Do your breeding females eventually get cancer?

[sqs1]

I’ve only been breeding for a couple of years so my girls are still young.

The internet loves to tell you that your dogs will get cancer if they’re not spayed before their first heat or at the very least before the second. Has this ever happened to you? How common is it really?

Edit: I’m looking for comments specifically from breeders who have been in the business for long enough to see their retired breeding females age. I’m not asking about unspayed and unbred females who were left intact despite their owners having no plans to breed them, because that is not a circumstance that applies to me and my dogs. Any dog that I don’t intend to breed, who has aged out of breeding, or who shouldn’t be bred again due to complications gets spayed.

If you are not a breeder posting your anecdotal experience and instead are claiming to be sharing scientific facts about animal health please link to articles backing your claim. I am seeing a lot of contradictory information said with authority but no proof which is unhelpful.

 

[bailey2017]

@sqs1 It’s a heavy over-exaggeration on the internet’s part (mostly)

Spaying before the first heat reduces the risk of reproductive cancers for two main reasons:

1) It’s hard to get cancer in an organ you don’t have

2) Spaying before the 1st heat does not give mammary tissue a chance to further develop. Less mammary tissue = less risk of cancer

However, it’s also important to remember that cancer is fairly rare in the first place.

A lot of those who are anti-breeding on the internet try very hard to make it seem like if you don’t spay a dog young, she’s absolutely GUARANTEED to get cancer or pyo. I’ve seen some people on here claim that it’s an 85% chance for an unspayed female over 3 years old, but that’s simply not true. If it was, puppy mills would have been run out of business years ago lmao

Of course, intact animals will always have higher risk of reproductive cancers than an altered animal, simply because they have the effected organs. I have heard that the cancer risk goes up in an unspayed female not bred, but I haven’t read those papers yet

 

[chaser1]

@bailey2017 Another thing they like to forget is while altering does reduce the chance of various reproductive cancers because as you say the organ is not there the chance of those cancers without altering is like less than 5%. Almost all of those cancers are easily treatable. But altering greatly increases the chance of various other cancers. Most of the cancers you get increased chances of by altering are not easily treatable and are actually really horrible slow death. For instance, bone cancer.

 

[bailey2017]

@chaser1 I have heard that yes! I’m really looking forward to any coming research that investigates that more in depth

I’d also be interested in research exploring the rate of pyo/cancer in well bred vs poorly bred dogs, though I know it’s unlikely to exist

 

[marriage007]

@bailey2017 Pyometra seems unlikely to be linked to breed or breeding practices due to how it works. But the risk may vary depending on environmental factors, for example a stray dog may be less likely to develop it because they tend to have less heat cycles than pet dogs, due to pet dogs living in homes with stable temperature and light all year round. The cancer thing is well-known, although not exclusive of reproductive cancers. It has a lot to do with closed gene pools and shared defective genes among a population, that's why some breeds have insanely high cancer rates. Mixes of those breeds tend to have less cancer than their purebred parents.

 

[quizteam]

@chaser1 Can you share the research papers that support that altering “greatly increases” the chances of cancer, like osteosarcoma (bone cancer)? I have not seen anything suggesting causation, the main thing I’ve seen is related to hip dysplasia and joint issues in large breed dogs because they don’t have those hormones when they are still growing at 18-24 months because they were altered early.

 

[sqs1]

@bailey2017 Thank you that’s what I thought but I wanted to hear it said! I haven’t heard from any breeders I know about their dogs getting reproductive cancers. What I have heard is people online saying their dogs that they left unspayed and didn’t breed died young of cancer or pyometra. Which may be true, but may also be an anti-breeding scare tactic.

 

[bailey2017]

@sqs1 I think it’s also important to remember that a lot of dog owners are likely to neglect their dogs reproductive health, especially with the lack of readily available/common information about keeping an intact female safe

Most people I’ve met don’t even understand that you have to keep an in-season bitch under supervision at all times she’s able to get away or meet with an intact male. Hell, I’ve met far too many people who think dogs have a monthly period like humans Do!

