Male weight

I read online that a male staff should me 11-17 kg fully grown thats on a few website surely that has to be outdated or something ? mine's 23 kg now at 9 months and i see loads of big staff's that have o be more than that  

they are all different shapes and sizes, so long as your boy isn't under/over weight I wouldn't worry to much.

Exactly as Hayley says

Yes they are all different, Vinnie was a heavy boy but soon evened out and doesn't move now off 24kg. He is healthy and by far not over weight  

Rocky the same here, he is 8 months and just over 19kgs, as Hayley says, they don't all come the same size and shape!

Douglas was 19.8kg straight out the rescue (early this year) and is 21.6 now. He is about 2 years old. I saw that weight range online as well for the SBT and thought it a bit low. However, maybe this is for the purebred staff? My own dog probably has something else in him (maybe English BT?), impossible to know for sure. If so, being bigger could be a good thing as the more varied ancestry may make him a stronger dog - genetically-speaking.

I think it could be something in genetics aswell because his mum and dad where absolutely massive so supose hes just following suit as its in his blood im not worried anyway by the way hes not over weight hes in perfect proportions hes just a unit just thought that weight ratio on the internet was abit low !

our beau is just about 17 months now he was weighed last week and came in at 18.4 kg and the vet says he is bang on but 23kg at nine months in [my opinion] is to heavy for any staffy...

vet says hes fine hes not fat or anything can see the outline of his back two ribs as you should hes just a big lad i think

So long as your dog is happy and healthy don't get too hung up on weights and measures.  

It certainly isn't outdated that's the breed standard for a male staffy, but less and less dogs are bred to it

my boy is 18 months and has been around 17kg for the last 3 months or so

I agree with ella. Not every staff has been bred to standard so you will get some that weigh inside or outside the standard depending on the parents.

Katy has just turned 1 & she was weighed at vets 2 weeks ago & was 19.6kgs. She's quite a leggy staff & her dad was a very big boy. So when fully grown she will be up in the 20's i'm sure. So as long as they are healthy I wouldn't worry what the breed standard says  

Jenc wrote:Katy has just turned 1 & she was weighed at vets 2 weeks ago & was 19.6kgs. She's quite a leggy staff & her dad was a very big boy. So when fully grown she will be up in the 20's i'm sure. So as long as they are healthy I wouldn't worry what the breed standard says  

i get what your saying all staffies are lovely in there own way but saddly the problem is not many breeders are breeding to standard so we are on the course to lose the breed as it a supposed to be and changing the standard which would take generatons to breed back to   

I agree......23kg at 9 months so mahoosive!

I very very doubt he was bred to standards because he was a backyard bred pup hes KC registered (apparently) the sheet we got for him was a photocopy so dont really no but hes defiantly very big for his age

If he's 23kilos at 9 months then I very much doubt that he's a pure Stafford. That's way, way over standard - too far over to have just been bred from two large dogs. Somewhere in the recent past there will have been something else added.

No hes defiantly full staff theres no two ways about it hes the twin of the avatar at the top of the forum and his mum and dad were full staff which was blatantly obvious. if his mum and dad were big its genetics that hes going to be big isn't it ? you cant just say oh hes cross because hes big for his age  

i had Cassius weighed recently and he's 27kgs and he's 17 months old.

he's a beast, he's actually bigger than his mum and dad. one thing which does annoy me though is the constant comparision people make that he looks like or has pit bull in him.    

both his parents are KC registered as is cass, i have his 5 generation family tree showing his blood line etc.

the vet said he's a stunning example and people are forever passing compliments.

The same with Sheen the vet said hes perfectly fine and in proportion hes just a big lad his mum and dad were big and his grandparents from the pictures i saw were big not all dogs are going to be around 17kg i have just read a few pages on yahoo questions seems alot of people have dogs in the 20-30kg weight line this standard seems outdated to me

things evolve. just like humans. i don't pay attention to much on the internet anyway!

haha yeah thanks for your input anyway mate appreciated  

Breed standard for an adult male staff is 14-16" high and 28-38 lbs and according to TSK, non conformaty to these standards is a fault. Have a read http://issuu.com/thestaffordknot/docs/tsk-isv12?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage.
I`m not doubting your dog is a staff type but at that size he`s way off breed standard which if your not bothered about showing him or breeding then it should`nt bother you . When we got our dog we wanted a staff that was as it is meant to be. We often get comments from other staffy owners saying he`s little is he only young which he is but he`s not little its just that these other peoples dogs are big. Our dog is 14 months he`s 16" and weighs 17 kg so bang on what he should be. If yours is a lot bigger then no one`s saying he`s not a staff type he`s just a big dog and as such would be veiwed unfavourably in a show. As long as he`s in proportion and not over weight then I`m sure he looks a lovely dog he`s just not a staff bred to a specific breed standard more a staff type dog.

