GSD Nuetering/Breeding

boodee · 16-01-2012 11:34pm #1

Hi,
My GSD is male and 20 months. He's not neutered, if it was up to me, he would have been.

Would it keep him healthier to let him breed if someone wanted him as he is from a good showline. Vom Quinberg if that means anything to anyone.

I was told he would live longer if nuetered, is it too late to convince my husband otherwise.

Shanao · 16-01-2012 11:40pm

One thing I will say is, just have a look on facebook or on irishanimals.ie at the amount of german shepherds in rescue/pounds, including puppies. That more than anything is a reason not to breed far as I'm concerned. If you do want to breed, then he would need to be shown and health tested before his bloodline would really be seen as anything worth being passed on, and even then only if he is judged of breedable quality. He is fully grown by now so I would be all for neutering, it is the responsible thing to do in a country overrun with unwanted dogs.

Cherry Blossom · 16-01-2012 11:50pm

Why does it have to be either neuter him or breed from him?

IMO from what reading I have done on the subject the best option for the health of the dog is to leave them entire until they reach maturity and neuter later in the dogs life, this means you avoid the risks of bone deformities and cancers that can be caused by neutering too early. As dogs age they become more likely to develop testicular tumours and more likely to have prostate problems as the prostate continues to grow in an entire dog so I reckon the best time to neuter is somewhere between these two stages (around 2 and a half to 3 years old for a large breed).

There are no health advantages to breeding from a dog - only disadvantages. A GSD should never be bred from unless it is a working dog and has outstanding hip scores.

DBB · 17-01-2012 12:27am

boodee wrote: »

Hi,
Would it keep him healthier to let him breed if someone wanted him as he is from a good showline. Vom Quinberg if that means anything to anyone.

I can understand your frustration OP!
However, and I'm going to be brutally honest here, as a German Shepherd owner, the showlines of this breed in their current form are not dogs I like to see people breeding from. The Vom Quinberg lines included... please don't take offence to this:o, but the whole German Shepherd show scene is rampant with people who refuse to see the damage they've done to this fabulous breed, and refuse to change the fact that their dogs have weak, almost useless hind legs and hind quarters which render them completely useless to do the stuff they were bred to do. Indeed, the selfish behaviour of these breeders was exposed on the documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed", on which program the dogs they bred were described as FrogDogs. The IKC don't seem to have the nuts to take them on, but then, neither does the UK KC, as much to the disgust of genuine GSD fans everywhere, a bandy-legged GSD won Best of Group in Crufts last year:(
To me, show line GSDs are a non-breed, their breeders not worthy to take money off anybody for the mutants they're breeding. They have ruined German Shepherds.
So, as someone who devoutly advises that people only buy from carefully selected, healthy, and at the same time placid, working lines, I'd plead with your husband not to add any more to the problem. If you bought him as a pet, keep him as a pet! IKC papers don't confer a duty to breed, though many people seem to think otherwise (I did too, in the dim, distant past:rolleyes:)
I'd also hold off neutering him.. there's no rush. I wonder what would happen if you snuck him off to be neutered and got neutricles inserted, would your OH ever notice? Come to think of it, I could be onto something here

PS Breeding from him will have no effect whatsoever on his health that I know of, other than some potential risks.

Wibbs · 17-01-2012 12:55am

What DBB said, oh so what DBB said.

boodee · 17-01-2012 12:07pm

hi,

Thanks this is exactly the confirmation I was looking for. We got him as a pet and deterrent..as opposed to protection.
I have tried to explain to husband the above but maybe now that you have said nuetering him later for the obviuos health benefits of reducing prostate problems. With regard to nuetering him on the quiet.......INSTANT DIVORCE was my answer!:-)

I bought him off a reputable breeder, who has been helpful as we made a lot of mistakes on our first buy. Thw dog turned out to be an out of control attack dog....I ended up being afraid of him.
Maybe when he's older, he's really placid so it's not for the want of quietening him down that i want to neuter him, I just want to have him for a long life.
Thanks again.

Wibbs · 17-01-2012 2:47pm

boodee wrote: »

hi,I have tried to explain to husband the above but maybe now that you have said nuetering him later for the obviuos health benefits of reducing prostate problems.

This is incorrect. Majorly so, though given most vets don't seem to know this and state it as fact and neutering programmes repeat it(and other dubious "facts"), I'm not surprised people still believe it. Neutering dogs increases the risk of some prostate cancers by up to 8 times and increases the risk of bladder cancer by a factor of 4.
http://www.dogcancerblog.com/bladder-and-prostate-cancer-neutering-male-dogs-increases-risk-2/ There are a few good scientific studies on this point.

I just want to have him for a long life.

Another highly debatable "fact" trotted out by the pro neuter on sight programmes. Intact dogs live longer on average than neutered dogs and the longest lived record holders are overwhelmingly intact. Both genders. I'm going out the door now, but I'll try and dig up some actual data on this.

boodee · 17-01-2012 10:39pm

jaysus, i think i'ii just leave the poor lad alone.....:D

It hadn't occured to me there would be a whole pro neutering movement messing with my brain.:eek:

I also came across an article about some GSDs having a blood clotting problem so any op is risky for them.

