Ugly feminine males...

Denial · 27-01-2010, 16:29

well.... there is a fabulous "exotic CSW" litter in Italy in theese months if you like mutara bloodline and want a show dog

By the way i don't think that heavy bones/structure/weight means that a dog is ealthy.

Freeking is a beautifull dog, but what is the matter beetween 13 years and 60 KG? If the dog gets older an makes less movement just give him less food, maybe he could live some more moths keeping his shape right.
I bet there are lots of 33-36Kg dogs that lived a lot more, but as there is no statistic (at least i don't have any), and the database doesn't give informations i'm just talking about nothing.

z Peronówki · 27-01-2010, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denial

well.... there is a fabulous "exotic CSW" litter in Italy in theese months if you like mutara bloodline and want a show dog

New show lines?

Now I wait for Mutara-II-Projecct (CzW x beagle) and Extra-Show-Mutara-III-Project (CzW x Afghan hound)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denial

By the way i don't think that heavy bones/structure/weight means that a dog is ealthy.

You right. In the fact there are many reserches which say that exactly the aspirations of breeders to breed heavier and bigger dogs are the main factores for dysplasia and other similar problems.
And it is visible also by CzW: in heavy lines there are MUCH MORE serious problem with ED, HD and untypical movement than by the right build (not light, just NORMAL).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denial

I bet there are lots of 33-36Kg dogs that lived a lot more, but as there is no statistic (at least i don't have any), and the database doesn't give informations i'm just talking about nothing.

NO, Wolfdog is calecting such infromations... So maybe one day elf will prepare us some stats. Anyway when I was colecting the data is was really easy to see: heavy dogs (in the direction to be lymphatic) not only live shorter. But also "worser" - earlier they look "old" very fast...

I saw some REALLY heavy Wolfdogs and it was SAD look. Such animals are simply handicapped when we compare them to "normal" CzWs...

elf · 27-01-2010, 19:14

Here are the graphs I had for HD vs size, 1107 dogs with HD+bonitation (raw data at the bottom: i.e. check not many entries for some size...).

HD A+B

HD C+D+E

HD A

HD B

HD C

HD D

HD E

73cm = {'A': 3, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 1, 'D': 0, 'F': 0}
72cm = {'A': 13, 'C': 6, 'B': 3, 'E': 0, 'D': 2, 'F': 0}
70cm = {'A': 32, 'C': 9, 'B': 9, 'E': 4, 'D': 5, 'F': 0}
71cm = {'A': 21, 'C': 3, 'B': 5, 'E': 3, 'D': 1, 'F': 0}
69cm = {'A': 42, 'C': 11, 'B': 10, 'E': 4, 'D': 2, 'F': 0}
68cm = {'A': 40, 'C': 13, 'B': 15, 'E': 1, 'D': 3, 'F': 0}
67cm = {'A': 59, 'C': 14, 'B': 11, 'E': 2, 'D': 3, 'F': 0}
66cm = {'A': 52, 'C': 14, 'B': 14, 'E': 0, 'D': 9, 'F': 0}
65cm = {'A': 56, 'C': 9, 'B': 16, 'E': 3, 'D': 8, 'F': 0}
64cm = {'A': 50, 'C': 13, 'B': 19, 'E': 1, 'D': 4, 'F': 0}
63cm = {'A': 50, 'C': 8, 'B': 16, 'E': 4, 'D': 7, 'F': 0}
62cm = {'A': 65, 'C': 21, 'B': 20, 'E': 4, 'D': 7, 'F': 0}
61cm = {'A': 31, 'C': 13, 'B': 11, 'E': 5, 'D': 3, 'F': 0}
60cm = {'A': 31, 'C': 4, 'B': 6, 'E': 1, 'D': 2, 'F': 0}
59cm = {'A': 4, 'C': 1, 'B': 2, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0}
58cm = {'A': 2, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0}
57cm = {'A': 2, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0}
55cm = {'A': 0, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 0, 'F': 0}

Mikael · 27-01-2010, 19:38

hmmmmmmmmm... Did you come to any conclusion about the size and the effect of HD from this info...

Sorry ta ask, but I´m stupid

Best regards / Mikael

elf · 27-01-2010, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikael

hmmmmmmmmm... Did you come to any conclusion about the size and the effect of HD from this info...

Sorry ta ask, but I´m stupid

Best regards / Mikael

Correct Mikael, as we can see on the graphs we can conclude "almost" nothing

.

elf · 27-01-2010, 20:10

>"almost"

My little conclusion, if you take the curve HD_CDE and make a linear regression on it (in green), you find there is a little correlation, here it is:

Hanka · 27-01-2010, 20:20

Oh, but it is not corect. Not every high dog must be heavy too....

Mikael · 27-01-2010, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by elf

Correct Mikael, as we can see on the graphs we can conclude "almost" nothing

.

