more fuel for the fire....

[dog dr]

Dog Study Links Retaining Ovaries and Longevity
Study finds that Rottweilers who kept their ovaries longer also lived longer.
Posted: January 5, 2010, 2 a.m. EST




Female dogs who keep their ovaries longer also live longer, according to a new study led by David Waters, DVM, executive director of the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation, based at the Purdue Research Park of West Lafayette. The foundation is home to the Center for Exceptional Longevity Studies, which tracks the oldest living pet dogs in the United States.

The findings, according to the researchers, challenge almost four decades of standard operating procedures used in female pets as well as women. Purdue Research Park reports that this is the first investigation to look for a link between retaining ovaries and reaching exceptional longevity in mammals.

“A female survival advantage in humans is well-documented — women outnumber men by four to one among those who reach 100,” said Waters, who is also an associate director of Purdue University’s Center on Aging and the Life Course and a professor in the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences.

“Like women, female dogs in our study had a distinct survival advantage over males. But taking away ovaries during the first four years of life completely erased the female survival advantage,” Waters said. “We found that female Rottweilers who kept their ovaries for at least six years were four times more likely to reach exceptional longevity compared to females who had the shortest lifetime ovary exposure.”

The researchers collected and analyzed lifetime medical histories, ages and causes of death for 119 canine “centenarians,” exceptionally long-lived Rottweiler dogs living in the United States and Canada who survived to 13 years, about 30 percent longer than average Rottweilers. These dogs were compared to a group of 186 Rottweilers who had usual longevity, about nine years.

“Clearly, we have tapped into a unique resource with our Exceptional Longevity Database,” Waters said. “We like to think of it as the pet dog equivalent of the New England Centenarian Study. We want to better understand the biology of aging. Our quest to validate pet dogs as a model for the study of healthy human aging is at the core of this research.”

Taken together, the emerging message for dogs and women seems to be that when it comes to longevity, it pays to keep your ovaries, according to Purdue Research Park.

“What we have here is a compelling convergence,” Waters said. “The data from women and dogs, together with reported longevity benefits from ovary transplants in mice, are pointing in the same direction — the notion that a network of processes regulating longevity is under ovarian control.”

The study was recently published in Aging Cell.


DISCUSS!!

[mcbosco]

How could anyone be suprised at this study?

The same types of studies will come out on raw feeding and proper supplementation in good time.

[A/C Guy]

How could anyone be suprised at this study?

The average dog owner believes that everything should be spayed and neutered at 6 months old. Many vets endorse that practice. Now the research proves that is unhealthy. Millions of dog owners would be surprised if this was on the 6 pm news and made the newspapers front page.

[birddogger]

You are correct, many vets do endorse this practise. I believe it is mostly because of pressure from the so called "humane organizations" and animal rights groups.

Charlie

[dog dr]

i dont think this study "proves" anything - alot more research needs to be done with more dogs and mre breeds, but it does make you stop and think about age of alteration. i dont think one strategy is rght for all dogs.

[mcbosco]

It is a very interesting topic and the reasoning for altering males vs females is totally facinating. With females it is for the health of the dog, while for males it is to reduce aggressivenes and other "unwanted" behavior. Sometimes they say well it does eliminate testicular cancer, :roll:

[3Britts]

Of course this proves, "Somthing." To say that it doesn't is just hard-headed. It proves that many pet owners may have been misinformed about the health benefits of early sterilization in their animal companions.
Does more research need to be done? Yes, it is foolish to rely on just one study, no matter how well done. I look forward to the follow up studies.

[dog dr]

Of course this proves, "Somthing." To say that it doesn't is just hard-headed. It proves that many pet owners may have been misinformed about the health benefits of early sterilization in their animal companions.
Does more research need to be done? Yes, it is foolish to rely on just one study, no matter how well done. I look forward to the follow up studies.

well, I'm definitely hard-headed, but i came by that honest! i guess thats just my way of saying that more studies are needed to say once and for all that intact dogs live longer. Personally, I think they are better off keeping their gonads longer. But its gonna take more, and longer, more in-depth studies to "prove" that.

[mcbosco]

That may be true, that more studies need to be done to prove it, but what is the down side to waiting until 2 years old or not doing it at all?

I guess because of what I do I analyze the down-side first. The higher risk of a very low risk cancer like testicular cancer is not enough to change my mind.

