What's new
Mastiff Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Welcome back!

    We decided to spruce things up and fix some things under the hood. If you notice any issues, feel free to contact us as we're sure there are a few things here or there that we might have missed in our upgrade.

Appropriate age to spay mastiff?

tmricciuto

Well-Known Member
I was replying to the trainers comment, and I have thick skin so no offense taken but I do appreciate your apology. I do look to the forum for guidance and information but think that people who don't know me in training types of settings should give the information and then just let me do with it as I please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

marke

Well-Known Member
. Secondly, the Rott study does not list a percent dysplatic rate, it lists the percentage of the dogs diagnosed with osteosarcoma, which is 12.6%.............................................................................................................................The pros: 1. The aforementioned studies also show that a female dog's chance of mammory tumors increases with every heat cycle she goes through..
the rott "study" shows 127 dysplastic dogs and 1035 normal ....... by my math that is 12.27% ????????? you'll need to actually look at the survey they used to get that info ........ I believe you'll also see ed is not representative of the breed either ..........the OFA data , you need to go to the top of the page and use the 3 columns that say "ALL DATA" not the last 3 columns which is for 14,000 dogs , not 139,000 dogs ?????????it's not that I don't believe altering an immature dog doesn't alter the dogs physical and mental result ..... as far as causing joint disease , i personally don't buy it anymore than someone telling me that giving a dog stuffed animals as toys lowers their risk of hemangiosarcoma ????? I think it was a golden retriever survey/"study" ..... I think it was a golden retriever survey where the highest percentage of dogs that did not have hemangiosarcoma played with stuffed animals ...... it actually may be the survey that your article is referring too ....... I've seen too much of that nonsense to remember which is which
 

Hiraeth

Well-Known Member
The Rott survey is about osteosarcoma. Which is bone cancer. In case you didn't catch that. Not hip dysplasia. You are quoting hip dysplasia percentages from a study that does not have the word "dysplasia" in it ONE TIME.

You also apparently think that looking at overall OFA results from 1990 forward is an accurate representation of all breeds today, despite the fact that nearly all breeds show a negative trend in dysplasia, and therefore the numbers taken from dogs between 2006-2015 would paint a far better picture of current breed OFA testing and results.

You can call it nonsense all you want. As long as everyone else is allowed to have their own opinions without anyone misquoting or misinforming them, then I'm perfectly happy.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
The Rott survey is about osteosarcoma. Which is bone cancer. In case you didn't catch that. Not hip dysplasia. You are quoting hip dysplasia percentages from a study that does not have the word "dysplasia" in it ONE TIME..
while your little article is about osteosarcoma , the survey they used for their data was about overall Rottweiler health ?????????your article actually tells you as much ????? maybe you skimmed over that part ?????? you should find yourself the survey they used , and take a look at it ......
In November 1999, a questionnaire was mailed to 1,500 owners of Rottweiler dogs identified through 8 national Rottweiler breed specialty clubs.3 In addition, the questionnaire was published in the national breed magazine, The Rottweiler Quarterly (18) . Purebred Rottweiler dogs of any age that were alive on January 1, 1995, were eligible for study. Owners were asked to complete one questionnaire per eligible dog, and a maximum of five dogs could be entered per household. Data from 730 questionnaires returned by March 1, 2000, were used in this study. Data Collection. With the assistance of a veterinarian, pet owners completed a 12-page questionnaire consisting of 62 questions encompassing six categories: general owner information; general dog information; development of bone sarcoma; familial history of cancer; exposure and trauma history; and health conditions confirmed by a veterinarian. General owner information included questions regarding number of Rottweilers owned, purpose of dog ownership (e.g., pet or working dog), and place of residence. General dog information included questions pertaining to date of birth, gender, date of neuter, country of birth of this dog and two prior generations, housing conditions, body condition (immature and adult), adult body weight, adult height, growth rate, bone structure, diet, dietary supplements, vital status, and date and cause of death, if applicable. Questions pertaining to bone sarcoma included age at diagnosis, location of primary tumor, treatment, and survival. Familial cancer history consisted of questions pertaining to the owner’s knowledge of the development of a bone tumor or other malignancy in siblings or first and second generation relatives. Vaccination history, chemical exposures, and trauma history were also obtained. The questionnaire also included a checklist of 40 health conditions (13 cancer-related and 27 noncancer-related) confirmed by a veterinarian. Pet owners were given the option to return the completed questionnaire anonymously or to include their name, address, and their veterinarian’s contact information. Over 98% of returned questionnaires contained the identity of the owner and dog, including contact information, so that the accuracy of data could be verified.
You also apparently think that looking at overall OFA results from 1990 forward is an accurate representation of all breeds today, despite the fact that nearly all breeds show a negative trend in dysplasia, and therefore the numbers taken from dogs between 2006-2015 would paint a far better picture of current breed OFA testing and results.You can call it nonsense all you want. As long as everyone else is allowed to have their own opinions without anyone misquoting or misinforming them, then I'm perfectly happy.
I get the impression you think the all column is for all dogs all breeds ?????? it is only for all golden retrievers ????? why would data collected on dogs born only from 2006-2010 , not 2015 , paint a better picture of dogs born 1998-2008 ?????? yes I agree on misinformation .........
 

