I'm almost willing to bet there are more effects than just those listed in this study, could you imagine... It hurts me just typing about it!https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/early-neutering-poses-health-risks-german-shepherd-dogs-study-finds
I know that some people don't like that the usual studies shared were based largely on goldens.
hormones found in the ovaries and testes signal the growth plates to close. They impact bone and joint development, just as they do in every other species. Why is it hard to imagine that they would affect hip development as well?This stands out to me...
I'm still not 100% sure about the hip Dysplasia. People get dogs from breeders that have hips tested to stack the deck in their favor but per these studies if you get a dog fixed before a certain age hip Dysplasia increases. So is it due to spaying/neutering or inherited? Since I haveca pup with no Dysplasia in his lines and he had severe Dysplasia I'm not convinced. The study that is of more interest is the one where hip Dysplasia is being looked at developing in pups between birth and 8-10 weeks. We know pups are born with loose hips and they develope and grow as the pup does. It makes perfect sense that a pup could damage those hips during that time. They are running, playing, standing on hind legs, they even slip and go spread eagle.
Does it say they didn't control for diet or other factors?If the spaying/neutering early(I'm not saying I agree or don't agree, it's an individual choice) is part of an issue with Dysplasia or other joint issues the number(%) would be closer to the same in the studies for any breed and the numbers are not.
The range for goldens is 5-10% increase and that is males-nothing on females. GSDs are at 16-21%--male/female. Is the difference that the golden study names hip Dysplasia specifically and the GSD study list it as joint disorders? Maybe, maybe not.
In order to have a study there needs to be the same amount of dogs, the same amount neutered at this age or that age, individual cancers and joint orders looked at. They need to look deeper into diet and vaccinations too in those individual groups. For example neutered early and vaccinated versus neutered early minimal vaccines versus neutered early and over vaccinated then the same for the group of intact dogs. These studies they do don't even scratch the surface.
I already notified the mods that I started a duplicate thread. I'm sure they'll combine them at some point.Jax was gracious enough to post the link to the actual study, but on another thread.
But anyhow, to any who might read this, the actual study shows all cancers to be lower in intact dogs but the researchers did not consider the variance to be of enough significance.