Purdue Bloat Study....

[lvrgsp]

Here's one link Submariner.

http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/jan98.htm

And a partial one here:....

http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/192

Google it, you'll find many studies on it......not sure I am seeing a widespread epidemic in gundogs...some isolated cases in certain breeds sure....
just my interpretation on it....
Chip

[ezzy333]

Thanks for posting that. It pretty well shoots down the epidemic theory when the occurance rate skyrocketed to a whopping .57%. Thats one dog out of 200 and that they think is higher than it would be if they had more dogs in the study and even then it was just a few breeds that are affected. And it also showed that the occurance was breed and age related and not diet. They make a point of saying that if it was diet related all the breeds tested would have seen the identical raise as the diet changed and that didn't happen but it still was more age related. This says exactly what most of us know and have heard for years.

Through experience we have learned that keeping the stomach empty during and for a few hours after heavy activity is the preventive that seems to work the best. But there can still be occurances that we need to be concerned about but also need to keep it in perspective and realize the occurance is almost non-existant in most breeds and quite rare in even the most susceptical. Be aware and do what we can to lessen the chance makes a whole lot of sense to me but don't let it worry you excessively no matter what you hear till there is some evidence that the problem is becoming common and they have a reason for it.

Ezzy

[Sharon]

.........................................changed my mind.

[brdhntr]

Thanks for posting that. It pretty well shoots down the epidemic theory when the occurance rate skyrocketed to a whopping .57%. Thats one dog out of 200 and that they think is higher than it would be if they had more dogs in the study and even then it was just a few breeds that are affected. And it also showed that the occurance was breed and age related and not diet. They make a point of saying that if it was diet related all the breeds tested would have seen the identical raise as the diet changed and that didn't happen but it still was more age related. This says exactly what most of us know and have heard for years.

Through experience we have learned that keeping the stomach empty during and for a few hours after heavy activity is the preventive that seems to work the best. But there can still be occurances that we need to be concerned about but also need to keep it in perspective and realize the occurance is almost non-existant in most breeds and quite rare in even the most susceptical. Be aware and do what we can to lessen the chance makes a whole lot of sense to me but don't let it worry you excessively no matter what you hear till there is some evidence that the problem is becoming common and they have a reason for it.

Ezzy

Are you trying to mislead, or do you have trouble interpreting data? The .57% was all dogs hospitalized specifically in veterinary training hospitals. That is not the rate of occurrence. Irish setters went from.22% to 3.25. That is about 1 in every 30. Other breeds were much higher, but their rates of increase were similar.The study did not say diet was not an issue, it said specifically that it may be an issue. To say the #2 cause of death in dogs is not a common problem is rhetoric that enters the realm of pure propaganda. You should re-read the info this time not looking for points to make your argument.

[mcbosco]

Ezzy, Sharon, did you guys read the study or Purina's retort to the study?

just curious......

Incidently, Weimaraners are 20 times more likely to die of bloat than the average.

Virtually all the suggestions in that study to reduce bloat risk involve diet...did you miss that statistic that mixing canned or table food reduce bloat risk by as much as 38%? So clearly, kibble fed alone is a cause of bloat. Or did you miss the statement that bloat is lower in countries that don't feed as much dry food?

I really don't understand how anyone could read the study any other way, unless they have commercial interests of some sort.

[ezzy333]

Let me ask you one question brdhntr, why are you so adamant about making bloat an epidemic and the No. 2 killer when most people have never seen it and probably most have never heard of it? Seroius, yes, epidemic, no, and No.2, I have no idea since I have never seen any study done about what kills the most dogs.

Ezzy

[ezzy333]

Ezzy, Sharon, did you guys read the study or Purina's retort to the study?

just curious......

Incidently, Weimaraners are 20 times more likely to die of bloat than the average.

Virtually all the suggestions in that study to reduce bloat risk involve diet...did you miss that statistic that mixing canned or table food reduce bloat risk by as much as 38%? So clearly, kibble fed alone is a cause of bloat. Or did you miss the statement that bloat is lower in countries that don't feed as much dry food?

I really don't understand how anyone could read the study any other way, unless they have commercial interests of some sort.

Why does this not surprise me?

