Is Hannah a midget?

juliefurry

Rusty but Trusty
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
6,209
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
United States
#61
ok I feel better now. She's normal. I guess I should go off of the breed standard and not what everyone else's lab looks like.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#63
juliefurry said:
ok I feel better now. She's normal. I guess I should go off of the breed standard and not what everyone else's lab looks like.
If I went off of what everyone else's Aussie looks like, then mine belongs in Ethiopia. ;) He's exactly where he needs to be though.

I was talking to a lady today and she couldn't quite understand how Sawyer could be a pure-bred Aussie if he has two brown eyes, since he's a blue merle.
 

Melissa_W

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,290
Likes
0
Points
0
#64
Skye has brown eyes, but he is a blue merle... there isn't anything wrong with that, is there? The genes for eye color are totally separate from the genes for coat color, aren't they?
 
M

Manchesters

Guest
#65
Thanks, Zoom

Zoom said:
As yanked from the AKC website:

Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a b*tch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds.

The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age.



So there are some ginormous Labs out there today...

And I will say that it is possible to have obese puppies. There are two bulldog puppies that come in regularly that prove my point. I'm pretty sure these dogs weigh what they should at full maturity, but they're only 9 months old. They can barely walk well, let alone run and the male has an issue with throwing up if he tries to walk too soon after eating. And there's another dog, a female Golden (not a rescue), that eats anything in sight. We have to watch her when walking her through the kennel. I know she gets regular exercise, but if this dog was free fed, it would probably weigh twice as much as it does. She's food obessed.
Thanks Zoom. It would seem that Hannah is not too far out of line for her age. Unfortunately for the dogs you mention, most dogs are not fully matured weight wise till about 2 years old. That seems to be the cut off for most of the medium to large sized breeds.

If I were Julie I would be delighted the smaller that Hannah is! Some Labs......even females can be mooses!!
 
M

Manchesters

Guest
#66
Not True

Renee750il said:
That's a good way to think of it, Julie. Too many "breeders" have gotten obsessed with the "mine's bigger than yours" mindset.
A "breeder's" mindset is "mine's closer to the Standard than yours' is".
 
M

Manchesters

Guest
#68
Genes.....

Melissa_W said:
Skye has brown eyes, but he is a blue merle... there isn't anything wrong with that, is there? The genes for eye color are totally separate from the genes for coat color, aren't they?
It would seem that there is a connection between hair color and eye color. But since eye color works for the most part on dominance/recessive there are likely many variables. One interesting thing........two blue eyed parents (human) cannot have a brown eyed child!!!!

As far as with dogs, the connection seems to mainly affect the shading of the eyes. Fawn Dobes will have yellow eyes......seldom dark brown.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#70
Manchesters said:
It would seem that there is a connection between hair color and eye color. But since eye color works for the most part on dominance/recessive there are likely many variables. One interesting thing........two blue eyed parents (human) cannot have a brown eyed child!!!!

As far as with dogs, the connection seems to mainly affect the shading of the eyes. Fawn Dobes will have yellow eyes......seldom dark brown.
That's because at that point, the recessive blue gene becomes the dominant in that pair and would override any brown gene. But, if that blue-eyed child had a brown-eyed spouse, chances are those kids would have brown eyes, with a higher-than-normal chance at blue. So they could easily have a kid or two with brown eyes, and the third child could have blue. I don't feel like calculating the odds. It's something like 75% brown and 25% blue though. There are always exceptions that crop up (i.e. blond kids in a dark-haired family).

I love color genetics :) I'm such a nerd at times.
 

Mordy

Quigleyfied
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
3,868
Likes
0
Points
0
#71
And I assume you automatically ASSume Puppy Chow=Purina? The brand Julie is feeding does not make a Puppy Chow=version???
yeah, i did indeed ASSume you are talking about Purina Puppy Chow, since i'm not aware that people are using "Puppy Chow" as a generic phrase.

Many of us breeders advocate keeping a puppy on puppy formula for a year with the medium to large sized breeds.
not as many as you like to think. i know of far more who recommend not giving especially large and giant breed puppies puppy food, since most brands are very high in calories and cause rapid growth, which is not desirable. slower, even growth is preferable, why do you think we now have "large breed" puppy food on the market that is much less calorie dense?

I am curious however upon what you base your denegration of some of the more popular breeds.
i'm not quite sure what you mean by "my degeneration of some of the more popular breeds", but i blame the state of many popular breeds today mainly on extremely poor breeding practices. good nutrition is important, but you could feed a genetic disaster only the best of the best and it wouldn't make it a better dog.

