Greyhound Illnesses

[Guest kar]

are greyhounds more prone to the more strange illnesses than other breeds of dogs? I ask that because I have had four greyhounds in my lifetime -one with a severe heart murmur who died very young - one with spinal nerve cancer that died at five and now I have one at home who has some kind of stomach problem that has stumped by vet and one with protein loosing neuropathy who has had this for two years now she is now seven. I have had many dogs in my lifetime but all of died of old age - and I was left with my mom's two chihuahuas who are now about twelve and still healthy. Don't get me wrong I love my greyhounds but am just upset that they have conditions which I cannot help them with. when I read this forum half of the diseases I have never heard of and was just wondering if this breed is more susceptible to the rarer types of illnesses.

[buddibear]

I almost think you are on to something. All the inbreeding ,when a dog is known to have credit to 10,000 kids! My springer lived a good life up to 17, my Dalmatian lived to 15 and my cat went to 26! I don't think my AKC show English Springer has a vial in a freezer somewhere . My sister ,who never owned a dog shakes her head and said what atracks you to that "hot house" breed. All I say is love and soul full eyes.

[MaryJane]

Most people are posting because they need help with a problem so what you are seeing is really a distorted view because you don't see the posts of the other 95% or so owners that have healthy dogs.

[krissy]

Summit is only just turning 9, but we have been fortunate. So far other than pannus (totally treatable eye condition) he has been quite healthy.

 

Kili has a mild murmur that is not expected to cause any long term problems, and she had a congenital abnormality in her urogenital tract that caused recurrent UTIs as a puppy. However, after having surgery to fix it she has been fine. She does tend to crop up with all sorts of minor stuff. I'll take lots of minor stuff over something major though!

[Houndtime]

My first greyhound lived to 12-1/2 and died from a chest mass. My second lived to 11 and had an internal bleed. My third is still with us at 12-1/2 and we bless every day that he is with us. My fourth is 9-1/2 and doing well. My fifth passed at 7 from an internal bleed. Maybe we have so many greyhounds, whereas most people have just one or two dogs in a lifetime, that we are bound to see some unusual diseases.

 

My son's first grey passed at 8 from osteosarcoma. My daugher's first grey passed at 12-1/2 from a massive stroke. So we get some longevity and some not so long.

 

In our lifetime: our first dog, a beagle, passed at 6. Our second dog a mixed breed passed at 9. Our German shepherd passed at 10 of a kidney mass. Our supersized collie passed at 13 of just being 13. One morning, he just didn't get up. So a mixed bag before greyhounds and various and sundry issues.

 

Life is what it is and we make the best of it. Greyhounds are the best of it.

[Guest Giselle]

When you keep breeding genetically similar animals, you are bound to get recurring, detrimental mutations and increase the risk of diseases. This is true for all purebred dogs and is increasingly true for any "line" of animals bred closely to one another.

 

Racing greys may be more prone due to popular sire effects. Just look at Molotov.... And there are so so so many more...

 

Edit: And, yes, there definitely are diseases that are more common amongst greyhounds than they are in other breeds. Of course, osteo is an obvious one. But I will be very curious to see how our understandings of genetics and disease risks develop over time since racing greys are such a perfect study pool! My grey, btw, succumbed to a relentless immune disorder.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Giselle

[scullysmum]

I almost think you are on to something. All the inbreeding ,when a dog is known to have credit to 10,000 kids! My springer lived a good life up to 17, my Dalmatian lived to 15 and my cat went to 26! I don't think my AKC show English Springer has a vial in a freezer somewhere . My sister ,who never owned a dog shakes her head and said what atracks you to that "hot house" breed. All I say is love and soul full eyes.

In my opinion Greys are not inbred any more than any other pedigree breed, probably much less. Also, they are bred to run which requires selecting healthy individuals rather than just those whom somebody deems physically correct.

 

I am sorry to say that i think you just may have been unlucky. My two Greys that I had from pups died fairly young ( 8 and 9) but I put this down to the very poor start that they had due to their mother being starved. My last girl lived to 14 and suffered no more than the occasional tummy trouble until she got older and arthritis set in, as it does for many.