If an owner doesn’t understand how heat cycles work, then they definitely won’t understand what an early stage pyo infection looks like. And it would not surprise me much if a lot of people who’s dogs died of reproductive cancer waited until the last minute to have their dog seen

 

[quizteam]

@sqs1 We see pyometra cases weekly in the veterinary ER. Sometimes multiple a day. Those are typically from uneducated owners that do not know what to look for with pyometra infections. Your poodle can get spayed when her heat is over, and be sure to monitor her for any signs that an infection may be brewing. She can also get spayed during her heat, but some vets will not do it or charge extra because of the enlarged uterus and larger blood vessels make it a more difficult surgery with a higher breeding risk. Many veterinarians would not be bothered by spaying an in-heat female but some will not do it. I spayed a large breed in-heat female last fall (still in school) and had no issues with her procedure.

 

[andrew742]

@bailey2017 Your line about how puppy mills would be run out of business if cancer rates were 85% is simply not true.

It's a lifetime risk, not immediate risk, so even if the risk was 100% chance of cancer, the cancer occurs later in life, past the age when breeding occurs. This is why we still have a lot of lethal recessive conditions in the human gene pool, if they have late onset it doesn't impact breeding!

 

[bailey2017]

@andrew742 That 85% comes from people insisting it’s an 85% chance for cancer and pyo at the FIRST heat, and many say it goes up exponentially after

The point is Moreso to show how ridiculous some of these claims can be, as if every single female had an 85% chance of getting cancer and dying the second she entered her first cycle dogs would have gone extinct long ago lol

 

[andrew742]

@bailey2017 I've never heard anyone say that? It's always a lifetime risk. From what I know it's around 10% with first heat and 25% with second or third heat depending on the source

 

[bailey2017]

@andrew742 I’m aware it’s lifetime risk. Unfortunately, I’ve just spoken to a few extremely anti-breeding people who intentionally overinflated statistics to scare people into spaying their puppies as soon as medically possible

They were also massive fans of PETA, so it’s safe to say they weren’t listening to reputable sources lol

 

[brennanskates]

@bailey2017 It's not 85%. The risk increases to (not by) around 26% after the second heat to develop mammary cancer. Which in dogs is 50% of the time malignant and 50% of the time benign.

The risk of pyometra is around 25% for dogs between the ages of 6 and 10.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

 

[bailey2017]

@brennanskates My entire point is that it isn’t 85%. I’ve repeated that several times.

To repeat:

It is anti-breeder “advocates” who are claiming that every single bitch has an 85% chance of developing pyo the second she goes into her first cycle.

They’re intentionally overinflating the statistic to scare people into spaying their dogs as early as possible.

 

[brennanskates]

@bailey2017 And my point is I'm not sure where you got those numbers from. I've never heard anyone say 85%, and I work with multiple types of people, including people who breed and those who don't, and shelters and rescues...

 

[bailey2017]

@brennanskates

I’ve never heard anyone say 85%

Good. Genuinely, I am very glad that these people are so rare. They’re exhausting to deal with, and I wish they’d stop trying to speak on things they don’t understand.

I hope these people die out. Or at least stay as rare as they are. Fear mongering about cancer and infection rates because they believe dog breeding is evil is not ok.

 

[sqs1]

@bailey2017 I was asking about lifetime risk actually. I’m thankfully not completely dumb and uneducated and I know dogs aren’t getting breast cancer at 1 or 2 years old.

 

[bailey2017]

@sqs1 I never said you were.

All I said was that yes, the internet loves to over exaggerate the risk. I said why people believe that. I then provided an example of one of the craziest over exaggerations I’ve seen.

Not once did I ever call you stupid. Not once did I ever say that the risk WAS 85%; I specifically said it WAS NOT.

The first comment I left on this thread was for you. The ones down here are replies to someone hellbent on misunderstanding me.

 

[marriage007]

@bailey2017 The 85% thing is not exactly wrong, but it's actually a misunderstanding. Spaying a female before the first heat has an 85% reduction rate for mammary cancer, and the more heat cycles before spaying, less this risk is reduced. But either way, spaying a dog before the first cycle actually increases the risk of other cancers like osteosarcoma, which is much worse. The best moment to spay a non-breeding female is after she's fully developed, which will happen after the second or third heat. It reduces the negative side effects to the minimum while still getting the benefits from spay. Either way, cancer has multiple factors, so even though intact females are more at risk of mammary cancer because hormones, it's possible to avoid this by keeping them healthy and feeding them a proper diet.