Having very limited experience with actually feeding these foods to dogs and have actually see results, you seem to base your expert opinion on reports written by others???
it doesn't take an expert to understand that poor quality food ingredients make for poor nutrition. i've authored an entire website on the topic, so i'm not going to rehash it yet again in this thread. anyone who is interested can click on the link in my signature.

since you do not know me, you ASSume i have limited experience on the topic, but rest assured i don't base my opinion just on other people's writings. i've helped many people with eliminating health issues in their dogs by adjusting diet and if necessary adding specific supplements.

what i find sad is that you are so stone set in your ways. no, i'm not a breeder, but that doesn't mean i'm clueless, and it doesn't take me raising X numbers of litters just to be able to make that claim as a basis of my knowledge.

and just some idle musings here, you have fed food X for Y years and say you have "good results", but do you have a basis of comparison? how do you know that a better brand of food made with superior ingredients wouldn't get you even better results? have you ever seen any changes in your dogs when the brand of food you fed was reformulated, which happens every so often?

just as an example, i still remember when iams was actually a quality product, sold only at specialty stores and not competing with kibbles and bits at the local supermarket. 15 years ago i wouldn't have hesitated to recommend iams food or feed it to my own dogs, but that isn't the case any longer. to me it isn't difficult to grasp the concept of change, and the fact that change isn't always for the better, even if a manufacturer slaps a big, fat "new and improved" sticker on the bag.
 

Mordy

Quigleyfied
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
3,868
Likes
0
Points
0
#73
Manchesters said:
Lookie here, Mordy.........

Seventy years after a classic Cornell nutritional study showed that cutting rations dramatically prolongs rats' lives, nutrition scientists have come up with even more evidence of the benefit of slender diets: A recently completed 14-year study found that dogs forced to eat 25 percent less than their littermates of the same balanced diet lived significantly longer and suffered fewer canine diseases.

In an age of increasing incidence of obesity among Americans, "maybe it's time we watched what the rats and the dogs are eating," advises George Lust, a Cornell professor of veterinary medicine and a collaborator in the experiment with dogs, sponsored by the Nestlé Purina Pet Care Co.

Oh my goodness.....sporsored by Purina......the makers of poison for dogs!!!!!!!

Plus it has been know for years that dogs fasted every third day live 1/3 longer according to studies. But puppies should not be deprived of food for whatever reason. You did note the article said that puppies WERE FORCED TO EAT LESS. One limited study does not scientific fact make!

Anyway......I would love to hear what any breeders have to contribute.

i know that the study was sponsored by purina, no need to point it out to me. i generally read articles before i link them, imagine that. :D

the sad fact is that there are very few independent studies going on because someone has to pay for them - even moreso since AAFCO ditched the advice of the NRC in favor of coming up with its own guidelines for making food. not sure if you know, but the AAFCO is the body that regulates the pet food industry, with the little ironic twist that some employees of said industry also sit on its board. to me that's akin to mcdonalds or taco bell having a say in recommendations for nutritional guidelines for humans.

i never said that puppies should be "deprived of nutrition". and yeah, such studies may be limited, but if you get clear results such as

"It was dramatic. In the control group of 24 dogs -- the well-fed dogs -- 16 had CHD at 2 years of age, and eight were normal," Lust said. "Of the 24 dogs in the restricted diet group, only eight had CHD and 16 were normal."

and

The reduced diet also was found to reduce the risk of developing osteoarthritis, which generally results from CHD and is one of the most common sources of chronic pain treated by veterinarians. ... Only six dogs on the reduced diet developed osteoarthritis of the hip by age 10, while 19 of the dogs in the control group developed the condition. And for dogs with CHD and on reduced rations, the diet decreased the odds of developing osteoarthritis by 57 percent.

that sends a pretty loud and clear message, and that message isn't "let your dog pig out".
 

Melissa_W

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,290
Likes
0
Points
0
#74
Zoom said:
That's because at that point, the recessive blue gene becomes the dominant in that pair and would override any brown gene. But, if that blue-eyed child had a brown-eyed spouse, chances are those kids would have brown eyes, with a higher-than-normal chance at blue. So they could easily have a kid or two with brown eyes, and the third child could have blue. I don't feel like calculating the odds. It's something like 75% brown and 25% blue though. There are always exceptions that crop up (i.e. blond kids in a dark-haired family).

I love color genetics :) I'm such a nerd at times.
Yeah, it's because blue eyed people have two reccessive blue eye genes. They'd be "bb". bb x bb could only make another bb. A person with brown eyes is either BB (double brown) or Bb (brown with a blue recessive). A bb x BB can only make Bb (kids with brown eyes) , but a bb x Bb can make both. And you're right, the chance is 25% for a kid with blue eyes.