Good links, thanks

mosi · 18-01-2012 4:00am

Regarding the increased risk in prostate cancer, though studies appear to show a higher risk in neutered dogs, the risk is still far less than that of testicular cancer in unneutered dogs. I know people who's unneutered males have had testicular cancer and have had to be neutered. Furthermore, such an operation in an older dog is likely to be riskier than in a young, healthy dog.
Also, neutering decreases the likelihood of other prostate cancers.
I weighed up all these facts when I decided to neuter my male (never had any intention of breeding him).
My OH was a bit unsure about it, though not set against it. I think that some guys take it all a bit personally :rolleyes:

Wibbs · 18-01-2012 10:35am

mosi wrote: »

Regarding the increased risk in prostate cancer, though studies appear to show a higher risk in neutered dogs, the risk is still far less than that of testicular cancer in unneutered dogs.

No it's not. Testicular cancer in dogs occurs in less than 1% of animals. It's also a significantly more curable cancer.

Also, neutering decreases the likelihood of other prostate cancers.

Nope I'm afraid it does not http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516571

for those on mobile devices:

RESULTS: Neutered males had a significantly increased risk for each form of cancer. Neutered males had an odds ratio of 3.56 (3.02-4.21) for urinary bladder TCC, 8.00 (5.60-11.42) for prostate TCC, 2.12 (1.80-2.49) for prostate adenocarcinoma, 3.86 (3.13-4.16) for prostate carcinoma, and 2.84 (2.57-3.14) for all prostate cancers.Emphasis mine.

Never mind other increased risks http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

Like most veterinarians, Dr Hahn mentions the higher incidence of testicular and mammary cancer in intact animals, but also notes that spayed females have a 4 times greater risk of cardiac hemangiosarcomas, and neutered males also show a significant increased risk for this cancer compared to intact ones.

The link between sterilization and osteosarcoma (i.e. bone cancer) is also troubling: Spayed and neutered animals are twice as likely to develop this cancer. Those spayed or castrated before their first birthdays had a roughly 1 in 4 lifetime risk for osteosarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop a tumor than intact dogs.

This vet makes a good point at the end of that article, one which would sum up my take on the matter;

Like Dr Hahn, I, too, have reviewed the literature and am not sure what to tell clients. However, I do know that unless we can free the subject from the emotional cocoon that has protected spay and neuter from objective scrutiny all these years, our pets won't be able to benefit from the knowledge that is slowly, but surely, being generated on this subject.

I'd add that "accepted wisdom" when it is not backed up by good science really grinds my gears. Worse when this bad science is promoted as gospel that one dare not question by various bodies and professionals that we should be trusting.

EG http://www.spayweekireland.ie/blog/ right at the end this crowd say quite clearly;

“Prevention is the best cure and that’s why it’s so important to shatter the myths about spaying and neutering – it does not make pets fat and lazy, it will not change their personality and females do not need to have one litter before being spayed. The truth is that spaying or neutering is good for your pet’s health. The risk of cancer plummets, they’re less likely to be aggressive and they live longer as a result.”

I'm all for shattering the myths, but I love the irony of that statement mixed in with the completely and utterly bogus information that follows. BTW That's not opinion, nor new age hippie dippy guff, it's science. And if their personality doesn't change how come they're less likely to be aggressive? At least when you're promoting this emotive, unscientific guff* to people, make your minds up.

I think that some guys take it all a bit personally :rolleyes:

Not me. If the science backed up the hype I'd be breaking out the scissors myself. Plus I'm not just talking about male dogs either.

*I'd also debate how much sterilisation in dogs(not cats) actually affects the number of unwanted dogs to the degree that's promoted, but that's for another day.

mosi · 18-01-2012 7:08pm

mosi wrote: »

Also, neutering decreases the likelihood of other prostate cancers.

Meant to say other prostate problems

DBB · 18-01-2012 8:26pm

Wibbs wrote: »

*I'd also debate how much sterilisation in dogs(not cats) actually affects the number of unwanted dogs to the degree that's promoted, but that's for another day.

This is something that I've worried about for some time now.
I've come to think that generally (emphasis on "generally"), the type of owner that will have their dog or cat neutered is probably not the type of owner who'd have allowed their dog to run around having free love with the other neighbourhood dogs.
In other words, the message about neutering and the dog overpopulation problem is generally not getting through to the right people.
Despite subsidised neutering schemes run by a few different organisations, I don't believe for one moment that the amount of unwanted litters per year has lessened, judging by the amount of litters and young dogs being handed in to rescues. The pound PTS figures have come down, but I am pretty sure this is because there are more rescue groups than there used to be, and has little to do with the amount of dogs that were neutered under the various schemes.
But as you say... a debate for another day!

boodee · 18-01-2012 9:21pm

One of the reasons I wanted to know was because I've heard various opinions that leaving a dog un nuetered is bad for them as their hormones go mad and it's psychologically damaging to them.
Otherwise I'm not neutering him, as like is said above, he's not roaming around to increase the population so it's purely a health reason.