Ezzy

[brdhntr]

Let me ask you one question brdhntr, why are you so adamant about making bloat an epidemic and the No. 2 killer when most people have never seen it and probably most have never heard of it? Seroius, yes, epidemic, no, and No.2, I have no idea since I have never seen any study done about what kills the most dogs.

Ezzy

I didn't make it anything, but the veterinary epidemiology program at Purdue felt that the increase in its occurrence justified a study. Now an epidemiologist may feel a 1500% increase is an epidemic, but the studying of it does not cause the epidemic, it identifies it. Now I'm not sure as to the validity of it being the #2 killer, but it is mostly considered common knowledge, and is even cited in a recent issue of Gun Dog Magazine. Cancer is #1.

[slistoe]

Now I'm not sure as to the validity of it being the #2 killer, but it is mostly considered common knowledge, and is even cited in a recent issue of Gun Dog Magazine. Cancer is #1.

You sure throw it around a lot for being unsure. Unfortunately journalistic integrity is all but dead these days and they likely sourced the same "common knowledge" you did for the statement. Just like the surety with which you believe all the likely, maybe and possibilities you quoted from the bloat study.

mcbosco do you know anything about the confidence of the 38% you like to quote? Statistics are only as good as the sample used to generate them and the rigor of the person interpreting the numbers.

Like cancer, bloat is age related, and before the advent of quality commercial kibble, vaccinations and antibiotics the lifespan of dogs was so short that neither of them were at all significant in the death statistics. Is there any mention of that factor in the study? How did they account for the increasing lifespan of dogs over the time period of the study and its affect on the statistics on the "epidemic" of bloat.

Since we are looking over studies on bloat, what do you folks make of this excerpt from an abstract on a study titled The Effect of Ingredients in Dry Dog Foods on the Risk of Gastric Dilatation-Volvulus in Dogs "Neither an increasing number of animal-protein ingredients (P=0.79) nor an increasing number of soy and cereal ingredients (P=0.83) among the first four ingredients significantly influenced GDV risk." I currently have a request to my daughter to see if she can access the full text of the study.

[brdhntr]

Now I'm not sure as to the validity of it being the #2 killer, but it is mostly considered common knowledge, and is even cited in a recent issue of Gun Dog Magazine. Cancer is #1.

You sure throw it around a lot for being unsure. Unfortunately journalistic integrity is all but dead these days and they likely sourced the same "common knowledge" you did for the statement. Just like the surety with which you believe all the likely, maybe and possibilities you quoted from the bloat study.

The stat appears to come from a study published by a veterinary pathology department at a major university, I will spend more time on it, and then you can deny that too. Also as far as The Journalist at Gun Dog magazine goes, it was a Vet in their Veterinary Clinic section. I'm sure that doctorate in veterinary medicine has clouded his judgement.

[slistoe]

Without looking back through everything, someone on here also stated that the study showed no genetic influence on the risk of bloat - ergo it must be solely the effect of changing dietary practice.

Interestingly they make this recommendation following the study "In order to decrease the incidence of GDV, we suggest that dogs having a first degree relative with a history of GDV should not be bred" because of the strong association of risk factor in related dogs. They also show that the single largest risk factor is chest depth/width ratio relative to others of the breed "170% increase in risk for each unit increase in chest depth/width ratio", which is most definitely an hereditary trait and subject to significant changes over time due to the evolution of the show style - a perfect example would be the Irish Setter which showed a significant increase in bloat over the 30 years of the analysis - did they reference that against the change in body physiology of the breed during that time span with increasingly taller dogs and narrower chests? I am not as familiar with the Great Dane, but perhaps there was a similar drift in physiology with that breed as well.

Reading these studies certainly raises more questions than answers.

[brdhntr]

Without looking back through everything, someone on here also stated that the study showed no genetic influence on the risk of bloat - ergo it must be solely the effect of changing dietary practice.

Interestingly they make this recommendation following the study "In order to decrease the incidence of GDV, we suggest that dogs having a first degree relative with a history of GDV should not be bred" because of the strong association of risk factor in related dogs. They also show that the single largest risk factor is chest depth/width ratio relative to others of the breed "170% increase in risk for each unit increase in chest depth/width ratio", which is most definitely an hereditary trait and subject to significant changes over time due to the evolution of the show style - a perfect example would be the Irish Setter which showed a significant increase in bloat over the 30 years of the analysis - did they reference that against the change in body physiology of the breed during that time span with increasingly taller dogs and narrower chests? I am not as familiar with the Great Dane, but perhaps there was a similar drift in physiology with that breed as well.