Did that make sense? I had a few drinks... lol
 
Last edited:
M

Manchesters

Guest
#75
and just some idle musings here, you have fed food X for Y years and say you have "good results", but do you have a basis of comparison? how do you know that a better brand of food made with superior ingredients wouldn't get you even better results? have you ever seen any changes in your dogs when the brand of food you fed was reformulated, which happens every so often?
Thanks for the response. As per your question above.....if someone's dogs are in superb condition, how would you even be able to tell if using another "better" food were giving "better" results.

The point of breeding is that it is impossible to tell just how "good" a food is unless a b!tch is RAISED on that food, fed on that food during gestation, and then you see the quality of the newborns condition. Are the newsborns in good weight? Do they have sleek shiney coats. Do they have good bone, and does the dam maintain her weight while lactating. Does she have sufficient milk for the pups, etc, etc, etc. THAT is the only way to judge the quality of a food being fed.

Over the years there have been food that were considered almost miracle treatments for feeding dogs. Food that were widely used that I am sure you never heard of, and I have long since forgotten. But when they were used it was discovered that b!tches aborted pups, b!tches had NO milk for puppies, males were infertile. All kinds of fun things. The ultimate proof of a food goodness is in the breeding of the dogs fed those foods. Gee........isn't that the same thing the food companies do, and call it research???

Do the names Carlton Fredericks, Adele Davis, Winfred Shute, Linus Pauling ring any chimes with you? I grew up with them, not by choice, but it gave me an excellent foundation in nutrition. I knew all about carbs, protein, fats, complex carbs, incomplete protein and the like long before becoming involved with dogs. So what you say on your web site is not anything I have not read or heard long before you decided to start your research. It is good that you took the time to compile the info and make it available to those who need it.

I have a slight advantage of having been able to personally observe things that you only have access to thru others written words. I am a firm believer in hands on experience. I have been able to help many over the years also. Especially the miracle of using Vitamin C for knuckling over. Folks are absolutely amazed by what they see.

Then there are those who want to pump calcium to their large breed dogs....and know nothing about phosphorus. Or needing vitamin D to help with the absorption of the calcium. Etc, etc.

However there are some genetic factors that if a person is not involved in breeding can lead to discouragement. Some lines of Manchesters are just prone to sparse crappy coats. You can feed the highest, bestest quality food and the dogs are still going to have sparse, crappy coats. Very discouraging, but sad fact. And then there are the Blue Dobes, with their Blue Dobe Syndrome.....or alopecia. Talk about depressing!!!!!!

So with dogs, it helps to have the broadest picture possible.

Oh, I had meant to say "a" puppy chow. I have never been a fan of Purina, or any food with soy in it. All it does it make the piles of poop bigger!!!

Stool is also an excellent gauge of how good a food is being used by one's doggers.
 
Y

yuckaduck

Guest
#76
Mordy said:
yeah, i did indeed ASSume you are talking about Purina Puppy Chow, since i'm not aware that people are using "Puppy Chow" as a generic phrase.



not as many as you like to think. i know of far more who recommend not giving especially large and giant breed puppies puppy food, since most brands are very high in calories and cause rapid growth, which is not desirable. slower, even growth is preferable, why do you think we now have "large breed" puppy food on the market that is much less calorie dense?



i'm not quite sure what you mean by "my degeneration of some of the more popular breeds", but i blame the state of many popular breeds today mainly on extremely poor breeding practices. good nutrition is important, but you could feed a genetic disaster only the best of the best and it wouldn't make it a better dog.



it doesn't take an expert to understand that poor quality food ingredients make for poor nutrition. i've authored an entire website on the topic, so i'm not going to rehash it yet again in this thread. anyone who is interested can click on the link in my signature.

since you do not know me, you ASSume i have limited experience on the topic, but rest assured i don't base my opinion just on other people's writings. i've helped many people with eliminating health issues in their dogs by adjusting diet and if necessary adding specific supplements.

what i find sad is that you are so stone set in your ways. no, i'm not a breeder, but that doesn't mean i'm clueless, and it doesn't take me raising X numbers of litters just to be able to make that claim as a basis of my knowledge.

and just some idle musings here, you have fed food X for Y years and say you have "good results", but do you have a basis of comparison? how do you know that a better brand of food made with superior ingredients wouldn't get you even better results? have you ever seen any changes in your dogs when the brand of food you fed was reformulated, which happens every so often?

just as an example, i still remember when iams was actually a quality product, sold only at specialty stores and not competing with kibbles and bits at the local supermarket. 15 years ago i wouldn't have hesitated to recommend iams food or feed it to my own dogs, but that isn't the case any longer. to me it isn't difficult to grasp the concept of change, and the fact that change isn't always for the better, even if a manufacturer slaps a big, fat "new and improved" sticker on the bag.
Your gonna hate me but oh well: My parents fed their husky Old Roy dog food. After much much disputing I finally managed to get them to change to a higher quality [Wellness] the dog was nothing but sick the whole 3 years they tolerated higher quality??? so back to Old Roy and not a problem. No health problems in Old Roy the dog lived to 18 years old. I use to feed only Pedigree and the youngest dog that died was Jessie who was 16years old-no health issues.
I did have one dog die at age 3 but that was because he had been hit in the head with a crow bar by his original owner and then was placed in rescue. He suffered head injuries as a result of the hitting incidient.
Now I feed my dog Kirkland Signatures Chicken and rice and the ingredients are natural and it is cheap price wise, my dog is healthy and I am happy.