I have 3 dogs, 1 male, 2 bitches. Would another male have to be neutered to prevent fighting or do you just introduce them properly and train good behaviour into them.

Wibbs · 18-01-2012 9:38pm

That would be my suspicion/concern too. I'd like to add to my post above, I have a lesser issue with spaying bitches. While certain health issues do increase, there seems to be a definite benefit with regard to various reproductive cancers and infections. So it may well be a case of six of one, half dozen of the other. With the caveat that studies show larger breeds in particular shouldn't be sterilised too early.

I was pretty amazed at this bit from Spay Ireland; http://www.spayweekireland.ie/blog/?page_id=17

When to Do It?

The latest recommendations from surgical staff at UCD are that neutering should be carried out at an earlier age than has previously been suggested.

It is now recommended that:

* Both male and female cats should be neutered/spayed at 4-5 months of age
* Both male and female dogs should be neutered/spayed at 5-6 months of age.

Damn near every scientific study you care to mention disagrees pretty strongly with earlier neutering in dogs, particularly with larger breeds. I'm really surprised the UCD vets have downgraded the ages. Especially given they're the surgical team. Study after study has shown a direct correlation between orthopedic problems, abnormal bone growth and a significant increase in the risk of bone cancer in early neutered dogs. Intact dogs, as well as rarely coming down with prostatic cancer, are much less prone to things like ACL failures, HD and the like. In small dogs it's an issue, in larger breeds it's a serious issue. I'd love to see their reasoning.

Ditto for weight gain. While we're told weight gain is not an issue and can be tempered by proper diet and exercise, there are a fair amount of overweight dogs out there, so practice often doesn't follow theory. Which stands to reason. Remove testosterone from a male animal and fat deposits increase and muscle tissue decreases. This is a given in endocrinological terms. Even in humans women lay down fat more easily and have less muscle mass and less dense bones than men on average. Lower test is one of the major factors. If a man had to be surgically castrated for medical reasons, doctors would have him on hormone replacement therapy in a heartbeat. Same for a younger woman whose ovaries were removed. Yet we're expected to believe it's ticketyboo, even beneficial across the board for our dogs? Then again we're also led to believe that yearly multiple viral vaccinations are a written in stone necessity, on pain of no insurance etc. Even though good science strongly suggests this is not a necessity on a yearly basis. Then again many vets are also selling dry foods commercially and backing same with some seriously dubious "science" behind it(one vet recently told me that raw meat would; make my dog vicious/cause deformities because of the high protein/his dry food was better. Talk about utter quackery. I didn't retain his services while suggesting he might be better served treating ducks considering...). So I suppose I'm not that surprised TBH.

I'd also add given the differences in risks involved with male versus female dogs, the former shouldn't be neutered as a given which seems to be the mantra these days. Lower risk sterilisation of one gender should be enough.

Léan · 18-01-2012 9:59pm

Wibbs wrote: »

That would be my suspicion/concern too. I'd like to add to my post above, I have a lesser issue with spaying bitches. While certain health issues do increase, there seems to be a definite benefit with regard to various reproductive cancers and infections. So it may well be a case of six of one, half dozen of the other. With the caveat that studies show larger breeds in particular shouldn't be sterilised too early.

I was pretty amazed at this bit from Spay Ireland; http://www.spayweekireland.ie/blog/?page_id=17

When to Do It?

The latest recommendations from surgical staff at UCD are that neutering should be carried out at an earlier age than has previously been suggested.

It is now recommended that:

* Both male and female cats should be neutered/spayed at 4-5 months of age
* Both male and female dogs should be neutered/spayed at 5-6 months of age.

Damn near every scientific study you care to mention disagrees pretty strongly with earlier neutering in dogs, particularly with larger breeds. I'm really surprised the UCD vets have downgraded the ages. Especially given they're the surgical team. Study after study has shown a direct correlation between orthopedic problems, abnormal bone growth and a significant increase in the risk of bone cancer in early neutered dogs. Intact dogs, as well as rarely coming down with prostatic cancer, are much less prone to things like ACL failures, HD and the like. In small dogs it's an issue, in larger breeds it's a serious issue. I'd love to see their reasoning.

