Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online: Absorbing Puppies - Australian Pure Bred Dog Forums - Dogz Online

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

Absorbing Puppies What is your opinion

#1 User is offline   Ceilidh 

  • Hooley, my life, my heart, my soul. We will be together again.
  • Posts: 4,374
  • Joined: 19-February 03
  • Location:New South Wales
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:07 PM

Hi all, another topic has mentioned absorbing puppies at 6 weeks and this got me to thinking. Do you think it is really possible for a bitch to absorb bone? I have heard mixed opinions on this one and thought it may provide a good discussion. Personally, I don't think they can and believe the bitch really was never pregnant when people say they have absorbed puppies at a late stage.
Looking forward to a good discussion and maybe learning something new.

#2 User is offline   blacklabrador 

  • blacklabrador
  • Posts: 29,258
  • Joined: 06-November 04
  • Location:brisbane
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:09 PM

hmm I wonder if there've been cases of confirmed pregnancy where the bitch has absorbed??

Is it possible the pups have been aborted while the bitch has been alone and the mother has eaten them?

#3 User is offline   Ceilidh 

  • Hooley, my life, my heart, my soul. We will be together again.
  • Posts: 4,374
  • Joined: 19-February 03
  • Location:New South Wales
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:10 PM

View Postblacklabrador, on 1st Sep 2006 - 01:09 PM, said:

Is it possible the pups have been aborted while the bitch has been alone and the mother has eaten them?


My thoughts exactly

#4 User is offline   blacklabrador 

  • blacklabrador
  • Posts: 29,258
  • Joined: 06-November 04
  • Location:brisbane
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:17 PM

The bones of the pups at that stage aren't entirely ossified. I believe that's why an xray can't be done too early - the bones don't show up properly.

Considering how well a dog is geared for survival, I don't doubt that abosorption is impossible - but it is a lot of tissue to break down.

There was an interesting case in Italy (I think) of an old woman who was found with an entirely calcifed foetus of 9 months gestation in her womb. She'd been pregnant when she was young and the baby was never born.

*just an interesting note :p *

#5 User is offline   addictabull 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 15-May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:23 PM

View PostCeilidh, on 1st Sep 2006 - 01:07 PM, said:

Hi all, another topic has mentioned absorbing puppies at 6 weeks and this got me to thinking. Do you think it is really possible for a bitch to absorb bone? I have heard mixed opinions on this one and thought it may provide a good discussion. Personally, I don't think they can and believe the bitch really was never pregnant when people say they have absorbed puppies at a late stage.
Looking forward to a good discussion and maybe learning something new.

That is is my bitch who absorbed, we had a ultrasound done @ 33weeks, pregnancy confirmed all was good.
Then at six weeks she went off her food one day and after checking her run found a small drop of blood so we had another ultrasound done, this showed a thickening of the uterus and a dark gray blob,(which they said wasn't a puppy) but no pups so they think she absorbed, probably not long after her first ultasound. :p

#6 User is offline   Ceilidh 

  • Hooley, my life, my heart, my soul. We will be together again.
  • Posts: 4,374
  • Joined: 19-February 03
  • Location:New South Wales
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:29 PM

Hi Addictabul, thanks for dropping by. I hope I didn't upset you with this thread, I am just curious. I just can't seem to get my head around a bitch being able to absorb bone and/or tissue. Even if there wasn't bone at this stage there would have been an awful lot of tissue to absorb. Is it possible she could have aborted and cleaned herself up?

#7 User is offline   Debbi 

  • Breeder / Exhibitor / Judge/ Proud MDBA Member
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 12-September 02
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:42 PM

Hi Ceilidh,

Bitches require a certain level of hormone, (Progesterone) in their body to maintain pregnancy.
If they lack the required level they will either lose some or all of their puppies along the term of the pregnancy.

It is natures way, that the breakdown happens subtly, and just fades back into the body.
On the odd occassion, should a bitch be c/sectioned at a later date, a vet MAY (this is on very rare occassions) find the indication of a calcified previous remain.

Consious tells us if this was the case the bitch "should" have had either an infection or a discharge, but in these very rare cases, it proves us wrong.

Thus the reading when the blood test at 35-42 days is done and the positive reading is given, you get a disclaimer which says something to the effect, "AT THIS POINT", because there is no indication that the bitch will continue to hold the whelp and continue to stimulate correct and normal growth, nor is it even an indicator of 'normal development"

One would have to assume that a bitch that absorbs puppies, at for example, does not for example have normal developed puppies at day 41 and then day 42 decide to go (mentally) ok, "puff in smoke" absorb these back into my system.
This process has already commenced happening over time previously, the puppies were not normally developed puppies for THAT PERIOD. Bitches can continue to produce some, (a smaller litter than expected ) for example, so only re absorb a partial litter, or all.

