RutlandH2O
Well-Known Member
I just received this link from my son. I hope it works. It is from a study at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. It is food for thought...
news.ucdavis.edu
news.ucdavis.edu
Neutering health effects more severe for Golden Retrievers than
- Thread starter RutlandH2O
- Start date
RutlandH2O
Well-Known Member
I see the link above doesn't work. Anyone want to give me a tutorial on how to get it up and running? I tried typing out the link, but there is a number symbol towards the end of the link and I don't have that symbol on my keyboard. I tried to cut and paste, but I've had no joy. The article about the study is really quite interesting and timely.
HeresHoping
Well-Known Member
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10977
Very interesting. We have a very big black lab, whom we acquired at 9 months from a 'help! I've got a big, boisterous puppy in a tiny town flat and I can't cope' deal. Because he had no papers (was he a runt, perhaps?), I was all for having the goolies off as soon as possible but my horsey vet said "Don't! He's very, very big. Wait until he stops growing up and fills out, which won't be until he's about 2, from the look of him. Purely anecdotal, in my experience, but the big ones need their balls whilst they're growing."
Okaaay, I said, with some trepidation. Problem is, I still haven't taken him to have them off (he's coming up three). Which requires extra management, at times (like when the neighbouring farm lets their St Bernard wander whilst she's in season), but touch wood, he has been a dream and suffered no ill. Unlike the poor 18 month old down the other road, whose days are numbered.
Very interesting. We have a very big black lab, whom we acquired at 9 months from a 'help! I've got a big, boisterous puppy in a tiny town flat and I can't cope' deal. Because he had no papers (was he a runt, perhaps?), I was all for having the goolies off as soon as possible but my horsey vet said "Don't! He's very, very big. Wait until he stops growing up and fills out, which won't be until he's about 2, from the look of him. Purely anecdotal, in my experience, but the big ones need their balls whilst they're growing."
Okaaay, I said, with some trepidation. Problem is, I still haven't taken him to have them off (he's coming up three). Which requires extra management, at times (like when the neighbouring farm lets their St Bernard wander whilst she's in season), but touch wood, he has been a dream and suffered no ill. Unlike the poor 18 month old down the other road, whose days are numbered.
RutlandH2O
Well-Known Member
HH: Thanks so very much for posting the link. How did you do it?
I was, for years, extremely involved in the Golden fancy when I lived in the States. The breed has a major problem with hip dysplasia and cancer (I'm told, there are vets who refer to Goldens as Cancer Retrievers). The last thing they need is something else to push them toward those conditions. It is a perplexing situation...one the one hand, having people neuter their dogs to prevent unwanted pregnancies, is a good thing. But, on the other hand, at what price?
Regarding size in neutered animals, I have two 5 year old, pure Shire geldings that are now 18h1". When I had them gelded at around 18 months of age, I thought it would curtail their upward growth. Then, I found out that gelding early, rather than later, actually makes for larger horses than if they had been left entire, which is something I would never even contemplate. I was reminded to take a good look at some of the turnout geldings in Shires, Clydes, and Percherons. They are massively tall! Many of them were gelded well before their second year, most probably as yearlings. These horses tend to reach their fully maturity at approximately 6 years of age. That's a lot of additional growth!
I was, for years, extremely involved in the Golden fancy when I lived in the States. The breed has a major problem with hip dysplasia and cancer (I'm told, there are vets who refer to Goldens as Cancer Retrievers). The last thing they need is something else to push them toward those conditions. It is a perplexing situation...one the one hand, having people neuter their dogs to prevent unwanted pregnancies, is a good thing. But, on the other hand, at what price?
Regarding size in neutered animals, I have two 5 year old, pure Shire geldings that are now 18h1". When I had them gelded at around 18 months of age, I thought it would curtail their upward growth. Then, I found out that gelding early, rather than later, actually makes for larger horses than if they had been left entire, which is something I would never even contemplate. I was reminded to take a good look at some of the turnout geldings in Shires, Clydes, and Percherons. They are massively tall! Many of them were gelded well before their second year, most probably as yearlings. These horses tend to reach their fully maturity at approximately 6 years of age. That's a lot of additional growth!
Alec Swan
...
Early castration of Dogs, Horses and Humans (consider the over tall Sudan eunuchs, many of whom reached a height of 7'), undoubtedly leads to animals (and humans!) reaching beyond their genetic-entire size. Generally though, in horses, young would be at about 4-6 months, and not 18 months, dogs would be puppies of 4-6 months, and not 12-18 months, and humans, at a guess, would be 6-8 years of age (being 5'9" and still entire, I'm not speaking from experience!).
I have a friend who has a pure bred whippet which stands at a smiggen under 24" at the shoulder, and he was castrated just as soon as his testes were visible. Too soon, much too soon, in my opinion.