Ditto for weight gain. While we're told weight gain is not an issue and can be tempered by proper diet and exercise, there are a fair amount of overweight dogs out there, so practice often doesn't follow theory. Which stands to reason. Remove testosterone from a male animal and fat deposits increase and muscle tissue decreases. This is a given in endocrinological terms. Even in humans women lay down fat more easily and have less muscle mass and less dense bones than men on average. Lower test is one of the major factors. If a man had to be surgically castrated for medical reasons, doctors would have him on hormone replacement therapy in a heartbeat. Same for a younger woman whose ovaries were removed. Yet we're expected to believe it's ticketyboo, even beneficial across the board for our dogs? Then again we're also led to believe that yearly multiple viral vaccinations are a written in stone necessity, on pain of no insurance etc. Even though good science strongly suggests this is not a necessity on a yearly basis. Then again many vets are also selling dry foods commercially and backing same with some seriously dubious "science" behind it(one vet recently told me that raw meat would; make my dog vicious/cause deformities because of the high protein/his dry food was better. Talk about utter quackery. I didn't retain his services while suggesting he might be better served treating ducks considering...). So I suppose I'm not that surprised TBH.

I'd also add given the differences in risks involved with male versus female dogs, the former shouldn't be neutered as a given which seems to be the mantra these days. Lower risk sterilisation of one gender should be enough.

This concerns me. My fella is about 6 and a half months now and is due to be neutered on Friday. He's a rescue dog and part of the adoption process was signing a contract that stipulated he'd be neutered by 8 months of age.

I wasn't aware of these risks, especially with large breed dogs. He's a GSD X, so i'm quite concerned now

Wibbs · 18-01-2012 10:49pm

Léan these risks are not a given, they're just an increased risk of certain problems. It does not mean it is going to affect your guy. That said, if it was me and this was a stipulation before 8 months, I'd be doing it the very day before the 8 months were up.

EDIT again personally I'd be questioning the timing of this "contract", given the health benefits of waiting until your dog is fully mature. I'd love to see that argued in court on a legal front.

DBB · 19-01-2012 12:30am

Lean, you could call the rescue and explain your concerns, and see can you get an extension!
See, it's an awkward situation for rescues. With some very specific individual exceptions, I wouldn't dream if rehoming an unneutered adult dog or bitch.
We can do home checks and have adopters go through several pre-adoption processes to make sure they're in this for the long haul, but these processes aren't infallible, and I'd imagine all rescues have been stung at some stage... I know I have.
So, one of the most effective ways to ensure none of our rescue dogs end up in a terrible place if things go horribly wrong is to make them incapable of reproducing.
It's a tough one, because I've a young large breed female who I won't be neutering for quite a while yet, but I can't afford to take the risk with the dogs I rehome!

boodee · 19-01-2012 3:46pm

With regard to the weight gain, loss of muscle mass and bone density, would it be fair to say that my MAX, who is already a lazy, lovable creature would be even lazier if he was neutered.

DBB, you mentioned about the vom quinbergs breeding, (no offense on my part) do you know about them, should I be careful of his hips etc. Does he need extra care, supplements when he's older etc.

I don't understand about the ''low back'', what implications does this have in later life for a GSD. Anyone I have spoken to in local pet shops have recommended the breeder i get him off of and apparently all his dogs have good elbows and hips..

Wibbs · 20-01-2012 1:09am

boodee wrote: »

With regard to the weight gain, loss of muscle mass and bone density, would it be fair to say that my MAX, who is already a lazy, lovable creature would be even lazier if he was neutered.

It's more likely than not. There's a reason that the very pro spay groups point out that aggression drops in male dogs after castration. Removal of testosterone in a male reduces the maleness of said animal. This is a given. After all it's the "male hormone". He's likely going to be less driven, less active and hormonally he will lose muscle mass and increase fat. Again this is damn close to a given scientifically. There's a reason why bodybuilders take more testosterone than their bodies produce. It builds muscle and lowers fat and increases bone density and drive(of course in the case of overproduction causes it's own problems).

DBB, you mentioned about the vom quinbergs breeding, (no offense on my part) do you know about them, should I be careful of his hips etc. Does he need extra care, supplements when he's older etc.

I don't understand about the ''low back'', what implications does this have in later life for a GSD. Anyone I have spoken to in local pet shops have recommended the breeder i get him off of and apparently all his dogs have good elbows and hips..

From my bitter experience

many years ago what too many GSD breeders consider good hips and other joints is a good bit away from what actually constitutes good joints. Plus while they may score joints at say 2 years of age, try following up what the state of the same dogs joints are at 7 or 8.

The excessively low back is a fashion thing, not a functional thing. The German lad, the originator of the breed back in the day wasn't fond of overly square dogs. He considered a slightly lowered back end good for fluid and strong movement. However he'd have a shítfit at the state of the "standard" today. He was thinking of the "perfect dog", for working and family life, with a strong body and even temperament. Both can be hard to find with many GSD lines. Especially as DBB said with the so called "showlines". Honestly? And obviously speaking personally here, I'd not touch a show line GSD with someone elses ten foot bargepole. Again personally speaking I would be of the opinion that these showlines should be avoided like the plague and the breeders that promote them ditto. Just do a search online for the show winning dogs both abroad and here and watch how the "breeders" try to force an already skeletally compromised dog into an even dafter low back position. All for fashion. Like I said my definition of a "good" breeder in GSD's would likely conflict with too many of the self appointed guardians of the breed.