Reading these studies certainly raises more questions than answers.

The irish setter showed an increase from .22% to 3.25%. That is 1477%. But I do agree that the study raises more questains than it gives answers.

[slistoe]

The stat appears to come from a study published by a veterinary pathology department at a major university, I will spend more time on it, and then you can deny that too.

I did find one study from a major University where they itemized sudden death causes over a 10 year period in the Pathology department. Bloat was included in the category of gastrointestinal disorders but the text did itemize it separately from the others. So.... the list... in descending order....
Heart Disease
Toxicity (poisoning)
Trauma
Other Gastrointestinal Disorders than Bloat
Hemorrhage not associated with Trauma
Malnutrition
Bloat
Respiratory Disease
etc.

Bloat accounted for app. 4% of total deaths itemized and "As would be expected, most of these dogs were deep chested and large to medium in size."

The lack of cancer deaths (the majority of the hemorrhage without trauma deaths were tumors of the heart or spleen) is explained by the fact that this was a study of sudden deaths in otherwise healthy appearing dogs.

[brdhntr]

The stat appears to come from a study published by a veterinary pathology department at a major university, I will spend more time on it, and then you can deny that too.

I did find one study from a major University where they itemized sudden death causes over a 10 year period in the Pathology department. Bloat was included in the category of gastrointestinal disorders but the text did itemize it separately from the others. So.... the list... in descending order....
Heart Disease
Toxicity (poisoning)
Trauma
Other Gastrointestinal Disorders than Bloat
Hemorrhage not associated with Trauma
Malnutrition
Bloat
Respiratory Disease
etc.

Bloat accounted for app. 4% of total deaths itemized and "As would be expected, most of these dogs were deep chested and large to medium in size."

The lack of cancer deaths (the majority of the hemorrhage without trauma deaths were tumors of the heart or spleen) is explained by the fact that this was a study of sudden deaths in otherwise healthy appearing dogs.

I read that, and if I remember correct it was a very small study group. To small to be conclusive. Also how would malnutrition be considered a sudden death in an otherwise healthy dog?

[brdhntr]

Here is an interesting statement written by a vet: http://www.vetcontact.com/en/art.php?a=773&t=

[slistoe]

Also how would malnutrition be considered a sudden death in an otherwise healthy dog?

As reported by the owner who brought the dog in for necropsy.

[claybuster_aa]

Bloat is no mystery, I know what causes it...lol. They did a Purdue Study to spin you around in 50 different direction only to tell you they don't really know for sure. They don't want you to know the answer and somethings are best left a mystery.

The best research I have seen comes from Robert Abady in regards to bloat. This would be independent science, not to be confused with the science controlled and financed by big business.

[slistoe]

The best research? Saponin is similar in structure to snake venom - therefore it must be a toxin. Come on.

[ezzy333]

We once again are spouting personal opinion as though it were fact.

Ezzy

[brdhntr]

Here is another interesting bit of info on bloat: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedi ... &O=Generic

[slistoe]

A synopsis of the study itself? How is that "another interesting bit"?

[claybuster_aa]

Must be just luck of the draw...you win some and you lose some.

[brdhntr]

A synopsis of the study itself? How is that "another interesting bit"?

It is an industry professionals analysis of the study, and what he views as its key points.

[mcbosco]

Slistoe,

"Feed a variety of different food types regularly. The inclusion of
human foods in a primarily dry dog food diet was associated with a 59 percent
decreased risk of GDV while inclusion of canned pet foods was associated
with a 28 percent decreased risk"

That is a quote from a Dr. Hamyln at Boston U's vet school that reviewed the study, perhaps the version of the study that is easily available is not the full study. I found the whole study available for a fee. I rounded the numbers and did a simple average. I must have punched a number in wrong in coming up with 38%. The decline in risk is better than I thought.

Why are so many people offended by bloat and this study? Are peoples' feelings hurt that bloat is the #2 killer of dogs and kibble plays a role? Rational people would use this information to take precautions, right? Not trash the people that bring the issue up.

Have you ever seen a dog bloat? I have twice and its no party and I hope it never happens to anyone on this board.

