Well Bear is now 39 weeks old and 9 days ago he was desexed so I was a bit worried his weight might jump up (vet advised no exercise for 10 days). I was surprised to find when I weighed Bear he was 39.7kg's, that's exactly what he weighed 2 weeks ago (a combination of mostly good luck and the vets recommendation to reduce in portion size when he was not exercising), I feel Bear is probably at a point that he has probably passed most of the spurt growth (so gone are the days of 1kg+ per week growth based on the trends of other labs), although his weight this week is minus 2 balls. Here is an updated graph: Also with a few new puppies and some more discussion about correct weight, I thought it was time to post this again: If this thread shows anything it is that their is no ideal weight to age for a labrador, and the chart is the better way to determine your puppies individual ideal weight. Of cause if you are every unsure and concerned the best person to speak with is your vet. Cheers, Cameron
That's a joke, right? There is no way Axel is a show bred Lab! He is field through and through by the look of him!
I know!!! But he definitely came from show bred parents. I keep thinking maybe once he fills out he will look more show bred not likely, I'm sure. I even called the breeder to say 'are you sure because he looks field to me!' Oh well, love him dearly anyways. He doesn't even have an otter tail
Opps, Kibs was born Apr 16th - so my second post should be 28kg@ 30 weeks - Now hes 29kg @ 32 weeks. thanks for the update and fixing my confused post haha. Kibs was the one entering the weeks and he cant count correctly yet .
I admit to having very little knowledge on breed standards, I do not breed, nor do I show. Where I get really confused and probably this is one of the reasons why I started to get interested in this thread, is understanding where size and especially weight of the labrador fits into breed standard. Here is probably a better graph to show you what I mean Now this graph takes into account anyone who has given at least 4 data points, and includes 53 pure breed labradors (thank you very much to those who have contributed, and if I have missed anyone's puppy and you have more than 4 weights please let me know and I will try to update the graph). Now clearly I have not seperated by sex (mostly as I would hate to accidentally call someones male dog female or vice versa), but I can not see any trend towards an "appropriate" weight (which I would expect to see especially at say the 34 onwards week mark when drastic weight gains seem to settle). I don't know where these dogs sit with regard to height, but I would have to guess that it must be fairly varied and a lot sit outside the UK and Australian standard of 56-57cm for dogs and 55-56cm for females. Also as a naive outsider I see some labradors in my neighborhood which are described as coming from field lines and some from show lines, yet as I understand it they both still fit into the same breeding standards. With the limited number of pure breed labradors I have seen, of those that were field and show I could see no way of making those two lines meet at an "ideal" weight and I also do not see them holding a trend that would fit within the limited range of the height standards. Again as someone buying a friend for life (not breeding stock or show stock), when choosing Bear, what I relied on mostly was reputation of the breeder (both the success of any offspring and parents, and the attitude of the breeder towards her dogs), the parents success in the ring (which I assumed showed that they were of a good breeding standard), and the parents health and hip scores. I believe Bears father is on the high side of the scale as far as the breeding standards outlined height, yet it is my understanding that he is well sought after as a Sire, and he, his parents, and his offspring have been very successful in the ring. I am not sure if this says that in Australia height is not a disqualifying or heavily penalised factor in the ring or I am mistaken about his fathers size and Bear is much taller than his father (given the Australian standard is 56-57cm's and Bear is already 63cm's). Given the lack of an obvious trend with the graph so far, is height and weight not really a major consideration as far as breeders are concerned, are we all mostly getting pure breed Labradors that would do terribly if judged according to breed standards (getting pet papers instead of breeding papers, hence other breeders are picking the puppies that fall within the standard), are we underfeeding or overfeeding our dogs, or is the sample size still too small? @JulieT obviously I have quoted you (mainly as you raise the question of standards and right size), but this is really a question for anyone with any thoughts, and something I have been wondering for some time, and think about occasionally. Cheers, Cameron P.S. Much as the topic interests me, don't get me wrong, if Bear falls outside the breed standard, he is still in my eyes a perfect labrador and much loved.
The breed standard isn't a 'typical' thing, or an 'average' thing. It's what is written down in the breed standard, and that's that. So it doesn't matter how many dogs fall outside the range, the range is the range in the breed standard. If lots of dogs fall outside it, then they don't meet the breed standard. It's an entirely separate question as to whether anyone does, or even should, care about this. Or whether they think the breed standard should change (as it has in the US and in every country in the past to some degree). And yet another issue as to how many show judges actually judge against the breed standard or particularly care if a Labrador falls outside of it a little bit or a lot. I'd say not enough show judges do pay enough attention to the breed standard - because if they did the current crop of Labrador champions would be a great deal lighter and more agile than they are.
Just been to the vets to sort out appointments, so I took Bramble for the socialisation, and at 11 months she is due a weigh- in. Madame weighed in at 33.4 kgs. She still has a little filling out to do, but we are almost level in terms of her back end. Bramble chose a pretty reindeer for her Christmas present, and we narrowly avoided her swiping a toddlers choccie biscuit!