jackc92 wrote:The same with Sheen the vet said hes perfectly fine and in proportion hes just a big lad his mum and dad were big and his grandparents from the pictures i saw were big not all dogs are going to be around 17kg i have just read a few pages on yahoo questions seems alot of people have dogs in the 20-30kg weight line this standard seems outdated to me

NO the standard is NOT outdated but more and more people are breeding bigger dogs, the standard is the standard it's backyard breeders that have ruined the breed, and at 23kg at 9 months he's well over standard there is no way you can say for definite that he is 100% staffy if he isn't KC registered

Haha Just re read your comment about outdated standards and this made me laugh. So your suggesting that years and years of breed standards be changed to suit your own definition of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier for your own dog for which you have no pedigree where his family could be traced back over many generations. Don`t be offended by peoples comments no one is saying your dog is not a nice dog but you have come onto a site dedicated to a certain breed and suggested that the breed standard is wrong or outdated. I would`nt think the average vet would know a great deal about specific breed standars unless they have a particular interest in that breed, thus quoting a vets opinion gives little credibility to your argumant. The only way to be sure is to buy from a reputable breeder with experience of the breed for which they will be able to give you history of your dogs parents and ancestors going back many generations. Again I`m sure he`s a nice dog he certainly looks it in your avatar.

paul l wrote:Haha Just re read your comment about outdated standards and this made me laugh. So your suggesting that years and years of breed standards be changed to suit your own definition of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier for your own dog for which you have no pedigree where his family could be traced back over many generations. Don`t be offended by peoples comments no one is saying your dog is not a nice dog but you have come onto a site dedicated to a certain breed and suggested that the breed standard is wrong or outdated. I would`nt think the average vet would know a great deal about specific breed standars unless they have a particular interest in that breed, thus quoting a vets opinion gives little credibility to your argumant. The only way to be sure is to buy from a reputable breeder with experience of the breed for which they will be able to give you history of your dogs parents and ancestors going back many generations. Again I`m sure he`s a nice dog he certainly looks it in your avatar.

well said

Its happening everywhere, was speaking to the guy I got marley from a few days back and he was saying he had heard of people breeding malamutes with mastiffs and then breeding offspring with malamuts again to get an even bigger dog with a mal look.... marley is 27kg at the mo and still growing and thats from a staff cross sibe the smallest of sled dogs. Imagine what you would get with something like a lab or gsd with a staff.

paul l wrote:Haha Just re read your comment about outdated standards and this made me laugh. So your suggesting that years and years of breed standards be changed to suit your own definition of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier for your own dog for which you have no pedigree where his family could be traced back over many generations. Don`t be offended by peoples comments no one is saying your dog is not a nice dog but you have come onto a site dedicated to a certain breed and suggested that the breed standard is wrong or outdated. I would`nt think the average vet would know a great deal about specific breed standars unless they have a particular interest in that breed, thus quoting a vets opinion gives little credibility to your argumant. The only way to be sure is to buy from a reputable breeder with experience of the breed for which they will be able to give you history of your dogs parents and ancestors going back many generations. Again I`m sure he`s a nice dog he certainly looks it in your avatar.

Well said.

Jenc wrote: So as long as they are healthy I wouldn't worry what the breed standard says

The whole point of the breed standard is to produce a particular type of dog. Without the standard & breeders adhering to it, we will lose the Stafford as we know it.

jackc92 wrote:I very very doubt he was bred to standards because he was a backyard bred pup hes KC registered (apparently) the sheet we got for him was a photocopy so dont really no but hes defiantly very big for his age

jackc92 wrote:No hes defiantly full staff theres no two ways about it hes the twin of the avatar at the top of the forum and his mum and dad were full staff which was blatantly obvious. if his mum and dad were big its genetics that hes going to be big isn't it ? you cant just say oh hes cross because hes big for his age

You say he's kc registered, but you don't have the registration certificate? In that case you can't possibly know - a sheet of paper with a list of dogs is quite likely to be false. In order to be that big, more than just breeding for size will have been used. It's likely that some sort of mastiff has been introduced at some point in the past, but that's something you'll never really know.

i asked a simple question because i dont no about the breed standard obviously i dont understand why your all getting aggravated and snooty in your comments like you no everything about the breed just because my dog wasnt bred to your standards that you seem to think are the be all and end all of what a staffy should be not all are going to be the same are they seems like your all just trying to be funny for some reason and cant understand why

You asked - they answered. They're not talking about THEIR breed standard but about the standard dog should look like if you want to show him. I've got Debo from England and a friend-judge said that Debo looks like old fasion Staffy - he's not big, he's 17' and 17,5kg. I live in Poland now and people here have much bigger looking Staffies, so they are very surprised when they see Debo. This is how it is people like their dogs to look bigger but that's mean the standards as we know them might change.

jackc92 wrote:i asked a simple question because i dont no about the breed standard obviously i dont understand why your all getting aggravated and snooty in your comments like you no everything about the breed just because my dog wasnt bred to your standards that you seem to think are the be all and end all of what a staffy should be not all are going to be the same are they seems like your all just trying to be funny for some reason and cant understand why    

It's not OUR standard it's THE standard.

