About Golden Retrievers 

It all started when...

Golden Retriever information

This page is to inform you as a puppy buyer, tons of studies have educated breeders that care about goldens. Hopefully, you have time to read this information its great for breeders, dog owners and very important for all adopting families to know. We strive to learn any information we can on the latest studies that effect Golden Retrievers. We feel the need to inform you that what you feed your dog, what chemicals you choose to use, when you choose to spayed or neuter and your breeders nutritional practices HAVE a huge impact on your puppy's health from the day of conception. What is processed in your pups body and mind have everlasting effects on his or her life. 

Health, temperament and performance are our #1 breeding goals. Our breeding program is 10 to 12 generations of very low COI. Non related breeding is our goal to helpmake stronger lines. We do not line breed or inbreed our dogs. They are genetically healthier golden's by out crossing with unrelated quality golden lines. Here some education that you should watch out for when buying a golden. Did you know, In Feb. 2013 , K9Data had 337,871 Golden Retrievers with an average 10 generation COI of 9.6% 
this is a very bad average! 
9.6% is why the golden retrievers are having so many health problems! Some of the show breds are 20+% inbred. 
Now with all the studies this in my eyes has a huge impact on the health results of the golden you are considering. 
The Coefficient of Inbreeding Is a huge problem in the USA, we as breeders need to take a look at what we are breeding to avoid inbreeding. Fact is our lines are almost unrelated to the 10th / 11th generations. Its proven they will live longer then a dog with higher COI. 

Neutering health effects more severe for golden retrievers than Labradors

page link University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine
Labrador retrievers are less vulnerable than golden retrievers to the long-term health effects of neutering, as evidenced by higher rates of certain joint disorders and devastating cancers, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine.
Results of the study now appear online in the open-access journal PLOS ONE.
“We found in both breeds that neutering before the age of 6 months, which is common practice in the United States, significantly increased the occurrence of joint disorders – especially in the golden retrievers,” said lead investigator Benjamin Hart, a distinguished professor emeritus in the School of Veterinary Medicine.
“The data, however, showed that the incidence rates of both joint disorders and cancers at various neuter ages were much more pronounced in golden retrievers than in the Labrador retrievers,” he said.
He noted that the findings not only offer insights for researchers in both human and veterinary medicine, but are also important for breeders and dog owners contemplating when, and if, to neuter their dogs. Dog owners in the United States are overwhelmingly choosing to neuter their dogs, in large part to prevent pet overpopulation or avoid unwanted behaviors.
This new comparison of the two breeds was prompted by the research team’s earlier study, reported in February 2013, which found a marked increase in the incidence of two joint disorders and three cancers in golden retrievers that had been neutered.
Health records of goldens and Labradors examined
The golden retriever and the Labrador retriever were selected for this study because both are popular breeds that have been widely accepted as family pets and service dogs. The two breeds also are similar in body size, conformation and behavioral characteristics.
The study was based on 13 years of health records from the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine for neutered and non-neutered male and female Labrador retrievers and golden retrievers between the ages of 1 and 8 years of age. These records included 1,015 golden retriever cases and 1,500 Labrador retriever cases.
The researchers compared the two breeds according to the incidence of three cancers: lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma and mast cell tumor. They also calculated the incidence for each breed of three joint disorders: hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and elbow dysplasia. 
The researchers also noted in these cases whether the dogs had been neutered before the age of 6 months, between 6 and 11 months, between 12 and 24 months or between age 2 and 9 years of age.
Neutering and joint disorders
In terms of joint disorders, the researchers found that non-neutered males and females of both breeds experienced a five-percent rate of one or more joint disorders. Neutering before the age of 6 months was associated with a doubling of that rate to 10 percent in Labrador retrievers.
In golden retrievers, however, the impact of neutering appeared to be much more severe. Neutering before the age of 6 months in goldens increased the incidence of joint disorders to what Hart called an “alarming” four-to-five times that of non-neutered dogs of the same breed.
Male goldens experienced the greatest increase in joint disorders in the form of hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament tear, while the increase for Labrador males occurred in the form of cranial cruciate ligament tear and elbow dysplasia.
“The effects of neutering during the first year of a dog’s life, especially in larger breeds, undoubtedly reflects the vulnerability of their joints to the delayed closure of long-bone growth plates, when neutering removes the gonadal, or sex, hormones,” Hart said.
Neutering and cancers
The data also revealed important differences between the breeds in relation to the occurrence of cancers. In non-neutered dogs of both breeds, the incidence of one or more cancers ranged from 3 to 5 percent, except in male goldens, where cancer occurred at an 11-percent rate.
Neutering appeared to have little effect on the cancer rate of male goldens. However, in female goldens, neutering at any point beyond 6 months elevated the risk of one or more cancers to three to four times the level of non-neutered females.
Neutering in female Labradors increased the cancer incidence rate only slightly.
“The striking effect of neutering in female golden retrievers, compared to male and female Labradors and male goldens, suggests that in female goldens the sex hormones have a protective effect against cancers throughout most of the dog’s life,” Hart said.
Funding for the study was provided by the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation and the Center for Companion Animal Health at UC Davis.
Other members of this UC Davis research team are Lynette Hart and Abigail Thigpen, both of the School of Veterinary Medicine, and Neil Willits of the Department of Statistics.