Thank good I was not stupid

Best regards / Mikael

z Peronówki · 27-01-2010, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by elf

Here are the graphs I had for HD vs size, 1107 dogs with HD+bonitation (raw data at the bottom: i.e. check not many entries for some size...).

The problem is "high" dog doen't mean "heavy". And there is nothing in the database what can show us "heavy" "normal" and "light" CzW there...

Monika · 27-01-2010, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denial

well.... there is a fabulous "exotic CSW" litter in Italy in theese months if you like mutara bloodline and want a show dog

By the way i don't think that heavy bones/structure/weight means that a dog is ealthy.

Freeking is a beautifull dog, but what is the matter beetween 13 years and 60 KG? If the dog gets older an makes less movement just give him less food, maybe he could live some more moths keeping his shape right.
I bet there are lots of 33-36Kg dogs that lived a lot more, but as there is no statistic (at least i don't have any), and the database doesn't give informations i'm just talking about nothing.

Freeking died six months after the tragic death as his owner.
Nobody know how long he was here if were Franta alive and Freeking was 10 kg less ...

Freeking was only a exsample largest CSW, nothing more.

27-01-2010, 19:14	#3
elf Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 766	Here are the graphs I had for HD vs size, 1107 dogs with HD+bonitation (raw data at the bottom: i.e. check not many entries for some size...). HD A+B HD C+D+E HD A HD B HD C HD D HD E 73cm = {'A': 3, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 1, 'D': 0, 'F': 0} 72cm = {'A': 13, 'C': 6, 'B': 3, 'E': 0, 'D': 2, 'F': 0} 70cm = {'A': 32, 'C': 9, 'B': 9, 'E': 4, 'D': 5, 'F': 0} 71cm = {'A': 21, 'C': 3, 'B': 5, 'E': 3, 'D': 1, 'F': 0} 69cm = {'A': 42, 'C': 11, 'B': 10, 'E': 4, 'D': 2, 'F': 0} 68cm = {'A': 40, 'C': 13, 'B': 15, 'E': 1, 'D': 3, 'F': 0} 67cm = {'A': 59, 'C': 14, 'B': 11, 'E': 2, 'D': 3, 'F': 0} 66cm = {'A': 52, 'C': 14, 'B': 14, 'E': 0, 'D': 9, 'F': 0} 65cm = {'A': 56, 'C': 9, 'B': 16, 'E': 3, 'D': 8, 'F': 0} 64cm = {'A': 50, 'C': 13, 'B': 19, 'E': 1, 'D': 4, 'F': 0} 63cm = {'A': 50, 'C': 8, 'B': 16, 'E': 4, 'D': 7, 'F': 0} 62cm = {'A': 65, 'C': 21, 'B': 20, 'E': 4, 'D': 7, 'F': 0} 61cm = {'A': 31, 'C': 13, 'B': 11, 'E': 5, 'D': 3, 'F': 0} 60cm = {'A': 31, 'C': 4, 'B': 6, 'E': 1, 'D': 2, 'F': 0} 59cm = {'A': 4, 'C': 1, 'B': 2, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0} 58cm = {'A': 2, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0} 57cm = {'A': 2, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 1, 'F': 0} 55cm = {'A': 0, 'C': 0, 'B': 1, 'E': 0, 'D': 0, 'F': 0} __________________ http://www.amicale-chien-loup-tcheco...m/csvstat.html

27-01-2010, 19:38	#4
Mikael Scandinavian Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 1,089	hmmmmmmmmm... Did you come to any conclusion about the size and the effect of HD from this info... Sorry ta ask, but I´m stupid Best regards / Mikael __________________ _________________________________________________ Hronec, Rasty, Zilja Kennel, Wolfdog of Sweden* http://kennelwolfdogofsweden.vpsite.se/Home.html http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wolfdo...53067971392916

27-01-2010, 20:10	#6
elf Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 766	>"almost" My little conclusion, if you take the curve HD_CDE and make a linear regression on it (in green), you find there is a little correlation, here it is: __________________ http://www.amicale-chien-loup-tcheco...m/csvstat.html

27-01-2010, 16:29	#1
Denial Lupo Lucio Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bologna Posts: 474	well.... there is a fabulous "exotic CSW" litter in Italy in theese months if you like mutara bloodline and want a show dog By the way i don't think that heavy bones/structure/weight means that a dog is ealthy. Freeking is a beautifull dog, but what is the matter beetween 13 years and 60 KG? If the dog gets older an makes less movement just give him less food, maybe he could live some more moths keeping his shape right. I bet there are lots of 33-36Kg dogs that lived a lot more, but as there is no statistic (at least i don't have any), and the database doesn't give informations i'm just talking about nothing.

27-01-2010, 20:20	#7
Hanka Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kadaň Posts: 1,622	Oh, but it is not corect. Not every high dog must be heavy too....