Tag Archives: welfare

03/1/16

Eat Less, Live Longer

Eat less, live longer

 

ResearchBlogging.orgLast year I went to a Primal Paws workshop in Adelaide, and Dr Jamie mentioned research which suggested that dogs that stayed skinnier lived longer healthier lives. Obviously, I had to know more, so I found the 2002 paper on Labradors.

Young Black LabradorThe basic design of this study (published in 2002) involved 48 labradors. Each labrador was buddied with another labrador at 6 weeks of age (choosing a buddy based on sex and body weight), and then one pup in the pair was fed 25% less than the other dog in the pair throughout life.

The focus on his study was basically to see the effect that 25% less food had on longevity and other illnesses in dogs. Apparently, many other studies have been done, primarily on rodents, that have shown that less food (regardless of many other variables) results in longer living and healthier animals. However, this research hasn’t been conducted on larger mammals. (This is the first study, that the authors know of, on dogs. Research on primates is ongoing.)

Each year, for at least 14 years, the dogs alive had bloods taken and body composition scoring. Also, their deaths and any diseases that occurred were recorded alongside the year of acquisition.

 

The main points:

  • Dogs that had less food’s median life span was significantly longer.
    Dogs who were fed less had a median lifespan of 13 years, compared to 11.2 years in their partners.

  • “The onset of clinical signs of chronic disease generally was delayed for food-restricted dogs.”
    For dogs who had oestoarthritis (which was 43/48 dogs), 43 of these dogs required treatment. For controlled fed dogs, first treatment was needed from 6.8 years to 12.9 years. In the restricted fed group, first treatments was needed from 7.9 years to 14.1 years. Mean age was 10.3 in controlled group and 13.3 in restricted group, which was statistically significant.
    39 dogs required treatment for 1 or more chronic conditions. “Mean age to which 50% of the dogs in each group survived without requiring treatment for a chronic conditions as significantly lower for the controlled-feeding group than for the restricted-feeding group.”

  • ”No signs of nutritional deficiency (eg, progressive weight loss and general or specific clinical signs of a nutrient deficit) occurred during the study.”
    It’s important to note that, even though 24 dogs were fed a lot less food, they were still healthy!

  • Dogs in both groups had increased body condition scores (i.e. were fatter) from 6-12 years.
    This is just an interesting tidbit that illustrates a lull in the body’s metabolism at this particular point of time.

 

Problems

It’s hard to know whether this study will be replicable in different breeds or different genetic stock. Considering the history in the duplicity of results in other species, I think we can be pretty confident these results are solid. However, more research does this would be great.

Even though 48 dogs is a pretty good number for a sample, a bigger sample size is always better.

One question I found myself asking throughout this is, if it’s better to feed less food of a higher quality to maintain weight, instead of more food of poor quality? This would also be a good area for further research.

Indi mourns over the understanding that it's better for her to have 25% fewer chips.

Roxy mourns over the understanding that it’s better for her to have 25% fewer chips.

 

Take home points:

  • Feed your dog less. It might live longer.
  • Feed your dog less. It might be longer before it needs treatment for oestoarthritis (if they develop the condition).
  • Feed your dog less. It might be longer before it needs treatment for any chronic condition.
  • Feed your dog less, especially once he turns 6 years old.
  • Point from the actual text: “We recommend that for purposes of health and longevity, dogs be fed to maintain a body condition score less than 5.”

I’ve never been happier with my decision to keep my dogs at a lean weight throughout life.

 

Reference:

Kealy RD, Lawler DF, Ballam JM, Mantz SL, Biery DN, Greeley EH, Lust G, Segre M, Smith GK, & Stowe HD (2002). Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 220 (9), 1315-20 PMID: 11991408

 

Further reading:

How to Reduce Your Dog’s Weight

02/1/15

Breeder Registration is Bollocks

It doesn’t take long for those involved in animal welfare circles to hear arguments for the implementation of breeder registration. Many advocates of breeder registration argue that such a scheme would cause some breeders to ‘reconsider’ breeding, and one less breeder is seemingly desirable to these animal advocates.