No one is getting snooty but you keep saying the standard is outdated because of all the big staffs out there, it isn't it's back yard breeders who don't give a toss about how a dog should look or how much it should weigh

Don`t be offended by peoples comments no one is saying your dog is not a nice dog but you have come onto a site dedicated to a certain breed and suggested that the breed standard is wrong or outdated

As I said above. You did`nt so much as ask a simple question rather you asked a rhetorical question as you quoted the correct answer in your own question. You then went on to say that the breed standard is outdated because your dog does`nt fit into these standards. I supplied a link for you to have a look at the breed standards and that is`nt opinion it is the breed standard ,did you have a look ? No one is being snooty however you are now being rather offensive in suggesting this. Again if your dog is outside of the breed standard then no big deal I`m sure he`s a lovely dog and your right they are`nt all going to be the same ,however the dog that is closest to the breed standard would do better in shows.

jackc92 wrote:i asked a simple question because i dont no about the breed standard obviously i dont understand why your all getting aggravated and snooty in your comments like you no everything about the breed just because my dog wasnt bred to your standards that you seem to think are the be all and end all of what a staffy should be not all are going to be the same are they seems like your all just trying to be funny for some reason and cant understand why    

Nobody's getting aggravated, funny or snooty. We don't know everything about the breed, but we do know the breed standard, which is the written description of what a dog should look like in order to be classed as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The standard was written by very knowledgable people when the breed was first recognised and apart from one or two small changes it's been that way ever since.

Yes, some people prefer to see a bigger dog, but that then falls outside the Standard, and shouldn't be encouraged. In fact, an over large dog really shouldn't be bred from as it doesn't fit that written description of the breed.

What you are sugesting is that, because your dog (and some others) are outside the breed standard, then the whole thing should be changed. That's just not on, surely you can see that?

Nobody has said your dog isn't gorgeous, or that he isn't the best dog for you, just that to be as big as that he would more than likely have something else in his background somewhere.

i have not said once or suggested that the breed standard should be changed i simply asked if it was old because i thought 17kg wasn't a lot youve obviously misunderstood what i was trying to say and ive obviously took your comments in the wrong way so i apologies for that an apologies for my rude comment

jackc92 wrote:i have not said once or suggested that the breed standard should be changed i simply asked if it was old because i thought 17kg wasn't a lot youve obviously misunderstood what i was trying to say and ive obviously took your comments in the wrong way so i apologies for that an apologies for my rude comment  

I'm also sorry that my comments weren't better put! 

The standard for any breed is set so that the breed doesn't change (although fads & fashions will alter it the interpretation of them), so being an old standard is a good thing because it means that the breed has stayed the same! 

My boy is quite diddy he is only about 14.5kg

come on to be fair, some of the comments were quite condescending, talking about rhetorical questions etc and dismissing a vets knowlegde on a specific breed adding credibility to his arguement. "you asked - they answered". it's meant to be a forum. chill out.

i agree if a dog is in proportion, it's healthy and it's not being shown, what does it matter? according to the standard cass isn't a full staff, yet his KC papers, his look and his 5 generation family tree state he is. it would be almost impossible to monitor and keep the breed bang on the standard.

Steviec wrote:come on to be fair, some of the comments were quite condescending, talking about rhetorical questions etc and dismissing a vets knowlegde on a specific breed adding credibility to his arguement. "you asked - they answered". it's meant to be a forum. chill out.
.

None were meant to be condescending (hence my apology). Vets are not breed experts, neither do they know the breed standard of every breed - who could expect them to? They may think a particular dog looks lime a particular breed, but they can't possibly say if a dog is a 'good' example of the breed. So the comment about the vet's comment is quite valid.

Caryll wrote:

Steviec wrote:come on to be fair, some of the comments were quite condescending, talking about rhetorical questions etc and dismissing a vets knowlegde on a specific breed adding credibility to his arguement. "you asked - they answered". it's meant to be a forum. chill out.
.

None were meant to be condescending (hence my apology). Vets are not breed experts, neither do they know the breed standard of every breed - who could expect them to? They may think a particular dog looks lime a particular breed, but they can't possibly say if a dog is a 'good' example of the breed. So the comment about the vet's comment is quite valid.

exactly this! put it this way one vet i've been to has never heard of an american bulldog so wouldn't know the first thing about them!

in my opinion its selective breeding what messes the standard up look at those huge things in america they call pitbulls that weigh over 100 pounds when an average apbt should weight about 30-60 and be slim an athletic its the same over here with staffies my dogs big for his age his mum and dad were huge and his grandparents to most of the staffies i see have to be be well over 17kg hence why i started the thread plus i live in manchester were the breed is used a fashion accessory by idiots so most bred to be big and not to the standard

Steviec wrote:come on to be fair, some of the comments were quite condescending, talking about rhetorical questions etc and dismissing a vets knowlegde on a specific breed adding credibility to his arguement. "you asked - they answered". it's meant to be a forum. chill out.