TL;DR? ask the breeder what the average hip scores are for his or her lines. Insist on numbers around 10, or better yet lower than 10 and see how far you get. Scores of 20 are NOT healthy. At best they're a serious compromise and that compromise will get worse with age.

My 2 cents anyway. Others mileage may vary.

DBB · 20-01-2012 10:16am

I'm on my phone so I can't quote from Wibbs' post too handy, but what he said about hip scores is right.
Also what he said about what other people have said about the Vom Quinberg, or any other showline... Firstly, there are not too many who are in a position to comment on how healthy, in actual fact, any particular line of dogs is. The people you're talking to OP, I'm guessing, are basing their opinions purely on success in shows. As you may be starting to gather, the GSD show crowd in particular, including the judges, are extremely resistant to change the mutants they produce. As long as frogdogs win in the showring, breeders will continue to breed frogdogs.
It's not all about the hips either, although frogdogs (by this I mean the dogs which slope markedly downwards from midway down their spine, and whose hindlegs are consequently too far out behind them and too crouched... Showdogs, in other words) are almost certain to have hip or pelvic problems, the incidence of spondylosis is very high in frogdogs, particularly in the area where the spine starts to slope. This condition gets more painful and arthritic as the dog ages. You simply can't ask a skeleton to do what show breeders are asking the GSD skeleton to do, without paying a price.

I will take issue with one comment made by you Wibbs, if I may :-)
Whilst neutering can cause weight gain in dogs, GSDs are not especially prone to it.
I would also suggest that weight gain is not, as suggested, caused by loss of testosterone (which continues to be produced, albeit in small amounts, by the adrenal glands), because neutered females are more prone to weight gain than neutered males. So, I think it's more complex than simply loss of testosterone.
And I don't accept that neutering lowers "drive" or makes a dog lazy. To the best of my knowledge, this has not actually been tested. Anecdotally, I know many dogs (working and pet) that are no less motivated to work than the were pre-neuter, and I know a number of trainers of police dogs and field-trials gundogs who enjoy as much success in their work as they ever did.
I'd urge caution about drawing huge conclusions from the findings of one or two scientific studies, including the 2007 paper on neutering: this one paper seems to be being used all over the interweb to derail the neutering debate. Whilst the results are to be noted, I wouldn't throw all my opinions behind any paper until there is more research to back it up. Note, I'm not saying their results are not right (though I do know some in the industry are raising their eyebrows at some of the results, as they contradict their own experience), I'm just saying that objectivity is not possible until the results have been replicated more than once or twice.

Wibbs · 20-01-2012 12:27pm

DBB wrote: »

I will take issue with one comment made by you Wibbs, if I may :-)
Whilst neutering can cause weight gain in dogs, GSDs are not especially prone to it.
I would also suggest that weight gain is not, as suggested, caused by loss of testosterone (which continues to be produced, albeit in small amounts, by the adrenal glands), because neutered females are more prone to weight gain than neutered males. So, I think it's more complex than simply loss of testosterone.

Oh certainly, but testosterone has a lot to do with it.

And I don't accept that neutering lowers "drive" or makes a dog lazy. To the best of my knowledge, this has not actually been tested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2326799

Particularly feeding behaviour changes in 42% of the male dogs and 32% of the female dogs towards an increased intake of food, which also leads to an increase in body weight. This corresponds to decreasing activity, which is indicated by increasing time of rest (male dogs 36%, female dogs 18%) and decreasing motivation to move.

I'd urge caution about drawing huge conclusions from the findings of one or two scientific studies, including the 2007 paper on neutering: this one paper seems to be being used all over the interweb to derail the neutering debate. Whilst the results are to be noted, I wouldn't throw all my opinions behind any paper until there is more research to back it up. Note, I'm not saying their results are not right (though I do know some in the industry are raising their eyebrows at some of the results, as they contradict their own experience), I'm just saying that objectivity is not possible until the results have been replicated more than once or twice.

It's not just one paper though DBB. There's a pretty long list of them and not just about the significant increase in prostate cancers in neutered males.

Cardiac cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225598 fivefold increase in spayed females.
Bone cancer particularly in certain breeds http://www.dogcancerblog.com/spaying-neutering-and-cancer-in-rottweilers/
"If a male Rott is neutered before a year of age, his rate of osteosarcoma ALMOST QUADRUPLES." (emphasis his). http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full

There's other stuff out there concerning HD and ACL issues in dogs neutered before 6 months.

I agree 100% DBB that it's not black and white. EG if I had a small "toy" breed bitch I'd have no problem at all to having her spayed, if I had a male Rottie or GSD I most certainly would have a problem, especially if this was suggested before say 2 years of age. My issue is that for many vets and advisory groups it is seen as black and white. "Accepted wisdom"(the worst kind) applied to all dogs gender/breed regardless.