There seems to be a lot of faith and enthusiasm for such a scheme, despite breeder legislation never having been shown to achieve anything, that if affects ‘good’ and ‘bad’ breeders equally, impacts on rescues, and is difficult to police. Further, it seems to be targetting the mythical ‘overpopulation problem’, and not the actual issue of pound poor-performance.

So let’s address all the reasons why breeder registration is not the holy grail of animal welfare legislation.

 

No Evidence

There is no research that indicates that breeder registration reduces impounds/euthanasia, or improves the welfare of dogs in breeding establishments. For example, the Gold Coast Breeder Scheme is widely considered to be a flop, and has been discontinued. If there is no evidence that breeder legislation works, why would we be invest funds in establishing a scheme? Breeder legislation is a poorly qualified solution to animal impoundment, as much as BSL is a poor solution to dog bites.

It’s been tried before, and failed before, so why repeat the same mistakes?

 

Australian Shepherd puppies playing in a ball pit.

Decline in Ethical Breeders

The hallmark of most breeder registration schemes is a breeder having to pay in order to be ‘registered’.

The problem is that ethical breeders are (largely) not making money from their breeding, and therefore may not be in a financial position to pay for registration. Ethical breeders may choose to cease breeding due to expense. How do we ensure that responsible, ethical breeders are not discouraged from producing wonderful pets?

As most of these schemes require breeders to pay in order to be registered, what breeder registration effectively does is limit (legal) breeding to those who are making money from the practice. What I mean is: breeders who don’t make money are are probably the ‘ethical ones’, and are probably less likely to be able to afford registration. Are these the individuals we want to perturb from breeding?

Furthermore, there is those that breed dogs in working fields, like guide dogs, customs, and so forth. Any restriction on breeders would also cause more expense and process for those producing animals for these roles.

 

Unethical Breeders Unaffected

On the flip side of this, those who are most likely to be able to afford registration is puppy farmers themselves. Those running a business, profiting from the sale of puppies, are going to be able to afford registration, and continue breeding puppies.

If a breeder is raising puppies in conditions that are undesirable and outside of welfare codes, they are going to avoid registration, and simply remain unnoticed and unpoliced.

Or, alternatively, a breeder may pass all the codes as they meet physical levels of care, but they neglect the psychological well being of their dogs and puppies.

Basically: Unethical breeders are not going to be deterred by a breeder registration scheme.

 

Association with Code of Practice

Whenever breeder legislation is suggested, it tends to appear alongside a Code of Practice. A Code of Practice attempts to specify the way animals should be maintained. The biggest problem is that it effectively obligates breeders to keep their dogs in a kennel situation, which many would argue is in contradiction to the best interest of dogs. I discussed these problems in my article called Clean and Kennelled.

Basically, if you have a breeder registration scheme, it goes hand-in-hand with a prescribed approach to animal management and handling, which is counter intuitive to animal welfare goals.

 

Mandatory Desexing Overtones

Any breeder registration scheme has overtones of compulsory desexing for dogs. Not only are there legitimate reasons to keep dogs entire, mandatory desexing also has negative social factors. For example, mandatory desexing is often associated with increased surrenders (e.g. “I can’t afford to desex my dog, so I need to surrender it instead so I don’t become a law breaker”).

The Saving Pets blog does a good job of describing how mandatory desexing has never worked. Furthermore, I’ve blogged before about how mandatory desexing is hard to define (unless we desex everything and eradicate the species). Mandatory desexing is also often associated with early age desexing, which has its own welfare implications. And there’s evidence that making desexing mandatory increases surrenders, as people aren’t able to pay for the surgery and so are left with no other choice. And, on top of that, desexing is a medical procedure, which should be implemented by medical professionals based on the individual animal at hand – not policy makers.

