Rave Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326112842.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What I thought was interesting was that the environmental factors that can most affect a dog prone to HD are those that exist at the *breeder* (i.e., the research showed that the environmental factors were most important before 12 weeks of age, so roughly 2/3 of that time is when the pup is in someone else's hands). J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 I found two things interesting in the quote: "The opportunity to exercise daily in parks up until the age of three months reduced the risk of HD, whereas the daily use of steps during the same period increased the risk" First, people will have to balance the risk of diseases (like Parvo) from parks against the risk of CHD. Pups don't have complete immunity before three months of age. Second, I asked my (then) vet specifically about steps (whether I should make sure my pup didn't use them; the last puppy I had was in a ranch-style house in California). He told me that he didn't see any reason to ban steps. In light of this study, such advice should probably be reconsidered, and the prudent puppy owner might want to play it safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 A couple of questions to ponder. Were those breeders who provided more (beneficial) exercise to their pups also more concerned about selection of breeding pairs which minimized HD? Did those puppy owners who allowed daily use of steps manage how the pups used the steps or did they allow the pups to essentially jump/race up and down the stairs? Epidemiological studies are good at suggesting factors to be studied more closely under controlled conditions; but these types of studies do not prove "cause and effect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diane allen Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I did find this interesting...but not terribly convincing. One was the breeds involved - yikes! Leonbergers, Irish Wolfhounds, Labrador Retrievers, and Newfoundland! Oh my. Granted - this was in Norway, so environmental factors about time of birth might actually make sense - pups born in spring or summer likely have more of a chance to be "out and about," that is, exercising, than those born when there was deep snow or extremely cold temps. I think the most interesting - and IMO, the least significant - statement is this: "The Labrador Retriever was the breed in which symptoms appeared latest in life." Well, I'm sorry, but my reaction to that is: DUH! Firstly, the lab is most likely to be well-muscled to begin with. Secondly, the lab is more likely to be exercised better/more than the other breeds. Perhaps that is a bias on my part, and perhaps the "science" behind this study accounted for this (e.g., "all dogs received similar exercise" - which I seriously doubt....). Nonetheless, some interesting ideas...I'm just a bit skeptical of the conclusions! diane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 The most severely dysplastic dog I have owned was born in May and lived with access to an outdoor yard with grass until I got him at 7 weeks old. Once he was home with me he spent most of his time exploring outside. However, it was clear from the first day that something was not right. He always had a bunny hop and his very first vet check noted several skeletal abnormalities, including straight stifles, luxating patellas and laxity in his hips. The dog with the highest rated (best) hips I have ever owned was born at the end of November and was badly injured when his dam jumped on top of him at 3 weeks old (paralyzed and shattered femur). He didn't start walking again until he was about 8 weeks old and couldn't run and play until he was 3 months old. Even then he got tired quickly and never went far. Genetics clearly plays a huge role, perhaps even the overwhelmingly dominant role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffles Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I know a little mix breed (looks like many breeds, almost a skinny brindle cattle dog/wild african look, came from rescue) about 30 lbs, considered skinny by most peoples standards and by the time she was 10 months old she was limping and was stiff after laying down for a few minutes. Turns out she has dysplasia and is getting surgery next month (is now about 13 months old). I definitely think genetics plays a huge role. I would not normally think this dog would be a typical dog to get dysplasia and at such a young age. It is sad but really makes me wonder how many factors go into a dog getting it at such a young age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.