DBB · 20-01-2012 3:50pm

I ahven't time right now to go into the first part of your post Wibbs, but a quick glance through the second half of your posts prompts a quick response:

Wibbs wrote: »

It's not just one paper though DBB. There's a pretty long list of them and not just about the significant increase in prostate cancers in neutered males.

Cardiac cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225598 fivefold increase in spayed females.

The risk, as cited in this paper, stands at 0.19% of the population sampled. Increase this risk five-fold, means that females have just under 1% chance of developing cardiac cancer if they're neutered.
Low enough odds, in other words.

Bone cancer particularly in certain breeds http://www.dogcancerblog.com/spaying-neutering-and-cancer-in-rottweilers/
"If a male Rott is neutered before a year of age, his rate of osteosarcoma ALMOST QUADRUPLES." (emphasis his). http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full

You've cited one and the same paper in two links there, only one of them's a blog, which for me, doesn't count.
Anyway, in the paper cited here, it states that the risk of a male dog developing bone sarcoma is 1 in 100,000, whilst the risk in females is 0.6 in 100,000.
If males are (almost) four times more likely to develop bone sarcoma when neutered, then the risk is (almost) 4 dogs in 100,000.
Extremely low odds, in other words.
The emphasis ("his rate of osteosarcoma ALMOST QUADRUPLES") is in the blog, not the paper, just so readers know. Researchers don't italicise or capitalise words to draw attention to them in scientific papers. Also, this study was done on a fairly small sample of one breed of dog: we know some breeds are predisposed to certain cancers, so again, some context is needed.

As I've said, I don't have time right now to look at the other citations, but I will say that it is extremely unfair on readers to quote facts and figures at them without giving context. Your posts on this issue tend to be scaremonger-y, telling people their dog is X times more likely to develop any particular condition if they neuter it... yet deeper investigation shows that the figures are based on tiny risks to start with.
So, can I ask that in future, you post the numbers and stats in context, so that people can decide for themselves what the real risk is?

Irishchick · 20-01-2012 4:19pm

In my opinion/experience its not going to do much harm to leave a make dog entire for a couple of years. The hardest part will be keeping them away from the fairer sex!!

Its females that seem to suffer more in later years when left entire. I have seen so many mammary tumours and cases of pyometria in entire middle aged females that I wouldn't recommend leaving it for more than a few years (depending on the breed)

Your in no hurry OP. Just keep the door shut tight when the ladies come a callin!

TooManyDogs · 20-01-2012 4:31pm

Wibbs wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2326799

Particularly feeding behaviour changes in 42% of the male dogs and 32% of the female dogs towards an increased intake of food, which also leads to an increase in body weight. This corresponds to decreasing activity, which is indicated by increasing time of rest (male dogs 36%, female dogs 18%) and decreasing motivation to move.

Now unless I'm a complete dope and can't find the rest of that paper you've quoted it's only the abstract that's available. You simply can't base any concrete conclusions on what's written on an abstract, there's simply too little information. What breeds were these dogs? What age were they neutered at? What dietary and exercise regiments were they on and how was decrease in activity and increase intake of food measured?

Some dog breeds do have a tendency to put on weight after neuter operations but they are by far the exception in my experience. Generally what happens is that the dog is neutered around the same time as they would naturally stopping running around like a lunatic puppy and grow out of the natural lanky skinny puppy stage, around 6 - 9 months. If they're still being give the same amounts and type of food suitable for a puppy then of course they'll put on weight. It's up to us to manage what they eat and to exercise them appropriately.

Of my 6 neutered/spayed dogs I struggle with the weight of my lab x (labs being one of the breeds can be affected with a change of metabolism after neuter) but I struggle to keep weight on my terriers because they don't stay still.

TooManyDogs · 20-01-2012 4:37pm

Irishchick wrote: »

In my opinion/experience its not going to do much harm to leave a make dog entire for a couple of years. The hardest part will be keeping them away from the fairer sex!!

The only thing that would put me off keeping males entire for a few years is seeing entire dogs fight with other entire dogs particularly, but even after being neutered they remember the smell of entire dogs and remember that they don't like them and continue to be agro. I see it a good bit where I live because its rural so people don't neuter their male dogs until they become a problem wandering or fighting, and while it does tone down the fighting it's still there in quite a few cases.

boodee · 20-01-2012 4:50pm

Irishchick wrote: »

In my opinion/experience its not going to do much harm to leave a make dog entire for a couple of years. The hardest part will be keeping them away from the fairer sex!!

Its females that seem to suffer more in later years when left entire. I have seen so many mammary tumours and cases of pyometria in entire middle aged females that I wouldn't recommend leaving it for more than a few years (depending on the breed)

Your in no hurry OP. Just keep the door shut tight when the ladies come a callin!

But what if i'm thinking of adding to the pack. I'm considering a rottweiler pup, a bitch, most likely. How long will I have to leave her before neutering if i get her very young(I haven't ruled out an older rescue, nuetering her before intros are made)

Would it be a problem in the pack no matter what sex i get.

I know there's a whole debate going here, but i'm not understanding the half of it.