Further, mandatory desexing seeks to categorise people who have an entire dog as ‘breeders’, when this may not be the case. That is, non-breeders may be forced to become breeders according to legislation in order to comply with the law.

 

Exclusions

Mandatory breeder registration often excludes key groups: ‘backyard breeders’, ‘working dog breeders’, and greyhound breeders. These breeders produce a lot of dogs and dogs that are, seemingly, more likely to end up in the pound system.

A dog is a dog. We can’t argue that breeder registration is for the welfare of dogs owned by a particular group of people. Legislation needs to apply to all dogs, or none at all.

And, when you make this breeder registration compulsory, you need to consider the impact on rescues.  As rescues occasionally take in pregnant dogs, they may be deemed as breeders, and may have to pay breeder registration too. The last thing we need is for rescues to be further out of pocket due to the introduction of unfounded legislation. I could list twenty things that rescue could be better suited to spend their funds on.

 

No Policing

I’ve blogged before about how many dog-related policies are not policed.  In South Australia, we have the Animal Welfare Act and the Dog and Cat Management Act. I see constant violations of both these acts as it currently stands. So what are we doing bringing in new legislation, when our existing legislation is under enforced?

Without enforcement, legislation is just tokensitic. Arguably, if our existing legislation was enforced, we wouldn’t need further legislation. Our existing legislation is pretty good legislation. If it’s not enforced, then puppy farms can flourish.

 

Poor Focus

My biggest rejection of this is that there isn’t a population problem. We don’t need to reduce the number of dogs in the world. Shelters need to market and promote animals in their care better. Breeder registration doesn’t have anything to do with shelter euthanasia rates.

While we’re busy spending all our time going after breeders, we will still be watching shelters killing a great number of dogs. While you might take issue with people breeding their dogs, I take bigger issue with shelters killing dogs in their community. What’s the greater problem here?

 

Further reading:

Just Stop Breeding Until the Pounds are Empty

Why I Don’t Want Oscar’s Law

The Fallacy of Mandatory Desexing

What is the answer? (To puppy farms)

Rescue Vs Breeders

09/6/14

The SA Story (Again)

selectcommitteesa

After hearing the ‘results’ of the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA, I was hugely disappointed in the process and the recommendations. However, I was pleased to hear nothing further about it (it came out July last year!).

Until now.

A few articles (one | two | three) have come out quoting Ian Hunter (politician), Tammy Franks (politician), Tim Vasuedeva (RSPCA CEO), Steven Marshall (politician), and Jay Weatherill (politician).

The hot ideas are compulsory desexing (or just desexing puppies in pet shops), a code of practice, and a breeder licensing scheme, with some extra legislation thrown in for good measure. It’s not a surprise that this is mostly bad news, considering the spurious nature of the original Select Committee report.

 

Compulsory Desexing

The articles seem to be looking at both compulsory desexing, and compulsory desexing of all dogs sold in pet shops. The narrator in the first article describes the community as ‘divided’.

 

Compulsory Desexing of Petshop Puppies

Tammy Franks, in particular, supports the suggestion that all puppies from pet shops should be desexed.

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says, “We’ve been desexing puppies between 3-4 months for years and years and we haven’t had any problems.”

The first article claims that the government will look at compulsory desexing of dogs sold in pet shop in light of a Select Committee’s report. While the report made many poor recommendations, desexing of dogs in pet shops before sale was not one of them! False reporting!

The problem with this is: We are desexing very young puppies and there is evidence that there are harms associated with desexing when it is done at a young age. These harms go beyond anaesthetic risks and immediate recovery (which is what Tim is referring to) and is more about long term acquisition of health problems including cancer. (You can read a recent study on golden retrievers, or a recent study on vizslas to learn more about this.)

Further, what is the point of this suggested legislation? Why should all puppies be desexed before sale? Especially because of the long term health risks?