There was a 3200 dog study already done that showed substantial increases in bone cancer risk. One showed a 5 fold increase in hemangiosarcoma, which is deadly and quite common. Even if these studies aren't perfect the findings are well beyond what is considered statistically significant in medical circles.

And we all know that dogs neutered too early grow too tall, get heavier and don't have the coats they should. No study needs to be done on that.

[birddogger]

"And we all know that dogs neutered too early grow too tall, get heavier and don't have the coats they should. No study needs to be done on that."

You are correct. There are some things that have been proven over time, that we don't need a study for.

Charlie

[mcbosco]

and because of the politics of this issue you will never see a "definitive" study.....

[birddogger]

Just having some fun Sal, couldn't resist.

Charlie

[nanney1]

Research never "proves'" anything. It simply continues the conversation.

The result of this study is that it will be critiqued in peer review, possibly replicated, and similar experiments with different variables will be conducted. In the end, it will give pet owners, breeders, and vets more information on the subject than they had yesterday.

Those that believe that all dogs should be spayed and neutered have a different agenda than pet health, and likely will do their best to refute this research.

[mcbosco]

and because of the politics of this issue you will never see a "definitive" study.....

I know charlie

The politics of studies makes me sick. Studies get funded in many cases because the outcome is predictable and can be promoted to make money. Some studies don't get funded because the sponsors are in no position to benefit from it, or the outcome will have a negative effect on what they do already.

Case in point, does the whole world really need to study the cultures in yogurt? LOL

Purina did a "landmark" study a few years back and presto chango a very expensive product was on the market. Like they invented it.

The study has been going on for the past 2000 years of recorded human history.

[3Britts]

Research never "proves'" anything. It simply continues the conversation.

The result of this study is that it will be critiqued in peer review, possibly replicated, and similar experiments with different variables will be conducted. In the end, it will give pet owners, breeders, and vets more information on the subject than they had yesterday.

Those that believe that all dogs should be spayed and neutered have a different agenda than pet health, and likely will do their best to refute this research.

Which is why you evaluate the persons, institutes and groups doing the research. So, to simply say that it, "never 'proves' anything," is far from correct.
As responsible pet owners, it is up to us to find out what is best for our pets.

[mcbosco]

"Which is why you evaluate the persons, institutes and groups doing the research. So, to simply say that it, "never 'proves' anything," is far from correct.
As responsible pet owners, it is up to us to find out what is best for our pets."


That is very true but one of the problems is politics and the $$$$$. The average person will never know who the man behind curtain really is. You can evaluate the source of the study all you want as an average person but the motive and real players will always be a mystery.

Jeesh, Sal why are you so cynical today?

[big steve46]

Some years ago, i remember listening to G. Gordon Lidy on the radio replying to some of the garbage of PETA. Of course, much of it pertained to neutering. His conclusion was, "If dog is truly man's best friend, why would you cut his nuts out!" He added that people should learn to control their dogs.

Seriously, do some people use spaying and neutering only for the possibility of the owner's convenience even though it may not benefit the dog at all?

[mcbosco]

Yes Steve, for all the reasons you hear about. With males especially, females the reasoning is different but convenience like blood on the furniture is also part of it. If you have a dog with balls where I live you will pay more for a license, boarding and certainly be approached by people asking why your dog isn't neutered.

Its very similar to how people treat you at a sporting good store when you stand in line with shells, like you have leprocy.

Once a women wouldn't let her kids pet my dog because he wasn't neutered.

[dog dr]

the ironic thing about MOST of the dogs that remain intact in this country is that they ARE NOT the ones out roaming the countryside, mating with everything they come across that will stand still. they are the dogs that are actually kept under control and taken care of. unfortunately, the do-gooders in our society decide that the responsible pet owners are the ones that should pay more for registration. hmmm, sounds like an Obama policy to me! (woops, did I say that out loud?)

[mcbosco]

Doc,

How many 6 month old males do you see every week where the owners just want them fixed and never ask for advice?

[dog dr]

Doc,

How many 6 month old males do you see every week where the owners just want them fixed and never ask for advice?

most people want to know "how soon can we get him/her fixed?". I tell them we can do it as soon as 6 months, and with the little lap dogs i usually leave it at that. However, with the bigger dogs or dogs that are gonna be athletes, hunting or wrking dogs, then i tell them about the bone/joint/development issues, and say they might want to wait at least a year or 2. seems like most still opt to go ahaead and do it early, though.

i have heard alot of vets will bring up the subject of neutering at the first pup exam, and harp on folks to be sure and get it done ASAP. i never bring it up, i let them start asking questions. after this study came out, i have been talking to the folks with the lap dogs, too, though.

