from what i've seen there is nothing routine about spaying a large adult dog ...... my advice to anyone would be a laparoscopic spay , the recovery from it is night and day ........I will wait 6 more months - 1 year, I want a good surgeon for them even if it's a routine op. They are my beauties.
TeodoraWe live 20 min. to the city, in rural area and most dogs around here are hunting or farm working packs, not fixed... I'm not keen to put them in kennels anyway - some of them do, some don't accept entire dogs. I prefer to choose what I accept and what I don't for my dogs: to be honest, I hate the desexing crazy propaganda around here, and it makes me think twice about altering them as long as what I hear all day is "be a responsible owner and desex your puppy because there are too many unwanted dogs and don't ever buy - adopt!" - that's exactly the opposite, plain irresponsible to desex a puppy... Beside it, sorry for unwanted dogs but keeping mine as mother nature created them doesn't mean they'll multiply and I'm free to chose whether to buy or adopt, whoever is yelling otherwise just gets me pissed off with no positive outcome whatsoever. So - I want scientific data not emotional outbursts, that's why I asked about real benefits versus risks. I won't touch any of my dogs without knowing the facts. Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Spaying does reduce the risk of mammary tumors, but to my knowledge it seems to only be a significant reduction if done before the first heat.
maybe i'm reading this wrong ? if this is implying intact bitches are less prone to mammary tumors , it defies logic ...... misinformation at it's best ......However, the cohort of dogs who have the smallest occurrence of mammary cancer is intact females (the percentage of intact females with mammary cancer in the studies I've read is less than 1%). So, by spaying, you are inherently increasing the risk, it's just when you spay.
Mammary tumors in dogs are most frequent in intact bitches;
More than a quarter of unspayed female dogs will develop a mammary tumor during their lifetime. The risk is much lower for spayed female dogs, male dogs, and cats of either gender. In female dogs, 50% of mammary tumors are benign and 50% are malignant.
Mammary tumors are more common in intact than in spayed females; in fact spaying before the first or second heat cycle significantly reduces the risk of developing mammary tumors. Median age on presentation is 10 to 11 years.
Dogs gonadectomized at ≤ 6 months, between 7 and 12 months, or at > 12 months of age had significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined...
The present study included 1,360 female dogs, 535 of which were sexually intact. Only 11 dogs had mammary gland neoplasia; all but one of these were spayed at > 5 years of age. Given that mammary gland cancer is seen more commonly in female dogs and 54.3% of the dogs in the survey were female, this would still have been equivalent to only 20 dogs in the study having mammary gland cancer, had the cancer affected both sexes equally.
Mammary gland cancer is an important condition in female dogs, with approximately 20% to 50% of the tumors being histologically malignant. It is commonly believed that gonadectomized female dogs have a reduced risk of mammary gland cancer and that the earlier a dog is gonadectomized, the lower the risk. However, authors of a recent systematic review of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the associations among neutering, age at neutering, and mammary gland tumors 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.
nope , my anecdotal evidence is just for me ..... it just verifies what my vets , and i got lots of them , tell me ...... what ohio state says , what Merck says and what the ACVS says ..... i have to think between all them they've seen a few dogs , actually seen and treated them ..... and like me with my 20 dogs , just seen what was right in front of their face .........So we should base our judgments about altering and mammary cancer risk based on your anecdotal evidence of the 20 dogs you have owned who are all from the same breed and lines?
I would worry about the accuracy of studies that are funded from anyone/organization that profits off neutering/spaying operations. It kind of means they have a vested interest and are not at all unbiased. Anecdotal advice at least is based on personal experience but given the small sample size and other conditions that could effect outcome also not entire applicable on a grander scheme... idk the neuter/spay decision is such a tricky one. It seems like there are so many risks but then there are risks to not doing it as well and of course the societal pressure is ridiculous (at least around where I live).your referenced "studies" are horrible , they grade studies , i think 1 through 5 , these have to be a 9 ...... i been through both of them before , they're not even worth discussion ........ my anecdotal evidence of 15-20 intact and neutered bitches , mostly sisters , about half bred half spayed , tells me more than those junk search engine "studies" , those "studies" aren't worth the time those kids put into them ....... merck , ohio stat and the acvs must need better info , maybe those kids could straighten them out ...... i know which of my dogs got mammary tumors and which didn't , ridiculous