• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

2013 study on adverse impact of neutering on health of dogs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by grayarabpony View Post
    All you are doing is quoting from the paper and proving my point, that only Rottweilers spayed before one year of age showed a statistically significant increase in risk in bone cancer.

    if you think the paper says something else you're just incorrect.
    "in summary, this study found that male and female Rottweilers with the shortest lifetime gonadal exposure had the highest risk for bone sarcoma...."

    That is what the paper states.

    Comment


    • #82
      YES. The ones SPAYED EARLY. They were the only ones with a statistically significant increased risk of cancer.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by grayarabpony View Post
        Again, that study only shows benefit from not spaying early.
        ".....late neutering increases the rates of HSA to four times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed for intact females."

        Comment


        • #84
          Not statistically significant. Do you realize what a small number of dogs that is, and thus why those results are not statistically significant?

          You seem determined NOT to understand the papers.

          Comment


          • #85
            Perhaps we should agree that we have different interpretations as to the conclusions the authors have drawn.

            Comment


            • #86
              Figure 2 reveals that late-neutered females at 7.4 percent were diagnosed with HSA over 4 times more frequently than intact females with 1.6 percent and early-neutered females with 1.8 percent, both significant differences (RR = 6.10, 95% CI = 1.18, 31.37 and RR = 7.48, 95% CI = 1.79, 31.30

              What part of "significant differences" do you not understand?

              Comment


              • #87
                Here, take a gander at this:

                http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...04/largerimage

                And, for hemangiosarcoma and mast cell tumor, there wasnt much difference at all between animals neutered early and intact animals. In addition, the overall percentage of animals with those conditions were quite low, less than 5 to 10 per cent.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Again, this does not refer to the data I have quoted above. These were indeed statistically significant results.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    For female Golden Retreivers only, and which showed very little difference between spayed early and left intact! We're talking 4 or 5 dogs here, in a group of 70, which is quite a small group. There could very well have been a genetic predisposition for those conditions in those particular dogs. The results may very well not be reproducible in a larger population.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      These results were statistically significant.

                      It remains to be seen how these results would translate to other breeds. Different breeds have very different rates of cancer, of different types. For some breeds, hemangiosarcoma, lymphosarcoma, and osteosarcoma are not major causes of mortality. For other breeds, they are. For example, in my breed, Irish Wolfhounds, osteosarcoma is very prevalent, it is one of the top three causes of death. Therefore, anything that may affect its occurrence, such as gonadal hormones, is very important to understand, and is one thing we can control. In other breeds, osteosarcoma is very rare, so owners need not worry so much. Hemangiosarcoma and lymphosarcoma are also not rare in IWs so we have to worry about that too.

                      Goldens though are also at a relatively high risk for some types of cancer, and it is interesting that Hart et al raise the question about whether Golden service dogs should be routinely neutered.

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        Given the small sample sizes in the GR study, I still question whether the results are truly statistically significant. Or clincially significant. And yes, those results were also statistically insignificant between dogs neutered early and dogs left entire in that analysis.

                        And, the Rottweiler study did not show a benefit for spaying later than one year.
                        Last edited by grayarabpony; Apr. 19, 2013, 11:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          Originally posted by Houndhill View Post
                          "in summary, this study found that male and female Rottweilers with the shortest lifetime gonadal exposure had the highest risk for bone sarcoma...."

                          That is what the paper states.
                          Statistical significance takes sample size into account.

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            I found this regarding the use of ratio ratios in statistical analysis, the one used in the Golden Retreiver study: the rate ratio is most suited to study events in a constant domain while the denominator -i.e. the population at risk- is very large.

                            Overall, the Golden Retriever paper showed a rather modest to zero benefit to keeping a dog intact, for a few conditions. I hope you have changed your mind regarding the Rottweiler study, lol.

                            Comment


                            • #94
                              It's actually a pretty large study, 700 plus dog's.

                              The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs.

                              Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and lymphosarcoma in males and of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females. Late neutering was associated with the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females.

                              In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The new study, however, was the first to specifically report an increased risk of late neutering for mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma.

                              Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. Earlier studies had reported a 17 percent increase among all neutered dogs compared to all non-neutered dogs, indicating the importance of the new study in making gender and age-of-neutering comparisons.

                              Comment


                              • #95
                                I was actually hoping you had changed your mind regarding the Rottie study lol!

                                Comment


                                • #96
                                  The numbers of the dogs in the GR study with those conditions were actually pretty small, and that method of analysis is not a good one with small samples.

                                  And why on earth would I change my mind about the Rottie study? Do you want me to start making stuff up so I can change my mind? Because that's what I'd have to do.

                                  Comment


                                  • #97
                                    UC Davis Vet School is a pretty well respected research entity. I know one of the principle researchers, Ben Hart, and he is extremely well regarded. I would trust his statistical analysis of data.

                                    Comment


                                    • #98
                                      I don't, for reasons already stated.

                                      The GR study paints an incomplete picture in any case. Why not look at dogs over 8 years of age? Too few left? Why not look at other conditions? The paper states too few cases to look at any other conditions.

                                      You can believe whatever you want, including your incorrect thoughts on the Rottie study.

                                      Comment


                                      • #99
                                        All due respect, but I tend to believe the results of this study as discussed by the UC Davis researchers, and at least they should be seriously considered. I do have a PhD and education in statistics and assume you do as well.

                                        You are right though, more studies are needed with different breeds and and even broader look at health effects of gonadal hormones. The present studies, while valuable, have only begun to explore the role of gonadal hormones on the health of dogs of various breeds and ages, as I am sure the researchers would be quick to say.

                                        Comment


                                        • What difference do the statistics make for the dogs that get run over by cars because they dug out of their yards to go looking for love?

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X