I've read before of your interest in GRs, and I'm wondering if you've given any thought to the fact that we were very well aware of HD (though this applies to any believed heritable complaint), in many of our larger dogs, research and screening were done, virtually from the outset, but yet the prevalence of these crippling complaints, continues, and if anything, it's now far more serious, and it's worse than it was 40 years ago. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Alec.
RutlandH2O
Well-Known Member
Alec, Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Where to start? Regarding the gelding of my boys at 18 months: When I decided to breed my Shire mares (they are both lovely specimens of the breed and are beautifully bred from top-producing bloodlines) I went to two stallions that I thought would compliment the girls, and who were, themselves, proven, producing sires. My greatest wish was that these pairings would produce two fillies. In the event, it produced two colts. Never mind, I thought I might have stallion makers and was encouraged to run them on past their second year (not for myself, but for sale). As yearlings the boys each developed some orthopaedic problems, which were, ultimately, successfully sorted. During that time I had become increasingly troubled by the heartbreaking incidences of failed 'homes for life' sales, many of them reported in poignant details here on the forum. Seeing as the life of a stallion is not ideal, and, having become very attached to the boys, I determined to have them gelded and give them their home for life. If I had to do it over again, I would still choose to geld at around 18 months of age.
I used to work at a small animal veterinary clinic in Hawaii. I don't recall neutering pups, of either sex, before one year of age. That was a long, long time ago. When my Jack Russell terrier was four months old, 12 years ago, my then vet, here in the UK, suggested I spay her within the week. I was horrified. He told me that males are neutered as soon as their testicles drop. I asked him about giving the dogs time to develop secondary sex characteristics. He just shrugged. Your friend's 24" whippet is ridiculous! That's the standard height of a Golden Retriever (or a rather small Greyhound!). I so agree with you...too soon, much too soon.
In addressing the increasing instances of heritable problems, I must preface my response with the fact that my involvement in Goldens was a very long time ago (1976 - 2001). I have not kept abreast of new medical advancements, if any, relevant to this subject. I can only offer thoughts based on my past experiences.
When I was actively showing, breeding, training, and writing about the breed, the use of X-rays to determine the phenotype of an individual Golden's hips was the gold standard in the identification of dysplastic or clear dogs. The expertise of the radiographic technician in positioning the dog correctly for the X-ray was paramount in making such a determination. The way the plates (pre-digital age!) were developed and interpreted were very subjective undertakings. However, hip joint conformation (phenotype) does not describe genotype. The numbers of dogs that had radiographically excellent hips did not equate with unaffected offspring. Conversely, there were Goldens with borderline/mild hip conformation that produced clear young.
In confronting these puzzling, disheartening results, professionals and breeders alike attempted to make some headway by experimenting with different diets for adults and youngsters. Puppies were (and should be to this day) always given footing with excellent traction so as to keep the hind legs under the pups, not splayed out to the side, as always happens on newspaper. When pups were sold on, responsible breeders would advise the new owners to refrain from jogging with their pups, or inducing forced exercise with the youngsters until they were about 2 years of age. Discouraging the juveniles from standing up on their hind legs was also advised. Many breeders, myself included, encouraged the owners to have the dogs X-rayed at 2 or 3 years of age, to ascertain the status of the hip joints. Did any of these undertakings have a positive effect on the prevention of hip dysplasia? In my experience, in my circle of breeders/friends (which included numerous breeders on the mainland) at that time, no. The aforementioned courses of action were useful, common sense practices in canine husbandry, but they didn't prevent HD. It must be stated here that the degree of dysplasia of which I speak was no worse than radiographically mild, that is, these dogs had no clinical signs of discomfort. Back then, in the US, The Orthopaedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) scored hip joint conformation as Excellent, Good, Fair being clear; and Borderline, Mild, Moderate, Severe being dysplastic. If things have changed since then, I need updating.
And, so what do I think? It is very possible that the ancestors of our breeds had many of the afflictions we see in today's dogs. Have you ever taken a look at a timber wolf? Many of them have front legs that appear to come out of the same hole in their chest (very narrow). Many of them appear to be cow hocked. I've seen no end of wolves in documentaries and at wild life parks that are missing the fourth premolar. Yet, the standards of so many breeds insist on width at the chest for lung room; penalise cow hocks as being inefficient for proper, energy-saving movement; full dentition being preferred for retrieving and picking up, among other things. Do wolves suffer from those faults? They're sourcing their own meals with those 'faults' without the help of man.
I think the work being done in DNA and gene sequencing is going to be the holy grail...nothing else seems to be working. Critics of purebred dogs blame inbreeding for many of the problems we see today. In my 25 years in the fancy, I knew of one instance of inbreeding. It was an accidental coupling of sibling Borzoi. The 4 pups were neutered and sold on co-ownership contracts. Inbreeding isn't a dirty word. Many breeds were developed using inbreeding to set type. There is the misconception that inbreeding causes defects. In fact, inbreeding just manifests what is already there. And no, I'm not advocating the use of inbreeding in purebred dogs. However, it can be very useful in the preservation of at risk species with the judicial use of outcrossing to preserve hybrid vigour.