By the way, Weimaraners are #3 on the list of dogs most likely to die from bloat.

[SubMariner]

Here's one link Submariner.

http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/jan98.htm

And a partial one here:....

http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/192

Google it, you'll find many studies on it......not sure I am seeing a widespread epidemic in gundogs...some isolated cases in certain breeds sure....
just my interpretation on it....
Chip

Thanks!

[mcbosco]

clay, you should have stuck this up:



Roberta Kaman

Vice-President and Director of

Operations and Animal Husbandry

Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation Inc.

Bloomfield, CT

To Whom It May Concern,

We have been using various Abady Foods at the Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation Inc. for twenty years on both our adult breeding stock and our puppies. In that period, as Mr. Abady, President of The Robert Abady Dog Food Company Ltd. anticipated, we eliminated hip dysplasia from our canine colony. In fact the hips on our German Shepherd’s breeding stock are text-book perfect as are the hips on all the puppies under our total control. Of the approximately two thousand puppies we have placed in foster homes for socialization, ninety percent are dysplasia free and only ten percent evidenced it mildly. We attribute this to, possibly, our lack of rigid feeding control over these particular puppies that are placed in foster homes. Prior to using Abady, fifty percent of our puppies developed hip dysplasia, some of it severe, even crippling. Prior to using Abady we fed National brands.

I can say with certainty that in our experience, the proper combination of Abady foods when fed as directed, will not only prevent hip dysplasia but develop thoroughly sound animals.

I might add that in twenty years of feeding Abady foods to our German Shepherd colony, we have not experienced any incidence of bloat or torsion.

Out of gratitude to the Abady Company and to Mr. Abady personally, I give my permission to the Abady Company to use this statement as needed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greg Jennings]

So, HD is primarily from diet? I thought the primary cause was genetic.

[slistoe]

Boy, have we been duped Greg.
I saw that on the website and laughed, started to post and then thought it really was not worth the time. Certainly the most reliable science is available from the Robert Abady Co.
On the page where you quoted that, did you read the Order Now blurb at the bottom of the article?

I think I better quit breeding because the next few years are going to be real bad for me. Currently I have <1.5% dysplasia in all pups produced. I have been feeding a National brand of food exclusively to my dogs. I am somewhere around 350 pups over the years. In order to exceed the 10% number before we reach 2000 pups produced .... well, like I said I better quit breeding now

[birddogger]

Boy, have we been duped Greg.
I saw that on the website and laughed, started to post and then thought it really was not worth the time. Certainly the most reliable science is available from the Robert Abady Co.
On the page where you quoted that, did you read the Order Now blurb at the bottom of the article?

I think I better quit breeding because the next few years are going to be real bad for me. Currently I have <1.5% dysplasia in all pups produced. I have been feeding a National brand of food exclusively to my dogs. I am somewhere around 350 pups over the years. In order to exceed the 10% number before we reach 2000 pups produced .... well, like I said I better quit breeding now

As I have said before, look long enough and you will find an agenda! Good post, slistoe.

Charlie

[mcbosco]

what breed are you breeding?

[ezzy333]

If you noted, every reference is to someone in the business that agrees with the position of the poster. I think we have all had enough experience to know what works and have all seen a lot of the work that has been done in the research fields that prove the issue. I could take you to some research facilities where we have done thousands of feed tests before we ever incorporated the results in our feed but now it seems what we learned is all wrong. I sure don't thibnk there is a thing wrong with anyone feeding whatever they want but it does get old having those people constantly telling us how wrong we are to the point of saying we are just plain stupid.

I really think the best approach is just quit trying to explain anything or even answer and maybe it will end. It seems from what I hear most of our people are watching and just shaking their heads.

Ezzy

[slistoe]

mcbosco I am not in the least offended by information about bloat. I am offended by the misuse of statistics and the fear mongering approach to selling a product. I am waiting for the numbers that show bloat to be the #2 killer in the general populace of dogs. I have never seen a dog bloat, nor have I heard directly from anyone whose dog I have known that has seen a case of bloat in a dog. I have been witness to far more dogs dying than I would have cared to have been, including some from those breeds for which bloat is a significant risk factor.