If you wanted to get me on side with this suggestion, I would be more inclined to support the sterilisation of puppies before sale (including tubal ligation and vasectomies, that aren’t known to have these long-term health outcomes). However, I’d still be asking what the point of this was – surely there’s bigger issues for us to be dealing with.

 

Compulsory Desexing of Everything

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says that the AVA’s research shows that desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite. This is not true: the AVA refers to others’ research, using 23 year old data, which suggests desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite.

Tim Vasudeva spoke about how desexing could be beneficial – in reducing wandering and hormone-driven behaviours and said “At the very least I don’t think can hurt”. While there is actually a study that indicates that this is the case, it is one old study. Anecdotally, I know of plenty of people who have non-humpy non-pissing non-wandering dogs that are entire.

Ian Hunter says that “In the ACT, desexing is compulsory and has led to a 47% decrease in dog attacks. It’s also reduced the number of unwanted dogs being euthanised.” Despite a lot of research on my part, I couldn’t find any evidence that this is the case. Any clues on this appreciated! While there might be a correlation (I stress might), this doesn’t indicate a causation.

 

Code of Practice

All three articles talk about the government introducing a Code of Practice to target puppy farms and makes sure dogs are kept and born into healthy and humane conditions.

But a Code of Practice will affect everyone, not just puppy farms! Such codes produced around Australia have pretty much banned dogs from being kept inside or on grass. Are puppy farms defined as those with lots of dogs? Those breeding many litters? Those producing many puppies? Anyone that breeds full stop? A ‘puppy farm’ is hard to define, and so Codes of Practice affect everyone instead.

Further, dogs already have to be kept in a humane way! The Animal Welfare Acts and similar legislation across Australia requires it. Anyone who is allowing their dogs to get matted, or not have water, or have medical treatments denied, is guilty of an offence. We can get puppy farmers for that! Code of Practice not required!

 

Licensing Scheme

I was excited in article two where there was the suggestion that there would be no licensing scheme… Then article three suggested there would be. I’ve repeatedly made arguments against breeder licensing (the most elaborate being here), but basically:

1) Breeder licensing hasn’t been shown to do much (like the Gold Coast scheme) – it doesn’t reduce pound intakes for sure. And puppy farmers don’t make a habit of signing up.

2) Why would we introduce a new license scheme, when the Animal Welfare Acts are not currently enforced?

3) How do we ensure that responsible and ethical home ‘hobby breeders’ are not discouraged from breeding wonderful pets?

4) Often, breeder licensing excludes ‘backyard breeders’, ‘working dog breeders’, and greyhound breeders. These breeders produce a lot of dogs and dogs that are, seemingly, more likely to end up in the pound system.

 

Other Matters

Tammy Franks wants shelters to reveal euthanasia rates publicly. I think this is great if shelters were to have such transparency.

Article two and three suggest that mandatory microchipping will come in, and be compulsory (presumably, hopefully, compulsory before sale). While I have no qualms with microchipping being mandatory, I look forward to the phone line that allows me to report in those selling animals without microchips illegally. I don’t look forward to my expensive phone bills from making such reports. What I’m saying is: I have no confidence that this legislation will be adequately enforced.

Interestingly, one article says that there will be a “requirement for pets to only be bought from registered breeders”. That would be interesting! No more RSPCA, AWL, rescue group sales. No more guide dog and assistant dog groups selling unsuitable animals. Does that mean private rehomings are no longer legal? Surely this must be some kind of error in reporting.

And still there’s continued bleating about a cooling off period, under the guise that it would “reduce impulse buying and cut the number of pets being abandoned or surrendered”. There is no evidence that this is the case! Firstly, it does not seem that pets acquired impulsively are at any greater risk of being surrendered than pets acquired with a lot of thought. Secondly, there is no evidence that a cooling off period would reduce abandonment of pets. I don’t know how this even gets attention!

 

How unfortunate that the Select Committee’s recommendations are now gaining media attention and potentially some momentum in SA.

