	66.9	24.4	3.9	4.7
Partner (n = 86)	75.6	22.1	2.3	0.0
Sole owner (n = 129)	86.8	8.5	3.1	1.6
Weighted mean	76.6	17.8	3.2	2.3

CA = Companion animal practice.

MA = Mixed animal practice.

FA = Food animal practice.

Mat/Pat = Maternity/paternity leave.

Table 3 is a categorization of the respondents by year of graduation and current career (type of employment). Respondents in the 1951–1960 and 1961–1970 cohorts were collapsed into a single group (1951–1970). The most recent graduating cohort (2001–2005) had the highest percentage of respondents engaged in MA and FA practice. Note: the 2001–2005 cohort only covers a 5 y interval, as opposed to 10 y for the others, and that the BCVMA and MVMA directories were only current to 2004.

Table 3.

Cross-tabulation (%) of respondents by year of graduation and current career (job) (n = 409)

	Current career
	CA	MA	FA	Acad	Gov	Other	Total
1951–1970 (n = 26)	23.1	26.9	23.1	0	15.4	11.5	100
1971–1980 (n = 89)	44.9	14.6	15.7	3.4	15.7	5.6	100
1981–1990 (n = 114)	58.8	11.4	14.9	4.4	7.9	2.6	100
1991–2000 (n = 129)	52.7	21.7	12.4	4.7	3.9	4.7	100
2001–2005 (n = 51)	37.3	39.2	21.6	2.0	0	0	100

CA = Companion animal practice.

MA = Mixed animal practice.

FA = Food animal practice.

Acad = Academia.

Gov = Provincial and federal government veterinarians.

Four-hundred and nine (409) respondents provided data on their employment history, 58 of which had remained with their same employer since the time of graduation. Of these, 55 provided data on their current career path: 20 were CA practitioners, 17 MA practitioners, 16 FA practitioners, 1 was in academia, and 1 was employed by the government. Half (48.2%) of the 58 respondents who had the same employer had graduated within the last 5 y.

Table 4 shows the career path switching among the respondents who had ≥ 2 employers since graduation. Most (80.0%) of those who had begun their careers in CA practice had remained in this type of practice (career path). Of those who had begun their careers in MA practice, 54.3% were now in CA practice and 11.1% were in FA practice. For those who had begun their careers in FA practice, 24.4% had switched to MA practice and 19.3% were now in CA practice. The greatest proportion of veterinarians who switched to a career in government came from the ranks of the FA practitioners.

Table 4.

Summary of the career paths of 351 respondents who had ≥ 2 employers since the time of graduation. “Initial career” is the respondents’ 1st type of employment postgraduation. “Current career” is the number (percentage) of those who remained in their initial career (bold) versus having switched to another type of employment

	Current career
Initial career	CA	MA	FA	Acad	Gov	Other
CA (n = 120)	96 (80.0)	5 (4.2)	2 (1.7)	6 (5.0)	9 (7.5)	2 (1.7)
MA (n = 81)	44 (54.3)	22 (27.2)	9 (11.1)	1 (1.2)	3 (3.7)	2 (2.5)
FA (n = 119)	23 (19.3)	29 (24.4)	37 (31.1)	5 (4.2)	17 (14.3)	8 (6.7)
Academia (n = 18)	12 (66.7)	4 (22.2)	1 (5.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 5.6
Government (n = 8)	3 (37.5)	2 (25.0)	1 (12.5)	1 (12.5)	1 (12.5)	0 (0.0)
Other (n = 5)	2 (40.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (60.0)

CA = Companion animal practice.

MA = Mixed animal practice.

FA = Food animal practice.

Acad = Academia.

Gov = Provincial and federal government veterinarians.

Hours of work and remuneration

Of the 262 private practitioners who were working on a full-time basis, 32.4% (n = 85) were employees, 24.8% (n = 65) were partners, and 42.7% (n = 112) were sole owners. Nearly a third (29.7%) of practice owners reported annual earnings of > $150 000/y and 5.2% earned < $50 000/y. The owners’ salary data were not analyzed because nearly a third of the data were censored (exceeded the scale). In contrast, the majority of the full-time employees’ annual earnings were within the earnings brackets and hence further analyses were performed.

There were 85 full-time veterinary employees (46 CA, 25 MA, and 14 FA practitioners), but not every respondent provided data for every question. Employees’ annual earnings ranged from $25 000 to $125 000/y; there were 2 respondents in the $25 000 salary bracket. None of the full-time employees’ earned > $130 000/y and ~70% earned < $80 000/y. Male employees were older than their female counterparts, 38.5 y and 34.4 y, respectively (P = 0.02), and there was a trend (P = 0.07) for average age to differ by practice type: CA 46.2 y, MA 33.7 y, and FA 49.3 y. To control for the potential confounding effect of age, the annual salary and hourly wage data were standardized prior to analysis using the previously described equation: Adjusted salary = reported salary + (age difference) × (constant). [The constant ($689.31/y) was derived from a linear regression of salary by age].

