Interesting article about hips

Just reading through it now.

One of the points I found interesting was the statement that young dogs engaging in natural play with other dogs, end up with better hips than dogs cossetted and monitored heavilly against over exuberant play.

Thoughts on that CC? I know when I had Zarno, I freaked when he escaped and followed me up the stairs ( I carried him down and he was HEAVY) and when he jumped up on the sofa. Also I was very worried that Lil jumping on his back was very bad, so I stopped that. However the article suggests that normal boisterous play is ok?
 
I would always lift pups into and out of cars, on an off raised surfaces etc as a matter of course.

I would be more worried about long bursts of running, repeated jumping up and down, over obstacles in youth, repeated high-impact stuff too young, rather than play with other dogs - the latter it is more natural for them, after all.
Play is good for the brain, as well as the body. IME, dogs do more 'work' out on walks, but appear more tired and satisfied after play, if you see what I mean.

I do absolutely cringe when I see large pups scrabbling about splay-legged on shiny floors though.

Again, it's based on observation rather than research.
 
Oh yeah - my dogs can WALK! I seriously don't think I could tire them out from walking. However a game of sock-attack (where the sock is hidden, held in the air to bounce and catch or chased around the room on a stick) always knocks them right out!!
 
C_C,

I've rather skipped through your offered article, and though it's of real interest, there's too much to discuss here!

I have no evidence to support my arguments, but whilst I accept that genetics must surely play a very large part, in the "possible" growth abilities of any given puppy, I'm certain that the level of feeding, between weaning and, perhaps 9 months, also plays a huge part.

I don't know why, but I would be concerned for those breeds, which are prone to growth problems, and which are kept on concrete. Your thoughts?

One would imagine that greyhounds, as a "promoted" breed, and certainly well fed as puppies, would be likely candidates, though they seem to be relatively free. Most are reared on grass, or generally dirt(!) pens. Could this have an influence?

Play for puppies? I'm really not too sure. I most certainly don't want puppies growing up together. I want them to focus on me, and not each other. Again, your thoughts?

Alec.
 
All ours have been kept on concrete and have had no problem with hips (they were all scored at 12 months +)

I do think feeding (and the protein-rich large breed foods) may have a part to play. I'd rather see a small skinny puppy than a large heavy one.

Also with greys, they do not have so much weight to bear on their joints.

The two youngsters I know of personally that have been PTS for hip/elbow problems recently were basically being allowed to hammer themselves off hard surfaces, one baby puppy getting far too much roadwork for it's age and the other was bouncing from one wall to another all day :(

I have a brother and sister but they were staggered in age in terms of when they arrived.
 
CaveCanem said:
.......The two youngsters I know of personally that have been PTS for hip/elbow problems recently were basically being allowed to hammer themselves off hard surfaces, one baby puppy getting far too much roadwork for it's age and the other was bouncing from one wall to another all day :(.......
Click to expand...

Does that not support my argument? "Impaction" from a hard surface, cannot help soft and growing joints, surely?

I'm happy to be told that I'm wrong.

Alec.
 
I don't think there is a 'wrong' :)

Puppy 1, was being purposefully walked on the roads (what the article is talking about) and had no choice but to come along with the owners

Puppy 2, was segregated from the other dogs (they have lots) and was not given sufficient space, hence her entertainment was bouncing back and forth :(
 
Nope :( probably wrong to use them as examples. But Puppy 1 is why I go on so much about no over-doing it with baby puppies, they don't need exercise, they need socialisation and brain training. His owners thought they were doing him good.
I do believe a lot of dogs with hip and elbow problems got too much, too soon which is why I found the article so interesting. Brian Wootton, who's book is probably by 'bible' of the breed, recommends free-running, not forced walking, until nine or ten months (obviously light exercise, socialisation and training is needed) and I am inclined to agree.

GSDs get a hard time for having wobbly hocks as pups, I'd rather a pup with wobbly hocks who firmed up later, than a dog who was broken by the age of five or six.
 
It made me wince a little, from a simple research methodology point of view. Before we even reach the premise we have:

"We have never taken the time to go into our records and pull out the data to quantify these observations for professional journals"

At this point I must admit I switched from reading the article, to skimming over it :o Although in fairness being short of time had a part to play in that decision too! However, if the data is there, sat in your records, why not quantify it in order to back up your observations? I love qualitative data, but surely this is an issue that would benefit, if not fully require, a quantitative approach?

"The owners of giant breed pets tend to overfeed their puppies, having with the best of intention, the inner desire to see a 'big dog' and to do nothing which might risk the dog not attaining the greatest possible size."

Even with my 'I'm being as fair as I can' hat on, it could be argued that the author of the article is leaning away from observation (which they have stated is the basis for their argument) into opinion here. The above quote is probably true in many cases, but without any data to back it up (even observational records that haven't been analysed in a quantitative way) it does rather fall into the realm of opinion.

I am probably going to agree with many of the points the article raises (I'm hoping to find time to read it more carefully later :)) and perhaps it is merely the presentation (and lack of) any data that is bothering me. But something about the way it is put together says to me 'do you know, after all these years this is what I think...' as opposed to 'after several years working in this field, I have X opinion, and here is my data (observational or otherwise) to back it up'.

I realise it isn't a published article, and wasn't linked as such :) I'm probably just being bloody grumpy. And as said I will no doubt agree with much of what is said within the article. I just feel a little.... despondent? Irked? That they should have such records and experience yet not choose to present the collected observations and records in a helpful and contributory way.
 
Hmm, some interresting points, would be nice if they could use their records to research and make it more scientific. I think it is maybe a mix of inheritance and environment/rearing , but with people like myself who have brought up many dogs in the same way, and had some great hips, some okay and some really bad (we're talking 90s) I certainly don't think environment plays too great a part.
I would never over exercise, or over feed a young GSD, I do limit free play with another dog, some of their full body slams make me wince. I can remember various fads to improve hips over the years, there was the high vitamin C supplement and keeping them in runs with low roofs so they couldn't jump on their hind legs as youngsters, to name just two. I will always be open to new ideas, maybe the writer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top