I spent a great many hours researching and writing my 20 page submission to the Committee. When the Committee published its findings and suggestions, I was so angry that the recommendations made were based on an emotive community rather than evidence and science.

I had been peacefully thinking that the Select Committee was just a little media stunt, and that it was going to disappear. These recent media reports and troubling and upsetting.

It’s concerning that the Government is prepared to invest resources into plans with no evidence that they will have any impact on animal welfare.

It is just as concerning that the community is lapping it up.

 

Further reading:

Public Misconceptions

Is desexing a cult?

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

06/27/14

“Just stop breeding until the pounds are empty”

A increasingly common rhetoric in the rescue community goes along the lines of, “I’m not against breeding, just breeding when the pounds are full” coming along with the suggestion “just stop breeding for a few years, until the pounds are empty”.

This is a misguided suggestion. While this almost sounds good to the uneducated ear, it seems to imply that the dogs in pounds are exactly the type in demand or that there is a dog in a pound to suit every person. Further, ceasing breeding for 3 years would have an impact on not just breeders, but breeds as a whole, on any organisation with working dogs (guide dogs, custom dogs, farm dogs). Also, placing a ban on breeding is just unenforceable. However, the biggest issue with this suggestion is that it doesn’t target the source of the problem. I’ll look at all these issues in more detail.

 

Pound dogs aren’t for everyone

The dogs available for adoption in pounds is not highly varied. The suggestion that ‘anyone’ can find the dog that is perfect to their household is erroneous. There’s simply not a large variety of dogs in pounds to suit the demand. The reason that breeders (good and bad) are popular is they fulfil a demand that is not met by pounds. Small white fluffies, and indeed small dogs overall, are not well represented in the pound system.

I looked at the first page of dogs available for adoption at Blacktown Pound (NSW). You can see that most dogs are working or bull breed type, and most are medium to large in size. Not a great deal of variety.

I looked at the first page of dogs available for adoption at Blacktown Pound (NSW). You can see that most dogs are working or bull breed type, and most are medium to large in size. Not a great deal of variety.

Some might argue that if someone really needs or wants a particular type of dog, they should just wait for it to end up in rescue. Is it really fair for someone to wait 2 year or more for a dog that may never appear in rescue? Personally, I was waiting 18 months looking for a dog in rescue (with the requirements that the dog be big, with a wire coat, and very good with other dogs). I gave up waiting and went to a breeder. I feel like I was more than patient, but a dog suiting my needs just wasn’t available to me in this period of time.

On the same date, these are the available pets at Broken Hill Pound NSW available on the 26th of June. Again, the dogs are mostly medium-large working or bull breed types.

On the same date, these are the available pets at Broken Hill Pound NSW available on the 26th of June. Again, the dogs are mostly medium-large working or bull breed types

The other alternative is that people may just get the dog that is available instead of the dog right for them. Did you know that at least two studies (see: one / two) found that 22.5% of the dogs relinquished to a shelter came from a shelter to start with? Being from a shelter is a risk factor for relinquishment in itself, and proposals that people should ‘have to’ acquire a dog from a pound actually seems circular to the end goal of clearing shelters of pets.

 

Implications for Working Dogs

Seemingly in Australia, about 700 dogs are bred for customs and guide dog work each year.  These professions have targeted breeding programs to select for characteristics important for that dog’s individual role. They’ve obviously done the maths, and figure that it’s more cost effective for them to breed their own dogs than take dogs out of shelters and pounds. The proposal that breeders should ‘just stop breeding’ until pounds are empty means that either these programs suffer financially, or the community suffers by not having any dogs at all for several years or more (or forever, really).

Another industry that would suffer would be dogs used on properties for herding or as livestock guardians. These agricultural branches have specially bred dogs for their purposes. Many farms find the work of dogs invaluable, and would also be financially impacted by a breeding ban.