There was no significant difference (P = 0.36) in the means of the age adjusted annual salaries of the male ($78 897) and female employees ($74 667), nor was there a significant difference (P = 0.95) in the means of the adjusted hourly wages of the male ($32.41) and female ($32.55) employees. Table 5 shows the adjusted annual salaries and hourly wages by practice type, province of employment, and size of center where employed.

Table 5.

Summary of the number of hours worked/week, number of evenings on-call/ month, adjusted annual salaries, and adjusted hourly wage rates for 85 full-time veterinary employees by practice type, Province of employment, and size of center where employed

	CA	MA		FA
Number of hours worked/wk	47.0a	53.1ab		59.8b
Number of evenings on-call/mo	3.7a	9.2b		10.4b
Mean annual earnings ($)	78 007	74 144		73 144
Mean hourly wage ($)	35.79a	29.85ab		26.2b
	Province of employment
	BC	AB	SK	MB
Number of hours worked/week	46.4	51.5	52.2	51.9
Number of evenings on-call/month	3.7a	6.4ab	9.5b	7.0b
Mean annual earnings ($)	80 227	79 577	65 589	69 877
Mean hourly wage ($)	35.61	34.00	26.83	29.04
	Size of center where employed
	Small (≤ 50 000)	Large (> 50 000)		P-value
Number of hours worked/week	54.7	47.7		P = 0.01
Number of evenings on-call/month	9.3	4.0		P < 0.001
Mean annual earnings ($)	71 216	80 143		P = 0.02
Mean hourly wage ($)	28.17	36.16		P < 0.001

CA = Companion animal practice.

MA = Mixed animal practice.

FA = Food animal practice.

BC = British Columbia.

AB = Alberta.

SK = Saskatchewan.

MB = Manitoba.

^a,bUnivariate analysis of variance was used to compare values within the same row (P < 0.05). The Scheffé test was used as a post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. Different superscripts within the same row denote different values (P < 0.05) within that row.

Table 6 provides a list of the most commonly received employee benefits. Contributions to pension plans or registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs), housing allowances, and clothing allowances were seldom received and were not included in this table.

Table 6.

Breakdown, of the percentage of full-time employees in each type of employment who received each type of benefit

	Benefits
	CE allow	Memb fees	Health insur	Dis insur	Vehicle allow	Vac pay	On-call
CA (n = 144)	78.5	71.5	45.1	33.3	38.9	36.8	21.5
MA (n = 65)	84.6	80.0	52.3	29.2	61.5	58.5	58.5
FA (n = 56)	83.9	83.9	44.6	33.9	76.8	50.0	32.1
Acad (n = 13)	69.2	53.8	84.6	53.8	23.1	61.5	15.4
Gov (n = 26)	69.2	84.6	96.2	96.2	23.1	57.7	50.3
Other (n = 15)	60.0	60.0	53.3	60.0	33.3	53.8	0.0
Totals (n = 319)	78.7 (251)	75.2 (240)	52.7 (168)	39.8 (127)	48.0 (153)	47.0 (150)	32.0 (102)

CE Allow = Continuing education allowance.

Memb Fees = Veterinary association membership fees.

Health Insur = Health insurance.

Dis Insur = Disability insurance.

Vac Pay = Vacation pay.

On-call = Premium for with being on-call.

CA = Companion animal practice.

MA = Mixed animal practice.

FA = Food animal practice.

Acad = Academia.

Gov = Provincial and federal government employees.

Discussion

Unlike a census, which involves sampling every person within the sampling frame, surveys use a subsample to estimate the characteristics of the target population (12). Like any study, a number of biases can enter into the survey design and prejudice the data. Two commonly encountered biases associated with surveys are the measurement and nonresponse biases (13). A measurement bias arises if the questions are ambiguous or if the answers are inaccurate or imprecise. Inaccurate or imprecise responses are more likely when personal information (salary data) is requested, or if inquiring about events that occurred months to years earlier are inquired about. Of equal concern is a nonresponse bias, which arises when the population of respondents differs from that of the nonrespondents, resulting in responses that may not accurately reflect the characteristics of the underlying target population. While a low response rate does not necessarily invalidate the results, surveys with response rates of <70% should be interpreted with some caution (14).

The response rate to this survey was very good (77.1%), which may be attributed to the concerted effort made to contact the nonresponders and to the respondents’ level of interest in the survey. In addition to the high response rate, the profiles of the sampling frame (compiled from the provincial veterinary directories), the sample, and the respondents were all very similar. The randomized selection procedure appears to have generated a representative sample, and no particular graduating cohort was more, or less, likely to have participated in the survey. The high response rate, coupled with the representativeness of the respondents, provides a high degree of confidence when extrapolating the survey data to the veterinary profession in western Canada.