The reality is that the numbers shown so far have one dog in 200 experiencing a case of bloat, which if treated within a couple of hours has an excellent survival rate. I think we can safely assume that there are far less dogs than that dying from it. We also know that the most significant risk factor for bloat is the size and shape of the dog, which is limited to a rather small number of breeds. Within those breeds it is also known that there is a significant genetic factor influencing the susceptibility to bloat. If I owned one of those breeds I would most certainly be concerned about what is known regarding the environmental risk factors to help reduce the odds of my dog experiencing it (do not use a raised feeding bowl and if you own a large breed (not applicable to giant breeds) slow down the rate of feed intake), but more importantly I would be looking at the relative body shape and disease history of the dogs in the family line to potentially eliminate the risk factor for my dog.

As for your numbers, again, what is the confidence associated with them? With a sample size such as was used in this study and the number of divisions it is quite reasonable that we would see numbers of 28 and 59 percent. This would likely represent 1 and 2 dog reduction. This may be significant if all other mitigating factors between the three groups (dogs fed dry, dogs supplement with canned, dogs supplement with scraps) such as chest depth/width ratio, age, family history, feed delivery, etc. were identical. Given the sample size it is not likely. Therefore it would actually be unethical for the study authors to even present those numbers - which it may be they did not. Does Purdue give numbers in their analysis, or is it only third party number crunchers putting them out? I did not find that reference on their website where all the information released regarding the study was proffered. The other thing that is interesting by its absence is the overwhelmingly great reduction that should be associated to those dogs fed canned only and especially those fed raw only diets. Conclusions are being drawn which are not explicitly supported by the data - and that is WRONG. It is voodoo science.

[Ayres]

Are you trying to mislead, or do you have trouble interpreting data? The .57% was all dogs hospitalized specifically in veterinary training hospitals. That is not the rate of occurrence.

Woah now, who's the one trying to mislead or misinterpreting data? The study specifically reports as follows:

...the overall frequency of bloat (gastric dilatation with or without volvulus) in dogs admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals in the US increased dramatically (~1500%) between 1964 and 1994, from 0.036% to 0.57% of all dogs admitted.

And when analyzed further, looking at just those dogs with gastric torsion and not the dogs with dilated stomach, it is reported that:

Overall, the frequency of gastric torsion rose from 0.06% of dogs admitted in 1975 to 0.31% of those admitted in 1995, an increase of more than 500%.
(bold emphasis mine)

So in this "epidemic", gastric torsion actually accounted for 0.31% of all hospital reports - about one in every 300.

The sample was taken from dogs admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals. If you're going to argue that, when using the 0.57% figure or the 0.31% figure, the sample is skewed because it came from only dogs admitted into veterinary teaching hospitals, then you've effectively argued that the entire study sample is bogus because the sample used in the study was acquired in the same manner.

Curiously, what isn't included in this study is an analysis of other outside factors. If you look at the curve for the increase in reported bloat occurrences, you can see that the largest rise came between the years 1975 and 1982, and since 1982 the rate of occurrences line has not been nearly as curvy (the study reports that "there was a marked increase through the late 1970s, and the upward trend continued, although more gradually"). The study also raises two hypotheses (incorrectly characterized as theories) as to the rise in overall occurrences: the first being large breed popularity and the second being an environmental change which the study speculates may be due to a change in dog food manufacturing - a speculation with no marked investigation or testing.

Irish setters went from.22% to 3.25. That is about 1 in every 30. Other breeds were much higher, but their rates of increase were similar.

If you'll note, the study specifically recorded that Great Danes and Irish Setters were "high-risk" breeds. The sample size included a whopping 479 Great Danes and 291 Irish Setters. There was no mention made that "other breeds were much higher", rather that plots for other breeds with even fewer dogs sampled showed the same type of trend. Then the study concluded, based on the data, that "These patterns indicate an environmental cause -- which remains unknown -- rather than changes in popularity of higher-risk breeds."

The study did not say diet was not an issue, it said specifically that it may be an issue. To say the #2 cause of death in dogs is not a common problem is rhetoric that enters the realm of pure propaganda. You should re-read the info this time not looking for points to make your argument.

Actually, the study itself admitted: Bloat may be an "uncommon" disease...