 

Enforcement is not going to happen

I’ve blogged at length about all the types of legislation that continually goes unenforced Australia-wide, yet touted as ‘good’. In reality, animal legislation is horrendously unenforced. If microchipping laws get flaunted, breeder licensing flops, and the animal welfare acts regularly are violated nation wide, what hope do we have of ceasing dog breeding for a particular period of time?

 

Dog and Breed Welfare

The idea that breeding should just stop for ‘a few years’ neglects to mention that ‘a few years’ is a long time in a life of a dog.

Let’s say you have a breed that lives until about 12 years old. Three years is a quarter of that dog’s life. That means the dog is middle-aged by the time it is 6 years old.

What I’m getting at is that if you were to ban breeding for a few years, we are going to be breeding older bitches, which we know is riskier. (As bitches age, they have smaller sized litters with bigger individual puppies, which is riskier for the bitch to whelp.)

This means that, for the individual bitches involved, this is bad for their health.

On a broader scope, if breeders choose not to breed their bitches because of a breeding ban, this could put the health of entire breeds in jeopardy. If a bitch is especially important (maybe she has hip scores of 0/0 in a breed with a high incidence of hip dysplasia, or maybe the bitch was imported from Sweden and is important for improving genetic diversity within the breed in Australia), then the loss of this bitch’s progeny to the breed is significant.

Basically, a breeding ban is bad for individual bitches, as they will be bred older, to their detriment. And a breeding ban is bad for breeds, as desirable or important bitches will not be able to make substantial positive impacts on their breed.

 

Is this really where we should focus?

My biggest gripe with this is it is, again, taking the focus away from the pound – the place where killing happens.

Pounds have an obligation to promote and market their animals. Let’s ban pounds from killing and so obligate them to make changes to their approach!

The other gripe is that this proposal works on the basis that there is an overpopulation program – there isn’t an overpopulation problem.

And: pounds will never be empty! Pounds have an important community service reuniting pets to their families. If my dogs got lost, they’d probably end up in the pound (if not scanned for a chip prior), and I’d be grateful for that.

 

A ban on breeding, even for a short period, is not a solution to shelter killing.

  • Shelters do not have a wide variety of dogs available for adoption, so limiting the availability of some breeds may mean:
    • People wait a unreasonably long time to acquire a dog, or
    • People acquire a dog unsuitable to their lifestyle (and the dog becomes at greater risk of being relinquished back to the shelter at a later date).
  • Working dog breeds (including customs, guide dogs, farm dogs) and the organisations that breed them will suffer, as will the people that these dogs benefit.
  • Animal legislation is not enforced and this will be another unenforceable law.
  • This proposal is bad for bitches and breed welfare.
  • And most importantly, this proposal fails to acknowledge the fault of pounds in the shelter-deaths.
01/28/14

Desexing: It’s bad for vizslas, too

Spay/Neuter is bad for Vizslas

Late last year, a study was published looking at the incidence of cancer in desexed golden retrievers, finding a correlation between earlier desexing (before one year old) and certain types of cancer.

Now, in February, there is a new study supporting many of the findings in the golden retriever study, but this time looking at the incidence of cancers in Hungarian Vizslas. As behavioural disorders are also common in the breed, the researchers decided to look at the impact of desexing on these disorders, as well.

ResearchBlogging.org

While we will look at their findings in more detail, the main take home points from this research are (quote):

“revealed that gonadectomized dogs had significantly higher odds than did sexually intact dogs of having mast cell tumour, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma or lymphosarcoma, all other cancers, all types of cancer combined or behavioral disorders, regardless of the age at which the dog was gonadectomzied. The 2 exceptions were that male dogs gonadectomized at [less than or equal to] 12 months of age did not have a higher risk of developing hemangiosarcoma and dogs gonadectomized at > 6 months of age did not have a higher risk of developing a behavioural disorder, other than fear of storms.”

And it is important to note that the age of onset was earlier for all cancers and disorders when the dog was desexed.

So now that has wet your appetite, we will look at the research in more detail.