Where to start? Regarding the gelding of my boys at 18 months: When I decided to breed my Shire mares (they are both lovely specimens of the breed and are beautifully bred from top-producing bloodlines) I went to two stallions that I thought would compliment the girls, and who were, themselves, proven, producing sires. My greatest wish was that these pairings would produce two fillies. In the event, it produced two colts. Never mind, I thought I might have stallion makers and was encouraged to run them on past their second year (not for myself, but for sale). As yearlings the boys each developed some orthopaedic problems, which were, ultimately, successfully sorted. During that time I had become increasingly troubled by the heartbreaking incidences of failed 'homes for life' sales, many of them reported in poignant details here on the forum. Seeing as the life of a stallion is not ideal, and, having become very attached to the boys, I determined to have them gelded and give them their home for life. If I had to do it over again, I would still choose to geld at around 18 months of age.
I used to work at a small animal veterinary clinic in Hawaii. I don't recall neutering pups, of either sex, before one year of age. That was a long, long time ago. When my Jack Russell terrier was four months old, 12 years ago, my then vet, here in the UK, suggested I spay her within the week. I was horrified. He told me that males are neutered as soon as their testicles drop. I asked him about giving the dogs time to develop secondary sex characteristics. He just shrugged. Your friend's 24" whippet is ridiculous! That's the standard height of a Golden Retriever (or a rather small Greyhound!). I so agree with you...too soon, much too soon.
In addressing the increasing instances of heritable problems, I must preface my response with the fact that my involvement in Goldens was a very long time ago (1976 - 2001). I have not kept abreast of new medical advancements, if any, relevant to this subject. I can only offer thoughts based on my past experiences.
When I was actively showing, breeding, training, and writing about the breed, the use of X-rays to determine the phenotype of an individual Golden's hips was the gold standard in the identification of dysplastic or clear dogs. The expertise of the radiographic technician in positioning the dog correctly for the X-ray was paramount in making such a determination. The way the plates (pre-digital age!) were developed and interpreted were very subjective undertakings. However, hip joint conformation (phenotype) does not describe genotype. The numbers of dogs that had radiographically excellent hips did not equate with unaffected offspring. Conversely, there were Goldens with borderline/mild hip conformation that produced clear young.
In confronting these puzzling, disheartening results, professionals and breeders alike attempted to make some headway by experimenting with different diets for adults and youngsters. Puppies were (and should be to this day) always given footing with excellent traction so as to keep the hind legs under the pups, not splayed out to the side, as always happens on newspaper. When pups were sold on, responsible breeders would advise the new owners to refrain from jogging with their pups, or inducing forced exercise with the youngsters until they were about 2 years of age. Discouraging the juveniles from standing up on their hind legs was also advised. Many breeders, myself included, encouraged the owners to have the dogs X-rayed at 2 or 3 years of age, to ascertain the status of the hip joints. Did any of these undertakings have a positive effect on the prevention of hip dysplasia? In my experience, in my circle of breeders/friends (which included numerous breeders on the mainland) at that time, no. The aforementioned courses of action were useful, common sense practices in canine husbandry, but they didn't prevent HD. It must be stated here that the degree of dysplasia of which I speak was no worse than radiographically mild, that is, these dogs had no clinical signs of discomfort. Back then, in the US, The Orthopaedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) scored hip joint conformation as Excellent, Good, Fair being clear; and Borderline, Mild, Moderate, Severe being dysplastic. If things have changed since then, I need updating.
And, so what do I think? It is very possible that the ancestors of our breeds had many of the afflictions we see in today's dogs. Have you ever taken a look at a timber wolf? Many of them have front legs that appear to come out of the same hole in their chest (very narrow). Many of them appear to be cow hocked. I've seen no end of wolves in documentaries and at wild life parks that are missing the fourth premolar. Yet, the standards of so many breeds insist on width at the chest for lung room; penalise cow hocks as being inefficient for proper, energy-saving movement; full dentition being preferred for retrieving and picking up, among other things. Do wolves suffer from those faults? They're sourcing their own meals with those 'faults' without the help of man.
I think the work being done in DNA and gene sequencing is going to be the holy grail...nothing else seems to be working. Critics of purebred dogs blame inbreeding for many of the problems we see today. In my 25 years in the fancy, I knew of one instance of inbreeding. It was an accidental coupling of sibling Borzoi. The 4 pups were neutered and sold on co-ownership contracts. Inbreeding isn't a dirty word. Many breeds were developed using inbreeding to set type. There is the misconception that inbreeding causes defects. In fact, inbreeding just manifests what is already there. And no, I'm not advocating the use of inbreeding in purebred dogs. However, it can be very useful in the preservation of at risk species with the judicial use of outcrossing to preserve hybrid vigour.