Interesting information from Ann F. Hubbs DVM, PhD .

There are three recent relevant publications on canine hip dysplasia genetics in the highly-rated peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS One that are available free of charge for those who are interested in this topic. For those interested in just the papers, the direct links are in the references at the end of this email. For those who have time, the 7 paragraphs below deal with why they may be important.
Two of these papers identify regions of the dog chromosomes and the mostly likely genes (candidate genes) within these regions that are associated with hip dysplasia in two breeds (Fels and Distl 2014; Lavrijsen, Leegwater et al. 2014). Interestingly, the candidate genes associated with hip dysplasia in the Labrador Retriever are on chromosomes 1, 5, 8, 15, 20, 25 and 32 (Lavrijsen, Leegwater et al. 2014). The candidate genes in these chromosomal regions include genes associated with cartilage and extracelluar matrix, including the collagen gene, COL6A3 (OMIM entry information is at http://www.omim.org/entry/120250 ) and the gene COMP (OMIM entry at http://www.omim.org/entry/600310 ) that is involved in the assembly of collagen. Two other candidate genes also have roles in inflammation and it is particularly interesting to me that one of these candidate genes, LRR1 (OMIM entry http://www.omim.org/entry/609193?search=LRR1&highlight=lrr1 ) interacts with a factor that influences the expression of Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha while another of the candidate genes, GDF15 (OMIM entry http://www.omim.org/entry/605312?search=gdf15&highlight=gdf15 ), is a target of p53, an important tumor suppressor gene. 
On the other hand, the major chromosomal regions recently implicated in causing hip dysplasia in the German Shepherd dog (GSD) include regions that are were not implicated in the Labrador Retriever. The regions implicated in the recent study of the GSD are on dog chromosomes 19, 24, 26 and 34 (Fels and Distl 2014). A previous study had demonstrated that in the GSD, regions of chromosomes 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 19, 26 and 33 were associated with hip dysplasia in that population (Marschall and Distl 2007). In discussing their findings, the authors of the most recent study on the GSD, did not pick up the candidate region on chromosome 8 in the previous study of the GSD but noted that that region contained the gene LRR1 implicated in Labrador Retrievers and that the new gene candidates they identified for the GSD included genes that like LRR1 are involved in bone formation from cartilage (Fels and Distl 2014). The authors also noted that the genes they identified were believed responsible for 20-32% of the phenotype of hip dysplasia in that population of the GSD (i.e. other genes and environmental factors are important too). Time will tell which genes are important in Golden Retrievers.
So for us as dog breeders, we can clearly see that genes are being identified that are associated with hip dysplasia in well-controlled studies. Some will be shared between different breeds and some probably will not. In addition, when one research group identifies genes that are particularly important in one population of dogs, that same gene may not be as important in another population of dogs of the same breed. One of the most important sayings in science is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
The third paper that is recently available in full text is one that indicates that in Australian German Shepherds, there was time-dependent improvement in hip dysplasia radiographic traits (Wilson, Nicholas et al. 2013). The authors attributed that to genetic selection, which is clearly going on, although it could be time-dependent differences in how we feed and exercise dogs these days.
So trying as best I can to put this together, it seems to me that vitamin C affects many biochemical pathways and some of these pathways are candidates for having a role in hip dysplasia. Years ago, I too recommended feeding vitamin C to pups for that reason. Figured it couldn’t hurt. The pups had better hips than the pups I had before. Then someone asked me if I could be absolutely certain that very high doses of vitamin C were ok in young pups since their kidneys are not fully developed at birth. Well there is no known basis for proposing that and plenty of data that suggests not but since “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, I stopped recommending vitamin C for my pups. I didn’t see any difference in the hips of the pups that I bred while I recommended vitamin C and after, but I don’t breed that many pups. It could well be that as Wilson and co-workers suggested for GSDs (Wilson, Nicholas et al. 2013), generations of selection are improving the hips of Golden Retrievers with time. The recent peer-reviewed scientific literature has not had conclusive evidence supporting that as a general conclusion extra vitamin C in any form can improve hip x-rays but it is certainly possible that some populations of Golden Retrievers might benefit from extra vitamin C. Breeder observations and observational studies are very important and were responsible for the original scientific studies that established current methods for diagnosing hip dysplasia and for recognizing pigmentary uveitis as an important disease of Golden Retrievers in the US. It is when breeder observations and science converge and breeders and scientists work together that we seem to see the most improvement in the health of our dogs.
But the beauty of where genetic testing is going is that it may allow us to identify some important genes that could specifically help prevent hip dysplasia. It is within the realm of possibility that some of these genes may also play a role in cancer. Only time will tell which of the forms of those genes (polymorphisms) will be one that might improve the health of the breed as a whole through gradual selection with input and open communication between everyone. 
In terms of k9-data and for us as breeders, I believe that hip clearance information is still very important. References follow this email.
Good luck to all who will be at the Australian and US Nationals!
Ann F. Hubbs DVM, PhD
 