[Charlies_Dad]

First and foremost I am sorry that you have experienced so many losses young and are battling again. We have been there too with both our original boys gone at 8.5 and 9.5 years young. I do think Greys have a lot of serious health issues however so do other breeds. It will not stop me from having these wonderful pups in our lives though as they are so incredibly special.

 

It's all about genetics. Too much breeding of the same sires and dams has made the gene pool very small. Just look at greyhound data.com and look at the lineage of your pup, then take a look at another and another and you will see a familiar pattern emerges. That is not good genetics. These dogs are bred for one thing, speed (a long with other traits that would make them a good racer). The industry is not going to breed dogs that do not win races and make money. There, I said it, it's all about the money.

[scullysmum]

According to recent research done by the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association there is very little difference in the prevalence of genetic disorders between purebred and mixed breeds. Certain breeds have known genetic problems, many of which can be tested for, unlike in mixed breeds.

 

Also, it seems that people fail to understand the difference between inbreeding and line breeding. Just because a dog has sired a lot of pups does not mean that he is responsible for all the genetic problems they may have, he does afterall only contribute fifty percent of the genetic material.

 

There used to be a suggestion that an Irish sire called Greenpark Fox (he was my Sadi's great grandsire) was responsible for the increase in osteosarcoma at one time, but it is more likely that as he was joint top producing sire for a couple of years more dogs were related to him than almost any other so statistically there were bound to be more who would have osteo,it's just the law of averages.

Edited March 11, 2014 by scullysmum

[NeylasMom]

I almost think you are on to something. All the inbreeding ,when a dog is known to have credit to 10,000 kids! My springer lived a good life up to 17, my Dalmatian lived to 15 and my cat went to 26! I don't think my AKC show English Springer has a vial in a freezer somewhere . My sister ,who never owned a dog shakes her head and said what atracks you to that "hot house" breed. All I say is love and soul full eyes.

Large dog breeds have shorter life spans than smaller dog breeds, and cats typically have significantly longer lifespans than dogs on average, that's just par for the course. Truth of the matter is, greyhounds actually have a longer average lifespan than a lot of dogs their size. Unless it's changed, I was informed it's 12-15 years and I think that's typically what you see with dogs who don't die young from bone cancer or a similar ailment. Even my greyhound who did get bone cancer lived to be nearly 12 not that any one individual is representative of the breed.

 

In my opinion Greys are not inbred any more than any other pedigree breed, probably much less. Also, they are bred to run which requires selecting healthy individuals rather than just those whom somebody deems physically correct.

 

I am sorry to say that i think you just may have been unlucky. My two Greys that I had from pups died fairly young ( 8 and 9) but I put this down to the very poor start that they had due to their mother being starved. My last girl lived to 14 and suffered no more than the occasional tummy trouble until she got older and arthritis set in, as it does for many.

[Guest fastcasper]

I think as more people are adopting the greys, more are living longer than being put down after their racing career is over. Most literature says greyhounds average lifespan is 12-14 years. I believe it's more like 10-12 years. I think dogs in generally are getting "stranger diseases" due to our environment. I mean, dogs are getting breast cancer...really? My first grey lived to 13 (died from squeamish cell carcinoma), my second lived to 9 (suspected ruptured tumor near spleen), he had a heart attack, my third who I got as a 4 month old pup, lived to 6.5 years (either acute kidney failure due to high blood pressure or vise versa), it was never confirmed. Dr. Couto was in on that one. My forth (Casper) lived a few months past 10 years. Just recently died to osteo. I just think they may be a little more susceptible to disease because their beginnings and early years are bad living conditions, not a lot of exercise, and nutrition is bad. They all have worms that generally go untreated until adopted and who knows what else.