Most importantly, when you look at this study and these figures, you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT CONCLUDE that one in every 30 Irish Setters will get bloat. That's pure fallacy. The sample of Irish Setters was taken from animals admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals, and did not account for the large number of Irish Setters (or any other dog) that were not admitted for any treatment whatsoever.

And I still haven't seen anything proving or even suggesting that bloat is the #2 cause of death in dogs. (First of all, just the phrase "#2 cause of death" is a misnomer designed to be used as a scare tactic, because canine death also includes accidents and euthanasia for a variety of reasons, and not just disease or syndromes.) Even in the "high risk" breeds, the highest reported being the Great Dane, bloat occurred in 7.33% of dogs that were admitted to teaching hospitals. And not all of those cases were fatal. So does 7.33% even come close to being the #2 cause of death? I doubt it. Prove it if you can.

It's time to start being honest when attempting to draw conclusions from a smattering of posted data.

[mcbosco]

Where is your study on the subject of bloat that enables you to second guess Purdue, Tufts & Boston U?

As for hips, if you breed GSP's your dysplasia rate is about average, the average rate is 1.19%. The rate for American bred GS's is as high as 50% as reported by Cornell, very big difference.

[Ayres]

Where is your study on the subject of bloat that enables you to second guess Purdue, Tufts & Boston U?

I don't need a separate study. Like anyone else, I just need to look at the data that was presented and then I can decide for myself if the conclusions that some people have drawn are intellectually honest or not.

So far, the conclusion that "bloat is the #2 cause of death in dogs" appears to be intellectually dishonest because it is not supported by the data.

[slistoe]

what breed are you breeding?

The breed I am breeding shows a rate of Dysplasia of 15% in the OFA statistics. The GSD, which I believe is the breed referenced in the testimonial, shows a rate of 19%. So, in all fairness, I guess I should have used a number like 7.5% overall instead of aiming for the 10% they are listing since my breed does show a slightly lower rate overall.

With all due respect, I will continue with controlling dysplasia through controlled breeding practice. The science tells me it should work, and practical experience tells me it does work.

Obviously the company making the testimonial is having their dogs tested in order to know the exact # of affected etc. Are they using that information to select matings or are they relying solely on the feed and are continuing to breed affected dogs to affected dogs? If they have been using a comprehensive program of culling affected dogs from the breeding pool and then attributing the results to a feeding regimen I would not care to print what I think of that practice.

[slistoe]

Where is your study on the subject of bloat that enables you to second guess Purdue, Tufts & Boston U?

I don't need a separate study. Like anyone else, I just need to look at the data that was presented and then I can decide for myself if the conclusions that some people have drawn are intellectually honest or not.

So far, the conclusion that "bloat is the #2 cause of death in dogs" appears to be intellectually dishonest because it is not supported by the data.

What he said.

[slistoe]

As for hips, if you breed GSP's your dysplasia rate is about average, the average rate is 1.19%. The rate for American bred GS's is as high as 50% as reported by Cornell, very big difference.

OFA lists GSP at 4.5% - where did you get your numbers? The rest of the world must be doing a pretty good job on the Gordon's because OFA lists them at 19.6% overall.

[mcbosco]

it was on the GSP Club Health survey, HD is a tought one to understand and report because you can have a lame dog with technically OK hips and vice versa...

[slistoe]

There are many things that can cause lameness in dogs that are not dysplasia. Dysplasia is not so tough. Get x-rays of the dogs and send them for analysis.

But if you wanted to make a case that the OFA #'s are generally higher than in the random population I will certainly buy into that. It is a voluntary testing program, not a random sampling, and so there are a few dedicated folks who send in on all their dogs just because and the rest of the x-rays that come in are from dogs that have exhibited some symptom or another. Regular folks don't send in x-rays on otherwise healthy dogs that they don't intend to breed - which is most of the dog population.

[brdhntr]

Are you trying to mislead, or do you have trouble interpreting data? The .57% was all dogs hospitalized specifically in veterinary training hospitals. That is not the rate of occurrence.

Woah now, who's the one trying to mislead or misinterpreting data? The study specifically reports as follows:

...the overall frequency of bloat (gastric dilatation with or without volvulus) in dogs admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals in the US increased dramatically (~1500%) between 1964 and 1994, from 0.036% to 0.57% of all dogs admitted.