 

About the Study

This was a retrospective cohort study – meaning it was a piece of research based on events that had happened over time, looking back at that time.

The study included 2,505 vizslas born between 1992 and 2008. Of them:

  • 604 of the vizslas had cancer(s),
  • 648 had behavioural disorders,
  • 1,421 of them were desexed,
  • 362 vizslas were desexed at 6 months or earlier (209 of these were female, and 153 of these were male),
  • 298 vizslas were desexed at 7-12 months (157 were female, 141 were male), and
  • 711 vizslas were desexed at 12 months (459 females, 312 males).

Data for this study was collected from an online survey conducted during 2008, which targeted vizsla owners to partake by advertising through breed clubs, email lists, websites, magazines, and newsletters.  75% of respondents were involved with Vizsla breed clubs, so it was a biased sample.

Participants came from 25 countries in all, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.

This study was designed to consider age of desexing and its effects, so the owners were asked to identify when their dog was desexed, or if it was not at all. It’s important to note that many studies simply look at ‘entire’ or ‘desexed’ and don’t look at lifetime exposure to gonads – this is one of few in a new study of research actually considering the time of desexing.

 

Cancer

An earlier Vizsla Health Survey found that cancer, especially hemangiosarcoma and lymphoma, “was listed as the most common cause of death in the breed.”  Desexing was associated with the development of these cancers, according to their survey, and also associated with the development of behavioural disorders.

This is no surprise, as numerous studies have linked desexed with various types of cancer, including hemangiosarcoma, but also prostate cancer, transitional cell carcinoma, and osteosarcoma.

This research show that a desexed vizsla was 5 times as likely to have cancer (other than mast cell cancer, hemangiosarcoma, or lymphoma or lymphosarcoma) than vizslas that were entire.

Not only were desexed dogs more likely to get cancer, but the earlier they were desexed, the earlier they were diagnosed with cancer.

All in all, dogs desexed at any age were more likely to have cancer than dogs not desexed.

Interestingly, though, “There was no significant difference in the longevity of gonadectomized Vizslas, compared with the longevity for those that remained sexually intact”. This means that even though desexed dogs were more likely to get cancer, and sooner, this didn’t seem to make them die younger.

 

Hemangiosarcoma

When it comes to hemangioarcoma, desexed females were 9 times as likely to get hemangiosarcoma than entire females.

For males, males neutered after 12 months of age had a higher risk of developing hemangiosarcoma.

The research makes note that this is not a ‘one off’ event: “Of concern, studies have found an increased risk of hemangiosarcoma, a common tumour that frequently leads to fatal outcomes, in gonadectomized dogs, which is in concurrence with findings for the present study.” That means that vizslas are not alone in being more likely to develop hemangiosarcoma when desexed, especially when it comes to bitches.

 

Mast Cell Cancer

Desexed vizslas got mast cell cancer at a significantly higher rate (3.5 times more likely) than entire dogs, and they got diagnosed with this cancer sooner than entire dogs.

 

Lymphosarcoma

While there was no difference between females and males in the likelihood of developing lymphoma or lymphosarcoma, desexed vizslas were significantly more likely (4.3 times as high incidence) entire.

 

Mammary Cancer

There is some evidence that bitches left entire for longer are more likely to develop mammary cancer. However, this study says, “authors of a recent systematic review of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the associations among neutering, age at neutering, and mammary gland tumours concluded that the evidence that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations on neutering because of limited evidence and bias in published results”.  We can, at least, say there is some debate on the correlation of mammary cancers and desexing.

In regard to this study, mammary cancer was not common. There were 1,360 female dogs in the study, with 535 of them being entire, and only 11 developed mammary tumours. That is, 2% of entire bitches got breast cancer. (The authors of this study also note that 10 of those 11 bitches were desexed at later than 5 years old.)