Feed what you feel is right for your dog and what you can afford.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#77
Manchester-not attacking, but I thought you fed Purina? Or was it Pedigree? I forget...

Yucka: We fed our first dog Ol' Roy for a few years because we didn't know any better and thought the rough ears were just because she was a rescue mutt. Then she got a super UTI and the vet told us to put her on Iams (when it was still decent) and boy was the change dramatic! But there are dogs who do wonderful on garbage for some reason. We've been talking about dog food at work and my boss said that she had tried to feed Innova to her dogs before but it was too rich for them and she went back to whatever cheaper brand she feeds now.
 
Y

yuckaduck

Guest
#78
Zoom said:
Manchester-not attacking, but I thought you fed Purina? Or was it Pedigree? I forget...

Yucka: We fed our first dog Ol' Roy for a few years because we didn't know any better and thought the rough ears were just because she was a rescue mutt. Then she got a super UTI and the vet told us to put her on Iams (when it was still decent) and boy was the change dramatic! But there are dogs who do wonderful on garbage for some reason. We've been talking about dog food at work and my boss said that she had tried to feed Innova to her dogs before but it was too rich for them and she went back to whatever cheaper brand she feeds now.
A wise old man once told me that there are very very high quality foods out there and there is garbage out there. Each has its place and it is better than starving for sure. But in the end it is the owner and provider who must decide what best suits his or her situation and no one has the right to argue that. We can suggest what is high quality and what is not but only the person buying the food can make the choice in the end. I use to feed Science Diet and only changed due to price. I now feed Kirkland Signatures and some say it is good food others say it is garbage but it is what I feed to Yuck. I have not noticed any difference in Yuck, coat or poop wise but it has only been 3 weeks. So far with the exception of feeding less and paying less there is no difference in the dog. He still poops everytime he goes outside 4x's a day and still has the same shiny coat as he had before. His ears are the same his health is the same. Nothing has changed.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
6,125
Likes
0
Points
0
#79
julie

There are too many people out there breeding labs, many irresponsibly. There are too many irresponsible breeders that breed to small or too large, with the wrong build....ugh it's frustrating. Hannah is adorable btw.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
#80
yuckaduck said:
Your gonna hate me but oh well: My parents fed their husky Old Roy dog food. After much much disputing I finally managed to get them to change to a higher quality [Wellness] the dog was nothing but sick the whole 3 years they tolerated higher quality??? so back to Old Roy and not a problem. No health problems in Old Roy the dog lived to 18 years old. I use to feed only Pedigree and the youngest dog that died was Jessie who was 16years old-no health issues.
I did have one dog die at age 3 but that was because he had been hit in the head with a crow bar by his original owner and then was placed in rescue. He suffered head injuries as a result of the hitting incidient.
Now I feed my dog Kirkland Signatures Chicken and rice and the ingredients are natural and it is cheap price wise, my dog is healthy and I am happy.

Feed what you feel is right for your dog and what you can afford.

Teddy also had the same problem. when he was a pup he couldn't really tolerate anything but pedigree large breed adult food. Every other food gave him really bad gas and really unhealthy poops. We took him to the vet for his last set of shots and told him about the problem and then teddy passed gas in the examination room lol the vet was like WOW you weren't kidding.

I don't think everyone's dog works the same on everything. It seems that people here are assuming that. Mordy I love your posts and they give tons of information. Manchesters your posts give information but lose credibility when you start calling people and their dogs names. That is not giving advice or standing by your convictions. THAT is being rude and NO ONE is ever going to take your seriously when you talk to others like that. the old rule "treat others as you wish to be treated" comes to mind. If others started treating you the way you treat everyone else I'm sure you wouldn't like it. In fact it has already been proven on this forum that you do not like to be talked to that way. So talk to everyone else the way you would like them to speak to you. try being a decent human being for a day see how it works for you. I really do not care if you think i have a clue or not. It seems that you feel that way about anyone who doesn't accept your way. So everything you say is taken with a grain of salt.

To everyone else I apologize for the previous derailment of this thread. From now on i will be ignoring manchesters rants as they cause a reaction from me which is exactly what she wants. I do not want to lower myself to that level anymore and I apologize to anyone that read those posts and I apologize to julie for derailing her thread :( sowwy
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top