I have always tried to practice from a standpoint of "heres the information/experience I have, lets make an informed, intelligent decision together about what is best for you and the dog".

[birddogger]

"i have heard alot of vets will bring up the subject of neutering at the first pup exam, and harp on folks to be sure and get it done ASAP. i never bring it up, i let them start asking questions. after this study came out, i have been talking to the folks with the lap dogs, too, though."

This is exactly what my FORMER vet does and wants to do it ASAP. BTW, I haven't taken his advise. My two dogs are still intact and, unless for medical reasons, will remain that way.

Charlie

[mcbosco]

Thats a great approach Doc, its amazing why people are in such a rush with males especially. I have a totally Chauvinistic theory on this.

[3Britts]

Doc,

How many 6 month old males do you see every week where the owners just want them fixed and never ask for advice?

i have heard alot of vets will bring up the subject of neutering at the first pup exam, and harp on folks to be sure and get it done ASAP. i never bring it up, i let them start asking questions. after this study came out, i have been talking to the folks with the lap dogs, too, though. ".

We accually have an animal hospital around my neck of the woods who tried this with a local gsp trialer. She suggested that he have it done when he brought the pup into just get its shots. He had called to see how much it would cost to just get the shots done. When he went in, she started in on the benefits of neutering his dog and then charged him more for a consultation fee. When he refused to pay for the fee and only paid for the shots, they tried to block his truck in the parking lot with a car.
Made me glad that my vet is a trialer.

[Rich Heaton]

Interesting study Doc,, sorry for being a little late on my comments. To me when they make the arguement of "you should spay",, it makes pretty good sense. Kinda of like having a 72' Chevy and and a 2010 Jaguar,,,,,, only a few things can go wrong with the chevy,,,, and alot of bells and whistles with the Jag that can go wrong,,,,, so less is better if your looking at it from a "go wrong stand point".

What do they mean by "survival instincts"?

[dog dr]

Interesting study Doc,, sorry for being a little late on my comments. To me when they make the arguement of "you should spay",, it makes pretty good sense. Kinda of like having a 72' Chevy and and a 2010 Jaguar,,,,,, only a few things can go wrong with the chevy,,,, and alot of bells and whistles with the Jag that can go wrong,,,,, so less is better if your looking at it from a "go wrong stand point".

What do they mean by "survival instincts"?

i dont know. i re-read the article, and i dont see where they mention that, but i just skimmed it.

[Sharon]

Doc,

How many 6 month old males do you see every week where the owners just want them fixed and never ask for advice?

most people want to know "how soon can we get him/her fixed?". I tell them we can do it as soon as 6 months, and with the little lap dogs i usually leave it at that. However, with the bigger dogs or dogs that are gonna be athletes, hunting or wrking dogs, then i tell them about the bone/joint/development issues, and say they might want to wait at least a year or 2. seems like most still opt to go ahaead and do it early, though.

i have heard alot of vets will bring up the subject of neutering at the first pup exam, and harp on folks to be sure and get it done ASAP. i never bring it up, i let them start asking questions. after this study came out, i have been talking to the folks with the lap dogs, too, though.

I have always tried to practice from a standpoint of "heres the information/experience I have, lets make an informed, intelligent decision together about what is best for you and the dog".

Gee, you must be disappointed every day.

[dog dr]

Doc,

How many 6 month old males do you see every week where the owners just want them fixed and never ask for advice?

most people want to know "how soon can we get him/her fixed?". I tell them we can do it as soon as 6 months, and with the little lap dogs i usually leave it at that. However, with the bigger dogs or dogs that are gonna be athletes, hunting or wrking dogs, then i tell them about the bone/joint/development issues, and say they might want to wait at least a year or 2. seems like most still opt to go ahaead and do it early, though.

i have heard alot of vets will bring up the subject of neutering at the first pup exam, and harp on folks to be sure and get it done ASAP. i never bring it up, i let them start asking questions. after this study came out, i have been talking to the folks with the lap dogs, too, though.

I have always tried to practice from a standpoint of "heres the information/experience I have, lets make an informed, intelligent decision together about what is best for you and the dog".

