Is there such a thing as a lab that isn't fat in old age?

[WhoAteMyToast]

Just as per title, really.

I think labs show their age more so than other dogs - am I wrong?

I have two labs, one yellow working type, one choc. They are like different breeds. I personally think that there should be two sections in the Labrador breed registration for types of labs.

My yellow lab weighs 25k. He is totally driven by retrieving. He is fatter, in my eyes, than my choc. My choc is 38k. She has a clear waist, you can virtually, but not quite, see her ribs as she moves around. They are easily felt. The only fat I see on her is around her neck area. Her bones of her lower legs are much larger than the yellow dog. She is taller, her tail is bigger. She is very much food driven. She is much more intelligent than my yellow lab (would have made a great assistance dog, she works things out quickly and remembers tricks where he doesn't, he just retrieves!). The one thing they have in common is a huge love of swimming. They've both been very active energetic dogs, particularly when they were under five years old. At the age of 9 we are suddenly struggling with her soundness. The vet says arthiritis. Probably all those years of flinging herself into cold reservoirs and ponds hasn't helped. The vet thinks her weight is good, but we are trying to take a bit more of to ease things if we can.

If you read the feeding guidelines on the back of some dog food products it's not wonder that so many dogs are overweight. If our labs got what was "recommended" they'd barely be able to move.

Our older lady is a little stouter than I'd like as she's suffering with a cruciate ligament injury which has curtailed her exercise but we've cut her food down and she's on the way to being the right shape. The younger lab is heavy but the vet is happy with her size, she has a waist and you can easily feel her ribs - I think she's just "big boned"!!!

I have a 4mth Black Lab and often people have commented on him being 'lean' too. I used to be worried about it untill I realised about the differences between the show/working labs. Buddy is def from working stock.

Pigley gorgeous boy !

It seems odd to me that the very attractive working labs (like the drakes head ones linked to) are considered the working dogs and the (to me) much less attractive slightly tank like ones (again from TeamSteady's link) are the show dogs. The show dogs just look so stolid compared to the grace of the working dogs.

Here's my 38k lab. Finally home to add a photo. Sorry if she's a solid and ugly show type Nooka!!

Some beautiful dogs on this thread. Dogs are like people - some are more inclined to fat, but diet and exercise are the key to staying a healthy weight at any age - which doesn't mean it is always easy.

honeyroar I was commenting on the links to champion lines that people linked to earlier in the thread. I also at no point said that the show dog types were ugly, just that the conformation of the working types were, in my opinion more attractive.

Personally I find dogs attractive or not generally as individuals and would not buy a pedigree show dog or a champion working dog. I have a rescue mutt.

This is my 32Kg chocolate lab. I know she doesn't look it but that is what she weighs. She is very long limbed and perhaps the most beautiful dog on the planet

Fair enough Nooka, I must have just read it that way. Mine is a rescue too.

I think the reason the show ones are heavier types is because the working ones are almost modified. In Labrador they were fishing dogs and would have needed insulation (and a lot of calories meaning they could eat a heck of a lot, my opinion on why they're naturally greedy..). My working type lab feels the cold much more than my show type. He wouldn't last so long in an icy sea compared to her..

As in the show ones are perhaps more historically true to type.. I hate the way a lot of show animals (in my experience dogs and horses) are just fat in general and judges like it that way.

My chocolate lab girl is 6months and is a working breed. She was spayed today and weighed at 22kg which the vet said was a good weight. On the way out of the vets I saw another chocolate lab he looked like a completely different breed to mine! This is pippin taken a few months back, and the second is her tonight feeling sorry for herself

Gorgeous dogs!

Update on mine, she was weighed at the vets today and was 35k not 38.

Nooka, I think it's just personal taste. If we all liked the same, life would be very boring!

I like the show type lab, although not overdone. For example, I LOVE Ch Bilbo Baggins at Baileydale. Ive seen him several times in the flesh, both in the ring and at home, and he is just gorgeous (to my eye). As well as the looks, he can do the job he was designed for- he is a CH, rather than SH CH, having passed his SGWC . www.baileydale.co.uk/NEW_WEBSITE/Bilbo_Baggins.html

In fact I liked him so much he was my first choice for sire for my bitch's litter, however, andy and jo, being incredible knowledgable and supportive explained that actually his lines wouldn't be best with my bitches and suggested another, (equally lovely!!) dog instead, and they were with us with help and support every step of the way. (A huge advantage of using a responsible, knowledgable and experienced breeder, rather than the dog down the road/ your friend's dog)

To me, a lot of working types I see around when out and about, have "snipey" faces, hares feet, lack of double coat (which makes them look leaner- when my bitches are out of coat, they look several kg lighter). Not my personal cup of tea.

There is a fantastic description in Carole Coode's book labradors today, explaining why the breed standard says what it does. Sadly we are about to move house and its all packed away. As explained above she works and shows her dogs to a high level so knows what she is talking about- she needs a moderate dog that can do both jobs well. I had a quick google and I came up with this page- www.labradortraininghq.com/labrador-breed-information/labrador-breed-standard/ It's not as good as the other explanation but it's a start.

A lot of the working types now are from field trial lines- Ive been told this is a different sport compared to what they were bred for i.e. working all day- kind of like a 100m sprint vs a marathon. Hence, less need for solid strength and stamina, double coat etc, vs need for agility, speed, and drive.