Honestly I probably get a bit too defensive when it comes to discussions about breed standards and size. @JulieT it's certainly not regarding anything you have written, but I feel I should probably explain a bit further my perspective, so no one thinks my responses (or perhaps more my emotion I have on the subject) are directed at what you have said, and perhaps give a perspective of my experience as a pet owner of a Labrador that exceeds breed standards. I have had certain comments made in person by people with what seems to be an extremist view regarding breed standards. Bear is my second dog that exceeds breed standards for height, and out of all the dogs I have had in my life, Storm (my previous Labrador and a gentle giant), was the best dog I have owned or seen so far, well that's my opinion). Often people assume my OH chose the name Bear for his expected size "Oh he is going to be a monster, look at those paws, no wonder you chose the name Bear", but he was actually named based on a big hole in our hearts, the loss of our big teddy bear, and the hope that Bear would, like Storm be a Labrador that liked to invade personal space and get a cuddle and rub on the belly (while he tried to work out how he could lay on top of you, even if you were standing). I hated the name at first, as although I do, and have got my fair share of these comments: Having a large Labrador also seems to attract it's fair share of what I consider to be 'idiots', and I think the name Bear probably will only attract more. I have had a lot of people, and they always claim to be breeders either come up to me in the park, on the street, in the vets, pet shop, etc and practically chastise me over the size of my dog, not the condition, but the size. I have had statements like "If you wanted a dog that big, you shouldn't have bought a Labrador", "Labrador's shouldn't be breed that size, and he is going to suffer from hip issues because of it" (as it turned out, Storm never had any hip issues), I have even had "People like you are encouraging the destruction of the Labrador breed". Completely unsolicited and hateful stuff. Now I am not suggesting that you are that kind of person, or that anyone on the forum would say something like that, but just to give you an idea, it is not all positive comments. Where I probably do disagree with your statement having had large Labradors, is that I don't think that it is all bad that the puppy is going to be big (I think there can be "something good about that", for one, I love that my Labrador is so big, but still thinks he can sit on my lap), as a pet owner I think I have found my two experiences with my large Labradors to be very positive, that they have excellent qualities. I have very little knowledge about standards or how to assess the dogs standards, but I couldn't have ask for better dogs (well except in the moments Bear is being a teenager). I can understand passion for a breed, and I can even understand the need for strict and restrictive standards (the old case of give them an inch and they will take a mile). What I don't get is that these people that seem to believe it is their right to approach me, always preach the breed standards like they are a strict set of rules that 'good' breeders adhere to. It's not like I buy my Labradors from a pet shop, both dogs have come from well respected breeders, with parents who have been successful in the ring and who have perfect or near perfect hip and elbow scores and great temperaments. I would say they have both come from 'good' breeders. I didn't intend to suggest I thought the breed standards was a definition of the 'typical' or 'average', just that if breeders were adhering to the 'standards' regarding height, either because they believed they were correct or they were being forced to (for judging purposes), then I would expect to see out of a 53 sample size a much tighter weight range. I don't go to dog shows, so I don't have that perspective, I can only go off the dogs I see in the neighbourhood (who owners claim to be pure breed) and of cause what I see with these graphs, and from these points of reference I wonder just how many Pure Breed Labradors are "right size"? Is it really that "lots" fall outside it or "most"? Anyway, like I said probably a bit too defensive and emotional, but if your a Labrador owner and your Labrador isn't 56-57cm for a dog or 55-56cm for a Bitch at the Withers, I suspect that your Labrador is among the majority. If your breeding I don't know if size is a major consideration for you in the overall scheme of the standards, but I suspect it either isn't for the majority of breeders or it is very hard to control size through breeding (although like I said I can only go off my points of reference and am happy to be corrected, if for no other reason that it would make the current data more interesting). Why I like this thread, is not because weight is a good way to determine the condition of your Labrador (the Body Condition Chart is much better, and of cause the advice of your vet), but because it shows that although we all have Labradors, they come in very different shapes and sizes and being heavier or lighter than others doesn't necessarily mean your Labrador is underweight or overweight (I guess it builds my confidence for when I next have someone come to chastise me about my dogs size). Cheers, Cameron
I don't understand why you are so defensive and emotional, @camo but I can clearly see you are. If I'd read to the end of your 1000+ word post maybe I'd find out...but....I will if I have the energy later.
Xena at 33 weeks weighs 17.7 kg....I'm honestly quite taken aback. She's only gained 300g in 6 weeks. She's slim, has a lovely waist, but I was sure she'd be at least 19kg. The vet nurse thought she looked great, felt her over, so it's not me being oblivious of an underweight dog at least. Apparently I have a Microdor heh. One of her littermates (girl) is well into the 20s so I honestly don't know what to think. I'll measure her up later and add that into the growth data thread.
Oh my, Corona is 18kg (40lbs) at 19 weeks! the vet is guessing she will be the size of a male. Her parents were both huge!!
Libby will be 5 months on Sunday. I took her to the vet for shots tonight and she weighs 43 pounds. I was reminding my husband of that little puppy he could fit inside his coat when we got her at 9 weeks.
They DO in fact still grow up to 2 years old! However, past a year you are unlikely to see much change in height. Most of the growing they do is filling out and becoming more muscular/substantial. The vet told us at 6 months a pup is around 60% of its adult height. As far as weight goes, I wouldn't worry at all! When I adopted Teller at 13 months, he weighed just 45-lbs and was 24" at the withers (talk about a gangly boy!). I was worried he was WAY too light for a lab. I knew he would always be on the slender side but I never thought he'd reach more than 60-lbs. I was SO wrong! In the past year he's gained 30-lbs and looks very healthy at around 73-lbs.
Caught up with a friend of mine and her Lab for the first time since getting Xena. She's an equine vet, but gave me some feedback on my Microdor - Xena's slightly too slim. She said there's not much in it, but that I should up her food a little. So I'll increase both meals a little and see how she goes. She did say "it's so lovely to see another slim Lab and not another walking barrel" lol.