Gee, you must be disappointed every day.

not sure i follow you, sharon....

[Sharon]

Just a quick remark. The people I work with couldn't possibly take information given and make an informed , intelligent, decision that is best for themselves , let alone the dog. I'm disappointed every day with their decisions. I've got somebody's cat right now who didn't want it anymore and was going to throw it in the woods.
You must have an exceptional clientele.

[dog dr]

Just a quick remark. The people I work with couldn't possibly take information given and make an informed , intelligent, decision that is best for themselves , let alone the dog. I'm disappointed every day with their decisions. I've got somebody's cat right now who didn't want it anymore and was going to throw it in the woods.
You must have an exceptional clientele.

unfortunately, no. i have a diverse clientele that ranges from "just give them a rabies shot because thats what the law requires" to "do everything you can, money is no object". bad thing is, sometimes money is no object because they have no means or intention of paying me anyway!! notice i said that i "try" to work from the standpoint of heres the info, lets make a decision together. sometimes you have to make it for them, or go along with their bad decision, because at the end of the day, its their dog.

[Sharon]

"do everything you can, money is no object". bad thing is, sometimes money is no object because they have no means or intention of paying me anyway!!

too funny

[hidgeon]

Hello everyone. I am new to the site, but I would like to provide some information.

I am a statistician, and thus automatically consider the parameters of the study before I consider the results. Unfortunately, the way the study was presented, it was a self-selecting study. Since the study only considered dogs that lived "exceptionally long," it eliminated the possibility of a truly random sample.

Since the sample of dogs taken were not a good representation of the entire population, we do not know if perhaps some confunding occurred. Confunding in the statistical world is when other factors that are not analyzed (perhaps geographic location, food, or exercise) cause an appearance of correlation between factors that are analyzed when no such correlation actually exists.

Lastly, this study (as I have read it to be) only considers Rottweilers. As we all know, different breeds react differently to different factors. It occurs with people as well. Certain diseases are more prevalent in certain races. This could be the case here as well.

Now, I am not displaying an opinion on either side of the topic here. I have pros and cons in my own head for both spaying and not spaying. I currently have a puppy with whom I am in the process of trying to decide this very thing. I am only critiquing the parameters of the study. To me right now, the study does not seem to be conducted in an appropriate manner, and therefore I feel I cannot accept the results until a much more representative and controlled study is conducted.

[jlp8cornell]

Sorry for the long post but....

1. I work at a vet school. I asked a repro specialist this very question last week. To date, there are no GOOD studies on spaying/neutering. Good is the key word.The pros of spaying/neutering still outweigh the cons. We can go back and forth all day on the subject but 99% of us are not veterinarians and do not specialize in this area/know the literature. That's why I asked the opinion of someone who knows the subject matter. (I am not talking about early spay/neuter- just spay/neuter in general).

The few papers that are out on the subject are inconclusive. For example, one cites an increased in CCL tears in neutered animals BUT.....neutered animals tend to carry more weight. Increase in fractures? Well, one studies specifically says that this is due to research being conducted on obese cats. There are so many variables, age/breed/sex/etc. I am on PubMed now looking for literature and there is not that much and what there is is old.

2. And most importantly-- for the general population's pets, the absolute best thing is spaying/neutering . I cannot imagine how much more overpopulated the country would become. Never mind the fact that most people do not have a clue when it comes to training and would not be able to handle behaviors of some intact males. There are way too many already irresponsible people without the addition of these issues.

The conclusion of a more recent paper: Life expectancy
It is well documented that neutered animals live longer
than intact animals (Kraft 1998; Greer et al. 2007). The
increased life expectancy in gonadectomized animals
may be due to the preventive effect on diseases of the
reproductive tract and ⁄ or the reduced risk-associated
behaviour. However, the increased life expectancy may
also reflect to some extent the enhanced care of neutered
animals by their owners.
It is clear that surgical contraception offers both
significant health and welfare benefits; however, the
risks and adverse effects should always be considered in
each animal and should be subject to careful debate with
the animal’s owner.

[mcbosco]

I totally disgree about whether there have been "good" studies or not..its pretty clear to many people, it is just a political issue...

[jlp8cornell]

Post by mcbosco » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:50 am
I totally disgree about whether there have been "good" studies or not..its pretty clear to many people, it is just a political issue...

