Quote:
Originally Posted by PennysMum  I'm curious to see if the community here could help with some data. I know I keep seeing people post that the larger yorkies are healthier, and then other people reply saying that isn't necessarily true. Would anybody be interested in trying to pull together a group of statistics that we could plot against each other to see if there really is a correlation between size and health?
Maybe if we had people who have lost yorkies note their weight, and the age at which they passed away? Those two numbers could be plotted against each other. If we get enough feedback, we might actually have some supporting evidence one way or the other as to whether the size of the yorkie really impacts life expectancy. It wouldn't be a comprehensive picture of total health, but it might prove interesting in any case. |
This wouldn't be a good scientific study for several reasons; dogs that are way over standard could also have been breed by poor breeder skewing the statistics. Also dogs suffering from liver shunt would be unduly small. When you do a study such as this you have to match all variables, and the study has to be random. Yours would be a survey, but would not give any truly valid data.
Good breeders tend to keep track of their offspring, and talk to other breeders; they might be the ones to listen to, and in general you are safest not going below 4, but there are always exceptions.