Each time I lose a grey and say "never again" it's too painful, I am too attached. But I feel if I think that way then others do too and maybe less greys get adopted. I tell my friends that I wish I could quit the greyhound breed, but, I really can't and I just have to keep telling myself that I have them for a short time and I need to make the most of it and give them the best home I can. They deserve it, right?? They are truly magnificent!

 

Kim

[carronstar]

Definitely, in this topic it will seem as if every grey is suffering from something. That is not the case.

 

Are there certain lines with issues, better people than I can answer that question. I am on my second dog from the Molotov line and none of her problems, or her predecessor's problems seem to have come from him.

 

With the exception of a few nervewrenching days in the ER, she is, in truth a pretty healthy girl. While it is true that we have been dealing with chronic kidney failure for close to two years now, she doesn't actually show any outward signs of it. She is happy, bouncy, loves to play with dogs and is just a joy. It is hard to believe she will be 11 on Sunday. Her predecessor never gave me a single sick day until the day I lost her. My first girl Scarlett was never "sick" on her own. She was attacked and very nearly disembowled but that was an attack. She was ripped open by some temporary fencing but that was an accident. Her main issue was yucky old lady teeth. We dealt with that with cyclical antibiotics because she was over 15 and surgery was a non-issue. She did get osteo, which we tried desperately to treat as arthritis due to her extreme age, but we were not lucky. At 19, she was not at all a candidate for surgery so we did palliative care and let her go shortly after the diagnosis. Truly, at 19 something was going to get her. I knew in my heart that I would lose her that year, it was really just a question as to what it would be. Selfishly, I wish it hadn't been osteo. She made it so far, she made so many friends, she was so very loved, that I thought that she deserved more dignity. I do know that is human thinking.

 

Coming from someone who is nearly bankrupt from dog care, this may sound disingenuous but I don't honestly find they have healthy issues that are insurmountable.

 

Now, having raised show dogs, and showed dogs while growing up, I was at the vet almost every Saturday of my life for basic maintenance so I may well have a different view from other people.

Edited March 11, 2014 by carronstar

[MP_the4pack]

I have 6 at the Bridge, only one died of old age. One died at 5 from liver disease, three had cancer of the spleen and one had OS.

 

Whether I post in H&M or not, these are my own numbers.

[Hubcitypam]

I am with the camp (and so is my vet) that while the literature says 12-14 in general 10 -12 seems more realistic in general.

I've never lost hound to osteo but from a variety of other random things. Girl died at 4 of IMHA. Rex went to the bridge at six from GME, I lost Bella to what they believe was something to do with her spinal sheath just before she turned 11. Buck (supposedly) died in his sleep at 9. He was at a friends house and I declined a necropsy. Buddy died at 9 from Lymphoma.

In the big picture my greyhounds have had FAR more health issues than any of my other dogs. My One yorkie had dental issues and one ruptured a disc in his spine, other than that they just need routine checkups. Poodle is 14 and until he had pancreatitis and developed diabetes we very seldom went to the vet more than once or twice a year. Barkley the terrorist mix has not been in except for vaccinations and check ups in 3+ years. My niece said "at least I sent you a sturdy dog", which he is. He's a PITA sometimes but a hale hearty sturdy dog as was Poodle for his first 10 or so years.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Hubcitypam

[Houndtime]

When Brandy developed the mass in her chest, our vet said, "dogs are living longer so they have to die from something." I would hope that it wouldn't have been cancer, though.

[Guest kar]

I myself have never head dogs with so many illnesses. I just posted the one that had the bleed now hurt his leg outside. I have never even had a dog hurt their leg. I do not see anything broken and he is now putting weight on it but is walking around again with his tail between his legs and I cannot even give him anything for pain because of the bleeding. I feel horrible for him. I don't know - he is eight or nine maybe it is just his time. I am heartbroken as he is the one who has followed me everywhere for the six years that I've had him. I just cannot believe this.

[BatterseaBrindl]

Well ... I have 3 very healthy Greyhounds!

 

We've had 3 Dobes and none lived past 9 ... All suffered from enlarged hearts. One keeled over dead at 7, another at 8.