Do you have evidence of them? Honestly, I would love to see them. I can download them and post to the list as I have access to most journals. What is your basis for this statement? I am interested in any conclusive evidence as I have an intact male who will most likely be neutered after show/bird season in the late fall.

[ezzy333]

Sorry for the long post but....




2. And most importantly-- for the general population's pets, the absolute best thing is spaying/neutering . I cannot imagine how much more overpopulated the country would become. Never mind the fact that most people do not have a clue when it comes to training and would not be able to handle behaviors of some intact males. There are way too many already irresponsible people without the addition of these issues.

After quoting that the research is less than adequate to produce a definite answer for most of the questions, you then make a definite statement. How can you say the ABSOLUTE best thing is neutering? And what's always my first concern is why does some else know so much more than the rest of us? I am not sure if I can imagine how much worse over population would be since it has never entered my mind. Who says we have an overpopulation now and not just a lack of responsibility of the owners? And who decided that "us general public " are too stupid to train or handle a non-neutered dog? What does training have to do with neutering or should I say breeding?

I ask these questions, but I also know what the common answers are but I think someone needs to do a little more research and come up with the real reasons that someone sitting in an office somewhere decides what we do with our animals an what is best for us and the animals. Would it be better if we followed PETA's advice and not allow people to have pets or maybe follow HSUS advice and send them money so they can watch over our pets in time of need and take a very few of them and kill them before asking for more money? Or should we be concerned for all the dogs in the shelters as a sign of over population but then see those dogs sent to neighboring states because they don't have enough to adopt out?

Many things just don't happen the way I would like them to very often but that is one of the things that happen in a free society where people have the right to make decisions on their own instead of doing it like someone else thinks they should. Let us hope and pray that freedom is in our future and let us learn to deal with the results. And let change where it is necessary come about through education instead of laws that say everyone does things the way our government want you to.

JMO
Ezzy

[jlp8cornell]

Well Ezzy- if you are talking laws and regulations/HSUS/PETA, that is a completely different topic- has nothing to do with the original post. Of course, no one here wants to see any of this regulated and we can all agree that PETA and especially HSUS are the devil.

My post related to my research. I am talking about each individual making an informed decision- that is a free society.

[ezzy333]

Well Ezzy- if you are talking laws and regulations/HSUS/PETA, that is a completely different topic- has nothing to do with the original post. Of course, no one here wants to see any of this regulated and we can all agree that PETA and especially HSUS are the devil.

My post related to my research. I am talking about each individual making an informed decision- that is a free society.

I agree and since there is a lot of evidence in recent times that what we have been told is not completely accurate it is good to have a place to talk about these experiences and to warn others that possibly there is a better way. The organizations were mentioned since much of what we read and hear has been generated by them and not always in the best interest of us or our animals.

Ezzy

[jlp8cornell]

Well said Ezzy-- that is why I read the literature and speak to those in the field.

Again, when reading what people post, you never know where it is from. That's why I offered to download/post papers if anyone has something they can cite to make a case. More then happy to do that. I too want both sides.

[mcbosco]

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.naiaonline.org/.../LongTermH ... InDogs.pdf

"BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer has been reported to occur more commonly in neutered than intact male dogs in several case series. This study was undertaken to evaluate risk of prostate cancer in a large population database. The hypothesis was that castration is a risk factor for prostate cancer in male companion dogs. METHODS: Data were derived from recorded visits to North American veterinary teaching hospitals. The Veterinary Medical Databases (VMDB) were queried to yield male dogs with urinary bladder transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), prostate adenocarcinoma (ACA), prostate TCC, prostate carcinoma (CA), and prostate tumors. A second query yielded all male dogs over the age of 4 years without a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer. These populations were compared to determine relative risks for developing each disease, singly and collectively, associated with neutering status. Odds ratios were calculated for breed as a risk factor. 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. Relative risks were highly similar when cases were limited to those with a histologically confirmed diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Breed predisposition suggests that genetic factors play a role in the development of prostate cancer. The risk associated with being neutered is highest for TCC, supporting previous work identifying the urothelium and ductular rather than acinar epithelium as the source of these tumors. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc."


I could spend all day on this stuff. There is enough information out there, it is no secret, it has been a secret, its only politics (ie money)

[jlp8cornell]

Thanks mcbosco. Will have a look.

[kumate]

This is a good thread, thanks for the links, Good info. I am in no hurry to neuter Dante.

Jerry