I was talking to a man a few months ago when his lively and slender Lab was running around with my dog on the common. I commented that she didn't look very old - and she was actually 9.

steady

A lot of what you say makes sense, but the bit about Field Trial dogs not being 'fit for their original job' is just nonsense!

Everyone who trials their dogs will work them as well. They'll do a handful of trails each season, but will be working in the field probably several days a week. Yes, the trial isn't as demanding as a full day's beating or picking up, but the training for trailing is lots of field work, plus specialised training. Not all working dogs will be good for trialing, but all trialing dogs will be good for working, if that makes sense?

And most people who are going for FT CH status are doing so to increase the value of their stud fees or litters. And people who pay a premium for strong working lines are people who want to work their dogs on a shooting field.

So it just makes zero sense to suggest that the working lines have been split into 2 types for trialing OR field work. Breeders trial to prove to buyers of puppies that the have the potential to be good working dogs.

But what trialing will weed out is dogs that are unfit and don't have good enough confirmation to cover the ground quickly and clear obstacles. I'm afraid while you might like the look of that stud dog, all I see is stubby legs and too much neck and shoulder, which would make him useless for a proper day of picking up.
In the photo of him sat down on the beating line, he has a ROLL of fat around his waist! You'd never see that lack of condition in a genuine working dog, so the cynic in me thinks he has probably been given a bit of basic training to get him through a few days in the field to prove a point, rather than him being able to 'do the job he was designed for'.

That's what I was talking about before, there are two distinct types of Labradors, very different to the other and ther should be two types in the stud books two. I can see the need for breeding leaner, taller types for working, but it would be a shame if the classic type from North America died out (not that it ever would, they're so popular!). My working type is leaner and faster by far than my show type, but feels the cold much more than her as he doesn't have the same coat. He dries quickly though!

honey

There are definitely 2 types - working and show.

But if I'm reading steady's posts correctly, she is saying that trailing labs (ie ones that enter and win Field Trials) have deviated so far from their intended purpose of being gun dogs, that they aren't fit for purpose.
That would suggest she thinks there are 2 types of working labs - ones for gundog work and ones for field trial competitions. This just isn't true. Labs that do field trials are totally capable of working as gun dogs, because they spend the majority of their time doing it!

Working labs are still fairly true to the original shape, before there became 2 distinct shapes. DH has photos of his famer grandfather with his labs, and they look pretty similar to our working lab.

It is the show lines that have deviated massively, and very few of them are fit for their original purpose(s), as evidenced by the link Steady posted to the stud dog with the rolls of fat around his belly and short stubby legs which would be useless in the field.

I get what you are saying Sparechange, but they weren't bred for the field originally, were they? They were fishing dogs.. So were the North American ones fine or chunky? (I don't actually know, but suspect they were chunks) Personally I would bet on my heavier type lab lasting much longer in an icy sea than my finer one, but the finer one would last longer on a shoot... But I agree that rolls of fat are not good in any dog and a lot of show dogs are. The Lab that was reserve at Crufts either this year or last was obese in my opinion.

I suspect that there'd be less difference than people think if show types and working types were the same weight tbh.

honey
The origins of the lab is a dog from Newfoundland which was used to bring in fishing nets.
Some English aristocrats saw it, brought it back to the UK in the 1800s and started refining the breed to be a gun dog.

By the time the kennel club established the breed standard (ie acknowledged it to be an official breed), it was well into the 1900s, and they were categorised as a gun dog.

So their ability to be in icy water wasn't hugely relevant, other than to retrieve from water, which I'm not sure the show type are cut out to do very well anyway!

The point at which the breed standard was carved in stone, the dogs were athletic and strong, and from what I can tell from photos, very like the working dogs of today.

The show ones aren't capable of doing the job they were bred for, and don't meet a lot of the breed standard criteria any more, in my opinion!

Looking at other breeds inNorth America that did a similar job, such as Chesapeake, and they're much more like the heavier stamp of lab, so I think it's a good thing we have both types. The hunting type, as you said, has been refined over the years, so probably not even a real specimen of what came over.. Not all labs are hunting dogs. More than anything they're pets nowadays. They're also hugely used for assistance dogs, quite often the heavier type. In my opinion there is a place for them all. I like both. I just wish they'd split the stud books into two sections, a bit like the Welsh ponie.

My SIL works for the national breeding centre for guide dogs. The vast majority of their dogs are now goldie-dors- lab/goldie crosses...

I think the trouble with splitting th stud book is that it would create a showing class for working labs. I bet within 15 years, we would be back to square one again. As you said earlier, showing circles just seem to prefer 'em fat!
I remember showing working hunter ponies that wouldn't last half a day on a hunting field!

Yes I agree about the working hunters not being able to hunt, although at least they can do more than the average show pony!

Isn't there a working dog section at Crufts as well as the breed classes? I remember someone I knew taking her labs down, and they are working labs not show dogs??

everyone knows them as dustbins! A title well-deserved, not just the choc ones, but all colours.

Labs are chunky anyway and people call them fat even when they're not, so they end up with a reputation and i've seen loads of all types, overweight/underweight/healthy weight of all colours.

sadly the show ones are built up and too much exercise loses weight so if you look at show dogs they look fat, but if you compare to working dogs they look thin! (big generalisations).

I see loads of over-weight dogs of all breeds, its horribly common to not be able to see a dog's waist, or where its rib-cage ends and waist starts. Leading to all the things obesity in humans causes.