Not sure who your implying is being condescending. But if you read the original post then my responses I think I was being helpful and imformative. And I stand by what I said about vets as I think this is a fair comment and not meant to be disrespectful in any way. I am "chilled out" and I know its a forum thats why I replied to the lads question.

jackc92 wrote: in my opinion its selective breeding what messes the standard up

Selective breeding is what's used by breeders to keep the breed to standard, as well as by others who want to change it to their own 'likes'.

It isn't selective breeding so much that messes things up, but the idiots who want to change things to suit themselves. 

paul l wrote:

Steviec wrote:come on to be fair, some of the comments were quite condescending, talking about rhetorical questions etc and dismissing a vets knowlegde on a specific breed adding credibility to his arguement. "you asked - they answered". it's meant to be a forum. chill out.

Not sure who your implying is being condescending. But if you read the original post then my responses I think I was being helpful and imformative. And I stand by what I said about vets as I think this is a fair comment and not meant to be disrespectful in any way. I am "chilled out" and I know its a forum thats why I replied to the lads question.

to say vets aren't breed experts is quite a generalisation of vets though isn't it caryll? for example one of the vets at the practice I go to has a staffy and has had them for many years so is very well up on the breed itself and is very knowledgeable.

Paul some comments came across as condescending and writing in capitals to strengthen a point is a bit much. Enclosing brackets on particular words is quite childish too. Jack never suggested the standard should be changed, he just asked if it was old, so laughing at a post is condescending and uncalled for. Is there really a need to say well said after quoting a post? It’s quite pathetic. I like this forum because it’s active and people have informative things to say and some years of knowledge but sometimes I shake my head with the way people act/ write.

to say vets aren't breed experts is quite a generalisation of vets though isn't it caryll? for example one of the vets at the practice I go to has a staffy and has had them for many years so is very well up on the breed itself and is very knowledgeable.

Paul some comments came across as condescending and writing in capitals to strengthen a point is a bit much. Enclosing brackets on particular words is quite childish too. Jack never suggested the standard should be changed, he just asked if it was old, so laughing at a post is condescending and uncalled for.

Stevie, Did you actually read my comments as most of what you said above seems to be directed to my comments. I know we are now digressing from the original topic but I have`nt intended to offend anyone which I stated in my post. Not sure what you mean about using capitals. And here is the comment I made about vets

I would`nt think the average vet would know a great deal about specific breed standars unless they have a particular interest in that breed

Your vet may well know about Staffs but that is because as I said he has a particular interest in that specific breed. I would doubt he has a lot of knowledge about many other breed standards. I am fairly knowledgable about dogs but I can`t say other than the breeds we`ve had that I know all of the breed standards.

Telling people they are condescending and they need to chill is erm condescending. Laughing at someones post is maybe a touch rude so for this Jack no offence meant. And again I`m sure yours dogs lovely they all are.

Steviec wrote:to say vets aren't breed experts is quite a generalisation of vets though isn't it caryll? for example one of the vets at the practice I go to has a staffy and has had them for many years so is very well up on the breed itself and is very knowledgeable.

No, it isn't generalistic. Many vets will know quite a lot about one or two breeds, but very few of them are breed experts, and none of them are experts in every breed.

However, just because somebody has owned a particular breed for many years doesn't necessarily mean they are experts in that breed.  I'm not saying that's true of your vet - he/she may well have read up on them & gained a great deal of knowledge - but we all know people who have owned a particular breed for donkeys years and are still, sadly, ignorant of the breed standard.

Marley is nearing on 15 months and is around 20/21 kg he wont stand still long enough to do his height lol, but im not over fussed tbh like others have said unless you want to show them it really doesnt matter, if i was to compare marley to other male staffs i know he is more solid in size but his not any taller than them his just a big chunk of sexy staffie  

I think that what we all have to accept is that although our own dog might be taller/heavier than the standard, that doesn't mean the standard is wrong. It just means that whoever bred them hasn't planned the mating according to the standard.

Although that doesn't, on the surface, matter, if everybody bred dogs according to how they like to see them (ignoring the written official breed standard) then there would very soon be no recognisable staffords!

The Breed Standard for every breed does matter - without it, there would be no individual breeds, just different 'types' of dogs.

I didnt no what the standard meant at first thats why i was confused i didnt no it was so they could be show dogs i just read it on Wikipedia an thought it was small ee