Thanks for explaining the 'back isssues, and showlines' things. Max is a pet and company, no showing or shutzhund for me or him:D

My other 2(bitches) are neutered, what do you suggest.

Wibbs · 20-01-2012 6:28pm

DBB wrote: »

You've cited one and the same paper in two links there, only one of them's a blog, which for me, doesn't count.
Anyway, in the paper cited here, it states that the risk of a male dog developing bone sarcoma is 1 in 100,000, whilst the risk in females is 0.6 in 100,000.
If males are (almost) four times more likely to develop bone sarcoma when neutered, then the risk is (almost) 4 dogs in 100,000.
Extremely low odds, in other words.

Eh nope. This is why I left the vets blog to translate in case errors like yours were made. Those figures are for humans, specifically adolescents and young adults. The study is not a veterinary one. It's looking for environmental/hormonal triggers in an animal model that may be applied to a human one. The results just happen to be of interest to dog lovers, particularly rottweiler owners who want the best for their dogs.

In the dogs studied? Bone sarcoma was diagnosed in 12.6% of the dogs in this cohort during 71,004 dog-months follow-up. Significantly higher than .6 in 100,000 wouldn't you agree?

It goes on to say quite clearly that
Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact
So the blogs emphasis if a tad OTT was justified. Dunno about you, but I would consider a one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma as pretty high. A lifetime risk that is significantly reduced by holding off on neutering.

The emphasis ("his rate of osteosarcoma ALMOST QUADRUPLES") is in the blog, not the paper, just so readers know. Researchers don't italicise or capitalise words to draw attention to them in scientific papers. Also, this study was done on a fairly small sample of one breed of dog: we know some breeds are predisposed to certain cancers, so again, some context is needed.

So what? It does quadruple the rate. Plus Rotties are a common breed. Quite a few folks on here have them. Neutering, particularly early neutering increases the risk of a very common form of cancer in this breed(and possibly crosses) and likely in other large breeds who are more susceptible to it.

As I've said, I don't have time right now to look at the other citations, but I will say that it is extremely unfair on readers to quote facts and figures at them without giving context. Your posts on this issue tend to be scaremonger-y, telling people their dog is X times more likely to develop any particular condition if they neuter it... yet deeper investigation shows that the figures are based on tiny risks to start with.
So, can I ask that in future, you post the numbers and stats in context, so that people can decide for themselves what the real risk is?

Deeper investigation? You completely misread the stats on Osteosarcoma. Nada to do with my links. I've always left links so those reading can check it out for themselves and make up their own minds. Unlike the overly pro "early neutering is good for your dog" types who usually tend to go on anecdote. I've acknowledged the overall protective effect for bitches when it comes to mammary cancers. My issue is with the BS to do with early neutering for all dogs, regardless of breed and size.

Irishchick · 20-01-2012 7:13pm

boodee wrote: »

But what if i'm thinking of adding to the pack. I'm considering a rottweiler pup, a bitch, most likely. How long will I have to leave her before neutering if i get her very young(I haven't ruled out an older rescue, nuetering her before intros are made)

Would it be a problem in the pack no matter what sex i get.

I know there's a whole debate going here, but i'm not understanding the half of it.

Thanks for explaining the 'back isssues, and showlines' things. Max is a pet and company, no showing or shutzhund for me or him:D

My other 2(bitches) are neutered, what do you suggest.

In that situation you would probably need to get a male. The downside is you may have arguments due to the levels of testosterone that would be present!

As you say another option could be to adopt an older dog that is already neutered.

If your finding it too hard to decide now then hold off on adding another dog. Maybe you just need more time to think about it? Do some research yourself and write down a list of pro's and con's that apply to <i>you</i> and <i>your family</i>. It may help you decide either way.

boodee · 20-01-2012 7:19pm

absolutely,
it's not a decision i'm making soon, i'm just thinking of it. As for family..well, they'd be my dogs,,,sad, i know:o

DBB · 21-01-2012 2:05am

Quoted from Wibbs
Eh nope. This is why I left the vets blog to translate in case errors like yours were made. Those figures are for humans, specifically adolescents and young adults. The study is not a veterinary one. It's looking for environmental/hormonal triggers in an animal model that may be applied to a human one. The results just happen to be of interest to dog lovers, particularly rottweiler owners who want the best for their dogs.