And when analyzed further, looking at just those dogs with gastric torsion and not the dogs with dilated stomach, it is reported that:

Overall, the frequency of gastric torsion rose from 0.06% of dogs admitted in 1975 to 0.31% of those admitted in 1995, an increase of more than 500%.
(bold emphasis mine)

So in this "epidemic", gastric torsion actually accounted for 0.31% of all hospital reports - about one in every 300.

The sample was taken from dogs admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals. If you're going to argue that, when using the 0.57% figure or the 0.31% figure, the sample is skewed because it came from only dogs admitted into veterinary teaching hospitals, then you've effectively argued that the entire study sample is bogus because the sample used in the study was acquired in the same manner.

Curiously, what isn't included in this study is an analysis of other outside factors. If you look at the curve for the increase in reported bloat occurrences, you can see that the largest rise came between the years 1975 and 1982, and since 1982 the rate of occurrences line has not been nearly as curvy (the study reports that "there was a marked increase through the late 1970s, and the upward trend continued, although more gradually"). The study also raises two hypotheses (incorrectly characterized as theories) as to the rise in overall occurrences: the first being large breed popularity and the second being an environmental change which the study speculates may be due to a change in dog food manufacturing - a speculation with no marked investigation or testing.

Irish setters went from.22% to 3.25. That is about 1 in every 30. Other breeds were much higher, but their rates of increase were similar.

If you'll note, the study specifically recorded that Great Danes and Irish Setters were "high-risk" breeds. The sample size included a whopping 479 Great Danes and 291 Irish Setters. There was no mention made that "other breeds were much higher", rather that plots for other breeds with even fewer dogs sampled showed the same type of trend. Then the study concluded, based on the data, that "These patterns indicate an environmental cause -- which remains unknown -- rather than changes in popularity of higher-risk breeds."

The study did not say diet was not an issue, it said specifically that it may be an issue. To say the #2 cause of death in dogs is not a common problem is rhetoric that enters the realm of pure propaganda. You should re-read the info this time not looking for points to make your argument.

Actually, the study itself admitted: Bloat may be an "uncommon" disease...

Most importantly, when you look at this study and these figures, you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT CONCLUDE that one in every 30 Irish Setters will get bloat. That's pure fallacy. The sample of Irish Setters was taken from animals admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals, and did not account for the large number of Irish Setters (or any other dog) that were not admitted for any treatment whatsoever.

And I still haven't seen anything proving or even suggesting that bloat is the #2 cause of death in dogs. (First of all, just the phrase "#2 cause of death" is a misnomer designed to be used as a scare tactic, because canine death also includes accidents and euthanasia for a variety of reasons, and not just disease or syndromes.) Even in the "high risk" breeds, the highest reported being the Great Dane, bloat occurred in 7.33% of dogs that were admitted to teaching hospitals. And not all of those cases were fatal. So does 7.33% even come close to being the #2 cause of death? I doubt it. Prove it if you can.

It's time to start being honest when attempting to draw conclusions from a smattering of posted data.

Now you are taking my quotes clearly out of context. Since I don't know how to do the fancy multiple quotes within a post, I will respond one post at a time.

[mcbosco]

You can have a technically dysplastic dog by x-ray but that dog is asymptomatic day-to-day, that's what I was trying to say.

How would you categorize a "fair" dog by x-ray? Adysplastic, semi-dysplastic?

You think the OFA numbers are high? Across the board or certain breeds?

[brdhntr]

Are you trying to mislead, or do you have trouble interpreting data? The .57% was all dogs hospitalized specifically in veterinary training hospitals. That is not the rate of occurrence.

Woah now, who's the one trying to mislead or misinterpreting data? The study specifically reports as follows:

...the overall frequency of bloat (gastric dilatation with or without volvulus) in dogs admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals in the US increased dramatically (~1500%) between 1964 and 1994, from 0.036% to 0.57% of all dogs admitted.




This was a response to Ezzy saying basically a dog had a .57% chance of experiencing bloat. As I stated, and you stated that is not the case, .57% refers to the percentage of dogs hospitalized specifically in veterinary teaching hospitals. This is not the rate of occurrence. Clarify how I am misleading.