This equates to only .4% of the dogs in the 2505 strong study developed mammary cancer. In comparison, 11% of the 2505 dogs in the study having mast cell cancer, hemosarcoma, lymphoma, or lymphosarcoma.Considering this, community emphasis on mammary cancer seems misguided as it is not biggest concern, especially in this breed.

 

Behavioural Disorders

There have been studies that have shown a correlation between gonadectomy and behavioural problems, but whether these affects on behaviour are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a matter of debate, with different studies showing different things.

The Vizsla Health Survey found that behavioural problems were prevalent in the breed, hence the focus of this study on behavioural problems. These types of behviour problems were mostly fear, anxiety, and increased arousal.

This study did something clever though: Dogs who had a behavioural problem before desexing were excluded from the analysis. The logic? “Excluding dogs that might have been gonadectomized because of a behavioural problem eliminated a confounding factor that could have incorrectly suggested a stronger association between gonadectomy and behavioural problems.”

Desexed vizslas were more likely to have behavioural problems than sexually intact dogs, and dogs desexed at or before 6 months had a 1.8 times higher incidence of behavioural disorders than sexually intact dogs. These behavioural problems included: fear of storms, separation anxiety, fear of noises, fear of gunfire, timidity, excitability, submissive urination, aggression, hyperactivity, and fear biting.

As with cancer, the younger the dog was at time of desexing, the earlier a behavioural problem was diagnosed.

Fear of storms was particularly significant. Desexed dogs were 4.1 times more likely to be scared of storms than entire dogs. Bitches were more likely to be scared of storms than males – but males desexed younger was more likely to be scared of storms earlier. (Desexing time didn’t change when females became fearful of storms.)

The author notes, “It should be mentioned that the most common behavioral problems in Vizslas in this study did not include sexual behaviours (eg, mounting and urine marking).”

 

Why is it so?

Briefly, this study predicted that sex steroids such as estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone is related to immunity, especially the surveillance for cancer cells. That is, without gonads to produce sex hormones, the immune system does not function as normal.

 

Highlights

To me, the most important points from this study are:

  • There seems to be no compelling reason to desex Vizslas in regard to that individual dog’s health or temperament, on the basis of this study.
  • Desexing does not inevitably result in a healthier and more temperamentally stable dog.
  • As orthopaedic problems are not common in Vizslas, this study does not consider joint disorders and desexing, as other studies have.
  • Despite the incidence of cancer in neutered dogs, this study suggests that desexed and intact Vizslas live about the same length of time.
  • Vets need to discuss the pros and cons of desexing with clients.

 

Further Research Discussion

This kind of research is just the beginning! Further research can consider:

  • Are Vizslas special? We need to do this type of research in other breeds.
  • For all studies considering affects of desexing, age of desexing should be considered in the data collected. There are very few studies looking at life-long gonad exposure, and so conclusions on optimum age of desexing is hard to make.
  • Biological effects of removing gonads.
  • Sterilisation for dogs without gonadectomy – like vasectomies or hysterectomies (leaving ovaries).
  • Something that I have been considering for a while,” An additional potential source of confounding was that behavioural differences between sexually intact and gonadectomized dogs could have been attributable to being subjected to hospitalisation and survey at a young age, rather than to the hormonal changes conferred by gonadectomy. A prospective, randomised blinded study with a control (sham) surgery could be performed to distinguish between these 2 scenarios.”
  • More research on gonadectomies, on cancer, and on behaviour, and how they’re connected.

 

Reference:

Zink MC, Farhoody P, Elser SE, Ruffini LD, Gibbons TA, & Rieger RH (2014). Evaluation of the risk and age of onset of cancer and behavioral disorders in gonadectomized Vizslas. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 244 (3), 309-19 PMID: 24432963

Read the study here.

 

Image Credit: Thanks to klam101 on DeviantArt.

 

Further Reading:

Why would you NOT desex your dog???

Is desexing a cult?

Golden Retrievers: Cancer if you do, cancer if you don’t

DON’T Spay or Neuter Your Pets

New Research That Raises Questions About Neutering Recommendations