Yep, hands up m'lud! In my rush I misread the abstract, which is a little ambiguous in the way it's written, but yes, my mistake!:o
However...
The risk of bone sarcoma in dogs is not 1/100,000 as I said, it's actually been estimated at 7.9/100,000 (Dorn et al, 1968). So, that's a 0.008% chance of a dog developing the condition, on average. Not as low as humans, but extremely low odds all the same.
In your study, Rotties were chosen because they have the highest risk of developing the disease of all breeds studied: according to the study quoted by your authors, Rotties are almost 10 times more likely than other breeds to develop the condition, the risk being almost negligible in medium and smaller breeds (Ru et al, 1998). The Ru et al study identified a 2-fold chance of neutered dogs developing bone cancer, whilst the authors you cite found it to be closer to 4-fold in males that were castrated before 1 year of age: the risk falls appreciably after this age. This is where the blogging vet gets his quadrupled risk from, I take it.
So, if the average incidence in dogs is 7.9 in 100,000, then Rotties are likely to be 10 times that, which is 79 in 100,000. So, if neutered Rotties are at worst (almost) 4 times more likely to develop the disease, that increased the odds to 316 in 100,000. Which, if my maths are okay, is a 0.32% risk.
Interesting too that in the study you've quoted, neutered males live for about the same length of time as entire males, whilst spayed females live more than 2 years longer on average than entire females!

Deeper investigation? You completely misread the stats on Osteosarcoma. Nada to do with my links. I've always left links so those reading can check it out for themselves and make up their own minds.

Yep, in my haste I made a mistake!
Problem is, most of your links are either just abstracts, and as TMD said, we can't draw any conclusions as we can't contextualise the results with just abstracts. Or, your links are to blogs. I can't take what any blogger says with any great seriousness, unless they are the author of the original research, because I'm only reading the blogger's interpretation of the work. I was always taught it's dangerous to reference a reference!
One of the abstracts you link to is not available as a full paper in english: I've searched the e-journal databases and can't find the full paper, despite having access to most collections.. it's the one on neutering causing dogs to become less active, eat more etc. I'd like more context to draw any conclusions, as I'm having difficulty in finding any other papers which suggest neutered dogs are less active... indeed, in a brief search, I found a paper which says the opposite! (Salmieri et al, 1991).

Now, onto prostate and bladder cancers.
The incidence of prostate cancer in dogs is estimated at 0.2 to 0.6% (Bell et al, 1991). The risk of a neutered dog developing prostate cancer ranges from an average of a 2.38-fold increase (Bell et al, 1991) to a 4.34-fold increase (Teske et al, 2002), with the greatest risk from prostate transitional cell carcinoma at an 8-fold increase. Still very, very low odds (0.48% at worst). Indeed, by far the most prevalent form of prostatic disease is benign prostatic hyperplasia, which is reduced by... castration!
Indeed, in the very study you cited in the first page, the authors (Bryan et al, 2007, p.1179) state in the discussion:
"In spite of the increases over time, the highest single-year occurrence of prostate cancer in the database represented only 72 cases reported from all 19 institutions contributing cases that year. This occurrence is so small as to effectively negate concern a veterinarian might have about causing prostate cancer by neutering dogs".

I think the message is that yes, there is a risk with some diseases, often, but not always, associated with early neutering. However, the risks are small when taken in context. No operation is without its drawbacks which have to be considered, but like many things in life, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.
Neutering can prevent, reduce, or eliminate quite a number of problem behaviours (I will go and get the many references if you wish), many of which are the primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs. I think, on balance, the danger to the dog's survival is much greater because of such behavioural problems, than it is from neuter-related illnesses later in life.
I could be wrong, but in my own experience of rehoming hundreds of dogs, and working with hundreds more, any of the cancers that have been referred to as being more prevalent in neutered dogs, I have only very occasionally seen... and always in entire dogs!

DBB · 21-01-2012 2:17am

boodee wrote: »

But what if i'm thinking of adding to the pack. I'm considering a rottweiler pup, a bitch, most likely. How long will I have to leave her before neutering if i get her very young(I haven't ruled out an older rescue, nuetering her before intros are made)

Would it be a problem in the pack no matter what sex i get.

I know there's a whole debate going here, but i'm not understanding the half of it.

Thanks for explaining the 'back isssues, and showlines' things. Max is a pet and company, no showing or shutzhund for me or him:D

My other 2(bitches) are neutered, what do you suggest.

A difficult one boodee!
It very, very much depends on the dynamic you've got going on with the 3 you have.
Do they all play with each other, equally and happily?
Do two tend to gang up on one?
Does one tend not to bother getting involved in the shenanigans of the other two?
Or do any of them bother with each other?:D

Also, some breeds tend to be more amenable to living in a group (emphasis on the word "tend"!). Some owners here already have 4+ dogs who all work well together. I had 3 until my old Shep died last Feb, herself and my spaniel X were good pals, whilst my westie just does his own thing.
Now I have a new Shep, and things are still settling between them all, but the dynamic is fairly similar as it was before.
So, have a good think about the interpersonal relationships (:D) going on between the three you have, before making a decision. Also, take into account how each gets on with other males, and other females.
It's really hard to know, and you won't know whether you've made the right decision until your new dog is a reality:D Sometimes though, you'll find a dog that wouldn't annoy anyone no matter how hard he/she tries: big eejity eejits who might pee everyone off from time to time, but never enough to get anyone angry. The type of dog that makes the other dogs do this: :rolleyes:
Maybe worth fostering a fourth for a while and see how they all work together?

GSD Nuetering/Breeding

Comments