Das postnatale Wachstum des Skeletts und der Körpermasse beim Beagle

Abstract

Growth of beagles is described on the basis of body weight and 14 bone measures. Eighteen male and 19 female dogs were investigated at 14 different ages from birth to the 13th month of life. Characteristics of the growth curves were evaluated using the modified Janoschek growth curve. For the classification into dwarfish, low, normal, big and gigantic growth, the growth curves are presented with percentiles. The arithmetic means and standard deviations for both sexes are presented in tables. Additionally, the degrees of maturity at birth (relative proportion of final weight or bone measure), the point of inflection for the growth curve, the times to grow to 50 and 95% of the final measures, and the asymptotic measures are also presented in tables. Sex differences in growth for the body weight and bone measures are discussed. Growth differences between large and small dog breeds are considered. The conclusion is drawn that the feeding of dogs has to be adapted to the growth course.

Ontogenetic allometry of the Beagle

“…They observed a higher growth rate in the hindlimbs than the forelimbs and no sex difference in growth termination. In contrast to the studies mentioned above [22,23] and in accordance with Hawthorne et al [24], who investigated body mass development in different breeds, Salomon et al [21] concluded that larger breeds grow for a longer time.…”

“…Schulze and colleagues [22,23] studied four breeds and a greater number of individuals per breed compared to Weise [18]; similarly, they observed that larger breeds differ from smaller breeds in their growth rates rather than growth duration. Salomon et al [21] monitored 14 measurements of 37 Beagles during the first 13 months. They observed a higher growth rate in the hindlimbs than the forelimbs and no sex difference in growth termination.…”

“…Previous ontogenetic studies on Beagles worked with relatively small- to medium-sized lines (e.g., [19] adult body mass ca. 10 kg; [21] ca. 11 kg; [24] ca.…”

İstanbul Yenikapı Theodosius Limanından Bizans Köpeklerinin Vücut Ağırlığı Tahmini

“…Regressions of postcranial dimensions and various skeletal measurements relative to body mass have been used for estimating body size in a wide variety of mammals [3] . Therefore, it has been possible to form a logical estimate of the body weight and size and morphologies of animals [6][7][8][9][10] . Although dental and craniometric measurements, which are more intensively studied and easily available in archaeological sites, have been more frequently used [11,12] , especially in both extant and extinct carnivores, it has been accepted that osteometric measurements of the long bones provide more reliable estimates of body mass [6] .…”

“…Although dental and craniometric measurements, which are more intensively studied and easily available in archaeological sites, have been more frequently used [11,12] , especially in both extant and extinct carnivores, it has been accepted that osteometric measurements of the long bones provide more reliable estimates of body mass [6] . Various scholars have used different formulations based on diameters and circumference of the long bones [1,6,8,10,[13][14][15][16][17][18] . Therefore, body weight has been estimated by using these measures.…”