[brdhntr]

Most importantly, when you look at this study and these figures, you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT CONCLUDE that one in every 30 Irish Setters will get bloat. That's pure fallacy. The sample of Irish Setters was taken from animals admitted to veterinary teaching hospitals, and did not account for the large number of Irish Setters (or any other dog) that were not admitted for any treatment whatsoever.

No you can not conclude that 1 in every 30 Irish setters will get bloat, but you can say that was the rate of occurrence in their study, and I used the Irish Setter because Ezzy stated this was mostly limited to non sporting breeds. We also know the Weimaraner, and Vizsla have higher rates of occurrence, clearly showing that it also effects sporting breeds.

[mcbosco]

Here is the story on Great Danes and other large and giant breeds per Perdue:

"The breeds at highest risk in the study were the Great Dane with a cumulative incidence rate of 15.7 percent, and the Bloodhound, with a rate of 8.7 percent. To figure lifetime rate of incidence, Glickman took observed incidence rates for the different breeds and made the assumptions that the average life span is 10 years for the large and 8 years for the giant breeds. He then calculated what the lifetime risk of bloat would be for these breeds. It was 23 and 26%. In the case of the Great Dane specifically, it was 42 percent! That means more than four out of ten Great Danes will bloat in their lifetimes. Of those that do, one third will die."

[slistoe]

You can have a technically dysplastic dog by x-ray but that dog is asymptomatic day-to-day, that's what I was trying to say.

How would you categorize a "fair" dog by x-ray? Adysplastic, semi-dysplastic?

You think the OFA numbers are high? Across the board or certain breeds?

Less than ideally formed hips and dysplasia are not the same thing. A fair dog is one that does not show any sign of being dysplastic, but has hips that are not formed as ideally as one would like to see.

Some breeds have much higher subscription rates in uniform OFA testing. Their #'s would me much more reliable across the general populace. Breeds which have high registration #'s and popularity as pets would typically have a large # of non-dysplastic dogs who went untested and so did not enter in the OFA stats. The pet pups who have dysplasia and are symptomatic would still enter the stats since the symptoms would prompt the testing creating a biased sample.

[brdhntr]

Actually, the study itself admitted: Bloat may be an "uncommon" disease...
.

It also specifically called it an epidemic. When the plague hit Europe, it didn't kill everyone, or a majority, but it was still a problem. Also note Sars didn't wipe out China, so that most likely wasn't a serious issue?

[mcbosco]

Maybe some people dismissing the notion that bloat is serious don't understand that risk in the study is ONE YEAR RISK:

"The cumulative lifetime incidence was estimated from the annual incidence rate. Assuming that in this breed the annual incidence rate of bloat is 2.2%, and the average life span is 12 years, the cumulative lifetime incidence rate for Irish Setters is estimated to be approximately 23.2%. Thus, these data predict that if all Irish Setters survived to age 12, almost 1 out of every 4 would bloat"

[brdhntr]

Curiously, what isn't included in this study is an analysis of other outside factors. If you look at the curve for the increase in reported bloat occurrences, you can see that the largest rise came between the years 1975 and 1982, and since 1982 the rate of occurrences line has not been nearly as curvy (the study reports that "there was a marked increase through the late 1970s, and the upward trend continued, although more gradually"). The study also raises two hypotheses (incorrectly characterized as theories) as to the rise in overall occurrences: the first being large breed popularity and the second being an environmental change which the study speculates may be due to a change in dog food manufacturing - a speculation with no marked investigation or testing.

They did not investigate changes in food, or manufacturing, but they clearly showed negative links to dry food, and how it is fed.

[brdhntr]

And I still haven't seen anything proving or even suggesting that bloat is the #2 cause of death in dogs. (First of all, just the phrase "#2 cause of death" is a misnomer designed to be used as a scare tactic, because canine death also includes accidents and euthanasia for a variety of reasons, and not just disease or syndromes.) Even in the "high risk" breeds, the highest reported being the Great Dane, bloat occurred in 7.33% of dogs that were admitted to teaching hospitals. And not all of those cases were fatal. So does 7.33% even come close to being the #2 cause of death? I doubt it. Prove it if you can.

It's time to start being honest when attempting to draw conclusions from a smattering of posted data.

Your dismissal of it being the #2 cause of death shows your clear bias. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. I will put some time into finding the source of the stat, but with the frequency of its use, and the level of expertise of those using it, give it a strong possibility of being accurate.