[Guest Giselle]

According to recent research done by the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association there is very little difference in the prevalence of genetic disorders between purebred and mixed breeds. Certain breeds have known genetic problems, many of which can be tested for, unlike in mixed breeds.

 

Also, it seems that people fail to understand the difference between inbreeding and line breeding. Just because a dog has sired a lot of pups does not mean that he is responsible for all the genetic problems they may have, he does afterall only contribute fifty percent of the genetic material.

Unfortunately, that is not what the study found. We really need to be careful with how we interpret scientific studies. Saying that "there is very little difference in the prevalence of genetic disorders between purebred and mixed breed dogs" is a gross misrepresentation of the study, and this is why I'm a little afraid when scientific studies suddenly get popularized and broken into punchy soundbites. For one, JAVMA doesn't perform research. It's a publishing journal. What you're referring to was a study conducted by researchers at UC Davis. Secondly, this is what the article actually said (emphasis my own):

 

RESULTS:

Genetic disorders differed in expression. No differences in expression of 13 genetic disorders were detected between purebred dogs and mixed-breed dogs (ie, hip dysplasia, hypo- and hyperadrenocorticism, cancers, lens luxation, and patellar luxation). Purebred dogs were more likely to have 10 genetic disorders, including dilated cardiomyopathy, elbow dysplasia, cataracts, and hypothyroidism. Mixed-breed dogs had a greater probability of ruptured cranial cruciate ligament.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Prevalence of genetic disorders in both populations was related to the specific disorder. Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the 2 populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population. Results provided insight on how breeding practices may reduce prevalence of a disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23683021

 

Genetics never lies. Genetically speaking, there is no difference between "linebreeding" and "inbreeding". Breeding mom and son v.s. breeding grandfather and granddaughter? Not a huge genetic difference = It's all inbreeding. It will increase risks of detrimental mutations and increase risk of unusual diseases. The sire of a litter doesn't even exactly contribute exactly 50% of the genetic material. What with recombination and epigenetic changes and x-inactivation and whatnot, the actual genetic material that gets passed onto offspring and expressed in vivo is highly susceptible to multiple different factors. But what we do know with certainty is that inbreeding does not bode well for a species long-term. It's a big problem.

[Guest Giselle]

Also. Remember one of the fundamental questions of natural selection: Exactly what is being selected for and how is it distributed temporally, spatially, geographically, genetically?

 

Greyhounds are bred for good health and for speed... but for only ~4-6 years. After that, does their health matter? Not really. A greyhound could be a stellar racer and in tip-top shape until 5 years. Then, s/he is retired. Then, s/he breeds for a few years. And then... what if that dog dies from a chronic, debilitating genetic disorder at age 8 or 9? Well, too late. That dog's genetic material already got passed on. From a performance point of view, these animals are perfect. But once their careers are over, they are no longer required to be strong, fast, and healthy, there is no longer a selective pressure. So, racers may not necessarily be selected for long-term health but, rather, really good health in their early years - which, to us retired racer adopters, can be an unfortunate consequence.

[scullysmum]

Also. Remember one of the fundamental questions of natural selection: Exactly what is being selected for and how is it distributed temporally, spatially, geographically, genetically?

 

Greyhounds are bred for good health and for speed... but for only ~4-6 years. After that, does their health matter? Not really. A greyhound could be a stellar racer and in tip-top shape until 5 years. Then, s/he is retired. Then, s/he breeds for a few years. And then... what if that dog dies from a chronic, debilitating genetic disorder at age 8 or 9? Well, too late. That dog's genetic material already got passed on. From a performance point of view, these animals are perfect. But once their careers are over, they are no longer required to be strong, fast, and healthy, there is no longer a selective pressure. So, racers may not necessarily be selected for long-term health but, rather, really good health in their early years - which, to us retired racer adopters, can be an unfortunate consequence.

So are you suggesting that the people who breed greyhounds would prefer we just destroyed them all age five?

 

The problem with this whole subject is that it is completely subjective, based entirely on each persons own experiences and prejudices.