Hiraeth

Well-Known Member
while your little article is about osteosarcoma , the survey they used for their data was about overall Rottweiler health ?????????your article actually tells you as much ????? maybe you skimmed over that part ?????? you should find yourself the survey they used , and take a look at it ...... I get the impression you think the all column is for all dogs all breeds ?????? it is only for all golden retrievers ????? why would data collected on dogs born only from 2006-2010 , not 2015 , paint a better picture of dogs born 1998-2008 ?????? yes I agree on misinformation .........

My "little" article, eh? You know, I was going to continue discussing this with you, but your condescending attitude and excessive use of punctuation are both things that I find fairly intolerable.

My goal is, has been, and will continue to be, getting the implications of these and other surveys out to people who are inundated with a "the sooner the better" attitude when it comes to altering their dogs. You don't *have* to put any stock in them whatsoever. Alter your dogs at 8 weeks old, if you think that's the best choice for you. I hope and pray you never have to deal with an osteo diagnosis. Because it's hell on earth.

I'm leaving and unsubscribing from the thread. The surveys speak for themselves. Speak all the ill you wish of me, no one will be here to argue with you.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
My "little" article, eh? You know, I was going to continue discussing this with you, but your condescending attitude and excessive use of punctuation are both things that I find fairly intolerable. My goal is, has been, and will continue to be, getting the implications of these and other surveys out to people who are inundated with a "the sooner the better" attitude when it comes to altering their dogs. You don't *have* to put any stock in them whatsoever. Alter your dogs at 8 weeks old, if you think that's the best choice for you. I hope and pray you never have to deal with an osteo diagnosis. Because it's hell on earth. I'm leaving and unsubscribing from the thread. The surveys speak for themselves. Speak all the ill you wish of me, no one will be here to argue with you.
I've been breeding dogues for decades , you don't do that with neutered and spayed dogs ........ my thought is I wouldn't neuter a male at all , unless there was a reason , and there are reasons ..... I would spay a bitch 100% of the times whether you thought there was a reason or not , because I know first hand many times over there is a reason ....... as far as osteosarcoma , been there done that on unaltered and late altered dogs ........... you choose a great dane as a dog and you run that risk more so than if you choose a small medium or large breed dog , altered or not ........... I wouldn't tell someone they were doing harm to their dog if they needed to alter it based on such shoddy evidence ....... I talk to 7-8 vets on a regular basis , an orthopedic vet of 31 yrs just recently told me my 8 month old pup was old enough to neuter , knowing he has nothing to gain from me neutering the dog ........ I just asked a nationally well known repro vet how long I could safely leave an undescended testicle in a pup , he told me 2 yrs wouldn't be a problem as long as I could handle the two brothers living together , if they got out of hand just get him neutered now , again he has nothing to gain from me neutering the dog or not , he wouldn't be the vet doing it , and he knows it , I've known most of these vets for more than 25yrs , I assure you they are not looking to do harm to my dogs ...................................... to make your survey analysis even a weaker argument than it is how many folks with altered dogs do you know who OFA'ed them ????? the ofa database is most certainly almost entirely intact dogs ........... if you believe that hip dysplasia is on the decline from 2008-2012 , why would that be ????? were they altering less dogs during those 4 yrs ???????
As it were, I'd suggest actually reading the surveys thoroughly before discrediting them because you skimmed and pulled inaccurate data from the abstracts instead of actually reading the entirety of the published conclusions..
my "suggestion" would be for you to actually "read the surveys thoroughly before discrediting" me "because you skimmed and pulled inaccurate date "............ personally i'd want to see where your info was coming from before I buy into whatever it is your telling me 3rd hand ....... like I said i'm not always right , but i'm careful.........
 
And punctual. Wait, that's not the word I was looking for :lolbangtable:

Hiraeth don't give up if you are right you must educate marke. If you are wrong, you should admit it. I'm to lazy to look at the surveys. I want one to disprove the other or at some point for you two to come to somewhat of an agreement so that I can get the real info out of the thread and not just what I'm assuming to be correct :lol:
 

marke

Well-Known Member
what you need to do eem is exactly what hiraeth suggested , take the information you get , i'd add , talk to professionals , maybe pay the vets 5-10 grand a year for 20-25yrs , make your choice and live with it , if it works out , stick with it , imo , you don't fix what isn't broken ......... if it doesn't work , do something different next time .....
And punctual. Wait, that's not the word I was looking for :lolbangtable: :lol:
I don't get it ????? exactly what is the word your looking for ???????
 

marke

Well-Known Member
He said you were over punctuating. It was a play on words. I'm not getting in the middle of this lol. I was trying to sort of clear the air, maybe crack a smile, keep people from getting themselves banned lol.
got you .......... interpreting meaning in writing is not one of my strong points ...... thanks ........ as far as hijacking the thread , i'll be interested in seeing how much more info comes out of this thread ..........