There complexity of all of this is HUGE!!!!

I understand where you are coming from in relation to the issue of "bone" but in fact at birth, the "bone" is not "bone" strong calcified bone as I think you are actually refering, it has a huge number of processes still to go through, as the puppy is born and continues to grow, thus, "swimmer" puppies, can be fine, (eg) and many other early structual problems are actually not, if treated correctly, as the "bone" is not fixed and finished.

Therefore it is "just another body tissue" able to be broken down by the body, as is, calcium removed from an adult bone, if in not enough supply, (eg again).

Maybe I have posted to long, so I will cut short here.

Let me know if you want me to say anything?
Deb

#8 User is offline   addictabull 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 15-May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:46 PM

Hi Ceilidh, Thats ok, i'm not upset at all :p....I just thought i'd try and shed some light on it for everyone by giving more details.
I don't think that she would have aborted,...Even though we had the ultrasound done @ 6 weeks, the absorbtion, which I am told can take over a week was well and truly at it;s tail end,..we only noticed at that stage though...Also she still looked pregant for a good ten days after, she was still very swollen and sooky with big teats.

#9 User is offline   addictabull 

  • Forum Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 15-May 06

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:52 PM

Ohhh Deb mentioned a discharge,..the bitch did have a discharge on day 18 and she was put on a 10 day course of Clavulox.
But then after discussing this with some other breeders they said it would have been too late, and that most of them put their females on a five day course of antibiotic from last day of mating,..What is everyone elses opinion on this???

#10 User is offline   Ceilidh 

  • Hooley, my life, my heart, my soul. We will be together again.
  • Posts: 4,374
  • Joined: 19-February 03
  • Location:New South Wales
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:55 PM

Oh Debbi, thank you so much for your post, fantastic. Like I said, hopefully I will learn something new here. Thanks.

#11 User is offline   Debbi 

  • Breeder / Exhibitor / Judge/ Proud MDBA Member
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 12-September 02
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:58 PM

Hi addictabull,
The discharge I was referring to was specifically in relation to a retained puppy.

In the instance you refer, yes most breeders would either give a course of antibiotics pre or post mating, HOWEVER, having said that there are many bitches who get a discharge, that is NOT abnormal during their pregnancy. Some are treated with antibiotics and go on to carry healthy and large litters.

Every bitch and every litter is different. Dont cut yourself up about this!!!! These things do happen, you know, no matter how much you breed or how long you have been in breeding there is always something new to learn!
And there are many joys, and much hurt also along the way! But dont cut yourself up about what happened!!!!

:p
Deb

#12 User is offline   2tollers 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 3,698
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Location:Ballarat
  • State:VIC

Posted 01 September 2006 - 03:08 PM

I was speaking to a woman last year who had been pregnant with twins. I'm not sure how many weeks but it was early days.

The next ultra sound only showed one foetus and the doctors told her that her body would have absorbed the other. I don't know if there were any signs of the second one or not. Weird eh.

#13 User is offline   Aziah 

  • ANKC Registered Breeder/Exhibitor
  • Posts: 11,582
  • Joined: 12-April 04
  • State:NSW

Posted 01 September 2006 - 03:34 PM

We had a bitch confirmed in whelp with definitely 3 and a possible 4th puppy at 6 weeks - when she whelped, only 2 puppies.

#14 User is offline   apolo 

  • 'Tiny' Toy Poodle Breeder
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Joined: 11-September 05
  • Location:FNQ
  • State:QLD

Posted 01 September 2006 - 04:21 PM

I had a bitched a ultrasound at 7 weeks.
One pup born at 64 days then X-rayed and no more pups.
Ultrasound showed two skeleton so we knew what to expect.
She did the same thing 12 months earlier and again one pup.

#15 User is offline   shekhina 

  • Forum Regular
  • Posts: 28,762
  • Joined: 31-May 05
  • Location:Hobart
  • State:TAS

Posted 01 September 2006 - 05:56 PM

View Post2tollers, on 1st Sep 2006 - 03:08 PM, said:

I was speaking to a woman last year who had been pregnant with twins. I'm not sure how many weeks but it was early days.

The next ultra sound only showed one foetus and the doctors told her that her body would have absorbed the other. I don't know if there were any signs of the second one or not. Weird eh.

A similar thing happened with my mum and her pregnancy with me. AFAIK she miscarried my twin and nearly lost me as well. I don't know whether there was absobtion involved or not though, she never talks about it.

Share this topic:



Old topic!
This topic has had no activity for over 365 days. Due to that, you will not be able to reply. Please create a new topic!

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Privacy Policy | Web Site Terms and Conditions