 

A few years ago I participated on another forum where one person stated that she would rather see the Greyhound breed die out if it meant the end of racing....my reply was why don't we just get rid of all animals then they can't be abused any more!

 

If you think greyhounds are inherently unhealthy dogs then why choose to own them? Not many people get to have greys from pups (I count myself very fortunate in that respect) so there is really only one way we can get them and that is from the racing industry like it or not.

[Charlies_Dad]

I don't believe this post was intended as an argument. The OP was asking for opinions based on the fact she has suffered losses at young age as have myself. I completely agree with Giselle, genetics don't lie. Bear in mind, this is not only a Greyhound issue, it's a breeding issue so it can and does affect other breeds outside of racing, e.g. Bernese are known as 'cancer factories' with just above 50% dying of cancer or having to be euthanized due to cancer. Likely cause, breeding.

 

You can run but you cannot hide from science.

[Guest kar]

I totally agree. and believe me I love the breed. but to loose dog after dog at young ages due to breeding is a bad situation.

[Guest Giselle]

I do not understand where those insinuations came from, so I cannot answer them.

 

These are just facts, to the best of my knowledge: Greyhounds are selected for speed and health for (at most) about 5-9 years. From that point on, if they do indeed harbor genetic predispositions, their genetic material has already been passed on. This could be a reason why diseases like osteo run so rampant in the breed. Furthermore, racing greys (at least here in the States and as far as I understand) tend to be prone to popular sire effects. This exacerbates inbreeding issues. Inbreeding fundamentally raises animals' risks of inheriting detrimental mutations and debilitating diseases. Just the facts. These principles apply to any creature or dog breed with restricted gene pools, not just greys. In fact, this is why some breed clubs are trying to re-open their studbooks.

 

For what it is worth, before a problem can be resolved, it first must be identified... If inbreeding and genetic abnormalities are problems, can we resolve them? I think yes. Can we do it while preserving the integrity of the breed? I think, yes, but it will require an understanding of the science and genetics of breeding, and it won't be simple.

[Guest kar]

just the same as genetics play a part in humans they do in dogs. that is why they have so many genetic tests for people. as we now now heart disease, breast cancer, ovarian cancer in women all have a genetic factor.

my grey that died at 8 months of age due to a serious heart murmur was an akc grey not a racing grey. I contacted the akc. the researched and found that four dogs out of four different litters dropped dead before one year of heart disease. they essentially contacted her and when she was unwilling to stop breeding her two greys they actually put her out of business. I am happy that no other people had to go through the heartbreak of getting a dog loving it and losing it before one year.

[cleptogrey]

Also. Remember one of the fundamental questions of natural selection: Exactly what is being selected for and how is it distributed temporally, spatially, geographically, genetically?

 

Greyhounds are bred for good health and for speed... but for only ~4-6 years. After that, does their health matter? Not really. A greyhound could be a stellar racer and in tip-top shape until 5 years. Then, s/he is retired. Then, s/he breeds for a few years. And then... what if that dog dies from a chronic, debilitating genetic disorder at age 8 or 9? Well, too late. That dog's genetic material already got passed on. From a performance point of view, these animals are perfect. But once their careers are over, they are no longer required to be strong, fast, and healthy, there is no longer a selective pressure. So, racers may not necessarily be selected for long-term health but, rather, really good health in their early years - which, to us retired racer adopters, can be an unfortunate consequence.

agree 100%

also larger dogs, like greyhounds did not have the current life span they have now. many, many large breed dogs rarely made it into the double digits years ago.

 

part of it is the luck of the draw. my saluki did not have any genetic problems, i was lucky. he survived parvo, lived to 12.5 but he did have cancer in the end. my scottie inherited addison's disease. my welsh terrier had LP, otherwise healthy but had organic brain syndrome(doggie dementia) at the end. unfortunately w/ line bred dogs we are talking about genetics. also, i always speak of my greyhounds as a similar experience to owning a lamborghini- or another fast high end high maintenance dog.