One of the major considerations in analyzing the data was categorizing the CA, MA, and FA practitioners based upon the amount of time they devoted to each species. There is probably little disagreement that veterinarians who spent 100% of their time on small animals and/or horses should be classified as CA practitioners. If the same 100% rule was applied to the FA veterinarians, < 3.0% of the respondents would have been classified as FA practitioners. We reasoned that practitioners who spent > 50% of their time on food animals were making a significant contribution to the care of food animals and should be classified as FA practitioners. Even with this broad definition, only 18.5% of practitioners were categorized as FA practitioners; the remaining 23.5% of practitioners, who devoted 1% to 50% of their time to food animals, were classified as MA practitioners. Arguably, those who devoted a small percentage of their time (< 10%) to food animals could have been classified as CA practitioners. However, practitioners involved in a minimal amount of FA practice may not share the same characteristics as those who devote all their time to companion animals. Regardless, it is apparent that the majority of veterinarians in western Canada are devoted to servicing the CA sector.

In addition to shifting towards servicing the CA sector, the profession is also undergoing a major shift in gender. The population pyramid (Figure 2) shows an aging male population being replaced by a much younger female cohort. These data become even more salient when interpreted in the context of the employment status data, which show that there are significantly more females than males working on a part-time basis, a finding that has been reported elsewhere (7,15,16). By extension, if 30% of females are employed on a part-time basis and the proportion of females is increasing, more veterinarians will be required to provide the services currently being covered by the older population of full-time male practitioners. However, it also needs to be recognized that these part-time employees may be filling an important market niche within the profession. Practices that cannot justify hiring another full-time veterinarian may be hiring practitioners who are willing, or wanting, to work on a part-time or seasonal basis.

Nearly 50% of the respondents were raised on either a farm or an acreage, which is in stark contrast to the Canadian population, where agriculture producers represent ~1% of the population (17). In spite of having a rural upbringing, many of the rurally raised veterinarians were now working in larger communities. This migration of practitioners from rural to urban areas was reflected in the veterinarians’ career path changes. There was a high level of interest in MA and FA practice at the time of graduation, but in due course, many of these practitioners became more CA oriented. Half of those who had had ≥ 2 employers since graduation and had begun their careers in MA practice were now exclusively CA practitioners. Furthermore, 25% of those who had begun their careers in predominantly FA practice were now in MA practice and another 19% were in CA practice. The movement of veterinarians from MA to CA practice is certainly not unique to this study and has been reported elsewhere (18,19).

A number of principles need to be considered when interpreting the wage and workload data generated from those employed on a full-time basis. First, employees seek to maximize their utility (happiness), not their income, by obtaining jobs that maximize both their pecuniary (monetary compensation) and nonpecuniary rewards (20). Secondly, the market signal for a shortage of labor is rising wages, while stable wages indicate that the market is in equilibrium (the supply of labor equals that of demand) (21). Thirdly, employers who fail to offer the prevailing wage rate may confuse a true shortage with a false labor shortage, a situation that arises when the wage rate being offered is not competitive (22). On this point, Radke and Lloyd (23) posited that the shortage of rural veterinarians in Canada was a result of practice owners not charging a fair market value for their services, thereby inhibiting their ability to compete for labor at the prevailing wage rate.

While there were no significant differences in the annual earnings among those employed in CA, MA, and FA practice, the FA employees worked significantly more h/wk and had a greater number of nights on-call/mo than did their CA colleagues. Based upon the principle of maximizing utility, it comes as no surprise that veterinarians migrate to more CA-oriented practices that offer both a competitive salary and a more balanced workload. There are, however, some recent data suggesting that the shortage of MA and FA practitioners may be more than just a perception. Two studies involving Canadian veterinary graduates found that the MA/FA-oriented graduates were being offered higher salaries than their CA counterparts (10,24), which could be the market signaling a shortage of these types of practitioners. The caveat to this interpretation is that it is difficult to deduce if this is a new trend or whether MA/FA graduates have always been offered a premium salary at the time of graduation, but over time, their wages increased at a lower rate than that of their CA colleagues.

A number of forces appear to be remodeling the veterinary profession in western Canada. The profession is evolving from one that was founded on servicing agriculture to one that is servicing the CA sector. Pet owners are demanding veterinary care that approximates what is being delivered to humans and they are willing to pay for these high-end services. As a result, there are more job opportunities being created in SA medicine. Conversely, a confluence of events such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, rising feed costs, an unstable currency exchange rate, and American trade policy (Country of Origin Labeling) are contributing to a reduction in the demand for traditional FA veterinary services. Furthermore, the livestock industry is consolidating, resulting in fewer but larger operations (25). As a result, there will be fewer but more specialized, FA consultants, a scenario that is already evident within the poultry, swine, dairy, and feedlot sectors. The proverbial MA practitioner will become increasingly more CA oriented with the FA component of her or his practice consisting of emergency work and the delivery of herd health-based programs to small and mid-sized producers. A market-driven restructuring of the veterinary profession should result in a profession that has an even greater proportion of CA practitioners, fewer but more specialized FA practitioners, and a group of MA practitioners who generate most of their income from companion animals. If this scenario is correct, then it will have repercussions on veterinary education, veterinary licensure, and the need to balance the future supply and demand for CA, MA, and FA practitioners.

The follow-up paper to this article will examine the factors associated with choosing a career (job) in CA, MA, or FA practice, and it will explore the factors associated with practitioners leaving MA or FA practice within 5 y of graduation.