Homemade dog food recipes can be risky business, study finds July 15, 2013

The study indicates that most available recipes for healthy dogs, even those published in books by veterinarians, do not provide essential nutrients in the quantities required by dogs. Read more news from the School of Veterinary Medicine.
When it comes to canine cuisine, home cooking may not be all it’s cracked up to be, reports a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine.
In what is thought to be the largest ever nutritional evaluation of recipes for home-prepared dog foods, the researchers found that very few of 200 recipes analyzed provided all of the essential nutrients in amounts adequate for meeting established canine health standards
Findings from the study appear in the June issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
“Some owners prefer to prepare their dogs’ food at home because they feel they have better control over the animals’ diet, want to provide a more natural food or simply don’t trust pet food companies,” said Jennifer Larsen, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital at UC Davis and lead author on the study.
“The results of this study, however, indicate that most available recipes for healthy dogs, even those published in books by veterinarians, do not provide essential nutrients in the quantities required by the dog,” Larsen said. “It is extremely difficult for the average pet owner — or even veterinarians — to come up with balanced recipes to create appropriate meals that are safe for long-term use,” she said.
“Homemade food is a great option for many pets, but we recommend that owners avoid general recipes from books and the Internet and instead consult with a board-certified veterinary nutritionist,” Larsen said. “These specialists have advanced training in nutrition to help formulate customized and nutritionally appropriate recipes.”
Larsen, together with Jonathan Stockman, a veterinarian and second-year resident in clinical nutrition at UC Davis, selected 200 recipes from 34 different sources, including veterinary textbooks, pet care books and web sites. They evaluated both the ingredients and the instructions for each recipe, using a computer-based program to quantify the nutritional content of the food described by each recipe, as well as the specificity of the instructions.
They found that only nine of the 200 recipes —including eight of the nine written by veterinarians — provided all essential nutrients in concentrations that met the minimum standards established for adult dogs by the Association of American Feed Control Officials, while only five recipes — all written by veterinarians — provided essential nutrients in concentrations that met the National Research Council’s Minimum Requirements for adult dogs.
Although recipes written by veterinarians were less likely to have any nutrient deficiencies — and those being less severe — most still had at least one deficiency. Interestingly, only four of the 200 recipes were written by board-certified veterinary nutritionists, and all of those four recipes had acceptable nutrient profiles for adult dogs.
Overall, 95 percent of the 200 recipes examined resulted in food that was lacking in the necessary levels of at least one essential nutrient, and more than 83 percent of the recipes had multiple nutrient deficiencies.
“Some of the deficiencies, particularly those related to choline, vitamin D, zinc and vitamin E, could result in significant health problems such as immune dysfunction, accumulation of fat in the liver and musculoskeletal abnormalities,” Larsen said.
“Also, since so many recipes shared the same deficiencies, rotation of recipes and the feeding of different foods to achieve variety — known as the ‘balance over time concept’ — is not likely to correct these problems,” she said.
The researchers also found that 92 percent of the recipes contained vague or incomplete instructions that required the pet owner to make at least one assumption related to the ingredients, method of preparation or the use of supplement-type products. Furthermore, 85 percent of the recipes did not provide calorie information for the recipe or advise for what size of pet the recipe was intended.
In order to corroborate the results of the computer-based analysis, the researchers also conducted laboratory analysis of nutrient content for the dog food that was prepared according to the instructions specified by 15 of the 200 recipes. The 15 recipes were selected to represent a variety of sources including books and websites, and a variety of ingredients.
In comparing the results from the laboratory analysis with the computer-based analysis for these 15 recipes, the researchers found that both assessment methods agreed on deficiencies and excesses, with only a few discrepancies.
“The data support the concept that computer-based analysis is a reliable method for detecting inadequacies in recipes for homemade dog food,” Larsen said.
Other UC Davis researchers collaborating on this study were Professor Andrea Fascetti, chief of the nutrition service at the William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, and Professor Philip Kass, a veterinary epidemiologist.
The study was supported by the Center for Companion Animal Health at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Larsen is a co-owner of DVM Consulting Inc., which licenses the software used to analyze the recipes.

Why am I so adamant about the food you feed because it effects the growth of the pup, I worked so hard to raise for you. Families want a guarantee on a living dog, seems funny when you think about how I don't have any way to know what or how you are caring for the pup I send home. But I do give a 26 month guarantee if you feed the recommended food for 2 years through the growth period. I don’t know why anyone would switch because older dogs need it!  

Your pup hasn't ever had any bad fillers, no toxins that are cancer causing, no commercial treats that are filled with chemicals that cause HEALTH issues. Your pup will not be exposed to any harmful flea and tick products.
Can you put your food product name into a google search looking for recalls without getting a recall. No probably not. Try to understand that I am only trying to keep your dog safe, free of issues and cancers. 
Only feed them good treats, 
apple slices, carrots, sweet potatoes, green beans, cherry tomatoes, spoon full of peanut butter. frozen peanut butter dabs. Meat of any kind in small portions.

Pork has too much fat will cause Pancreatitis in Dogs
Often, a fatty meal, like bacon grease or gravy, triggers it and can be a very costly mistake.