Four month old doe

[ladysown]

Was looking her over the other day and said...wow...you're big...was thinking...you gotta be six months now.. no... she's four months.

BUT she's 6.5 lbs!

Still acts a bit like a baby...but she's 6.5 lbs...she's big enough to breed I think.

Oh...breed is Harlequin.

She's off that doe who broke a leg when kits were shy of three weeks...one of the litter that I watched closely for a long time.

I'm thinking she's big enough to breed...but is she old enough? my harles don't usually hit 6 lbs until they are five months old.

Help???

I've never been in this position before.... I'm due to breed does again in another week and half or so....hmm....

 

[DevonW]

If she still acts like a baby I'd say she isn't mentally ready to have a successful litter yet. Some does just get big fast.

 

[ottersatin]

I would wait till she was 7.08 to 8.00 Lbs.
before I would breed her.
Ottersatin. ldtimer:

 

[Cattle Cait]

I agree, I'd wait to about 7lbs if this is the rate she's going. Good to see some size on a Harlie though!

 

[ladysown]

okay, so you all are seconding my hesitancy. I'll leave her go for another bit yet. At the rate she's gaining I"m expecting she'll be ready in a month.

 

[jjgrappler]

ladysown I have this same problem I have 2 Silver Fox and 1 American doe that are 7.5 pounds each and they were born in November. I am of the mindset to breed at 8 months or 8 pounds. but they are awfully young though.

 

[ottersatin]

I have 2 Silver Fox and 1 American doe that are 7.5 pounds each.

Is that 7.08 [7and 1/2 Lbs?] ?
If they are 7.08 or heavier I would go ahead and breed them
if they are in good condition.
Ottersatin. ldtimer:

 

[xlt]

7.08 is not 7.5 lbs... unless you're using some sort of microwave parlance... It's 7 lbs. and "eight one hundredths of a pound" (7 lbs. 1.28 oz) if I did that right...

 

[MaggieJ]

I agree with you, xlt!

Ottersatin, if you're going to insist we do things your way, the least you could do is provide your source.

I gather that you think 7.08 means 7 pounds, 8 oz.

So 7.13 would be 7 pounds, 13 oz.????

This is not standard math and it makes no sense to me! So I'm asking... where did you get this and why are you insisting we change to your system?

 

[ladysown]

no no no no...

16 oz in a pound.

so to make it clear it would be 7.12 would be a rabbit that is 7 3/4 lbs.

And yes.. it gets confusing which is why many will write the weights as 7 lbs 5 oz.

7.5 lbs is often considered 7 1/2 lbs, BUT just as likely to be considered 7 lbs 5 oz which is different than 7 1/2 lbs.

Clarity is good in these types of situations. WHICH I think is what ottersatin was getting at.

OFTEN on pedigrees one sees weights such as this
4.01 lbs. 4.1 lbs, 4 lbs 1 oz. People ALL mean the same thing...but each of them in reality can mean something completely different.

MY assumption is that 4.01 and 4.1 DO NOT mean the same thing and that one is measuring on bathroom scale and I convert that 1/10 of a pound into ounces which converts at 4.1 (4 lbs 1/10 of a pound) into 4.02 (rounding up). So 4 lbs 2 oz. Does that help explain the confusion?

 

[xlt]

no, not at all... people may "mean" the same thing, but they are saying different things when they do this.

 

[MaggieJ]

I don't think it was clear at all. I know how many ounces are in a pound! I also know that 7.5 means seven and a half in standard math. If this other is a convention used on rabbit pedigrees then this should be specified when using it.

 

[xlt]

or the rabbit pedigree convention should be changed to use something other than a decimal with a standard mathematical meaning like 7@#$@$#%^&08... oh wait... that's a convention for something else (something like what went through my head when I read it...) They should just use the decimal correctly and be done with it.

 

[ladysown]

so how would you specify 7 lbs 3 oz without spelling it out? that's the struggle that people have. How do you standardized how you put in your lbs and oz without specifying pounds and ounces. Without having to make people convert to 1/10 of a pound to make it 'standard math'.

ME..... I follow what I was taught. 16 oz in a pound. SO.. you put the pounds first and then you put in the ounces. Standard math or not ... pounds first, ounces following.... that's what I was taught to do.

AND YES... it's a confusing pedigree detail.

Makes me very cognizant of why people change pedigree weights around.

 

[xlt]

you can abbreviate lbs./oz.,
write out the fraction properly,
you can specify the fraction with a proper decimal,
or you can use the metric system properly and specify kilograms.

7 lbs 8 oz.
7 1/2 lbs.
7.5 lbs.
3.41 kg.

Any of these is correct, but 7.08 POUNDS does not equal 7.5 POUNDS in either system... might as well standardize a bunny bean weight and go with that otherwise. "1400 BBU's"=1400 Bunny Bean Units...

 

[MaggieJ]

Ambiguity makes for poor communication.

What's wrong with writing it 7 lbs., 3 oz? At least it is clear.

The use of a decimal point to separate the pounds and ounces seems to me to be the cause of the confusion. Maybe if it were written 7:5 or 7/5 instead of 7.5 it would be clear that we are not using decimals.

I can see this is going to be an ongoing source of confusion.

Fond as I am personally of the old measurements, this is the best argument I've seen to use the metric system. No confusion there!

 

[ladysown]

problem is space constrictions on pedigrees. <br /><br />__________ Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:54 pm __________<br /><br />but hmm.. perhaps that's what I should do as I AM Canadian... just move to kgs. easy enough to do.

 

[ottersatin]

Ambiguity makes for poor communication.

What's wrong with writing it 7 lbs., 3 oz? At least it is clear.

The use of a decimal point to separate the pounds and ounces seems to me to be the cause of the confusion. Maybe if it were written 7:5 or 7/5 instead of 7.5 it would be clear that we are not using decimals.

I can see this is going to be an ongoing source of confusion.

Fond as I am personally of the old measurements, this is the best argument I've seen to use the metric system. No confusion there!

What I stated in my previous post is:
The way it is supposed to be done on a pedigree
according to A.R.B.A. It may have something to do
with the processing system in A.R.B.A. for Registration.
As far as I know it has always been done this way.
Why make changes to a system that works?
Yes whiting any other way may in some instances
get the point across just as well. but why confuse
an issue when when it has already been solved?
Sorry for following what I thought was standard procedure.
Ottersatin. ldtimer:<br /><br />__________ Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:23 am __________<br /><br />

I agree with you, xlt!

Ottersatin, if you're going to insist we do things your way, the least you could do is provide your source.

I gather that you think 7.08 means 7 pounds, 8 oz.

So 7.13 would be 7 pounds, 13 oz.????

This is not standard math and it makes no sense to me! So I'm asking... where did you get this and why are you insisting we change to your system?

There are 16 oz to the Lb.
so 7.08 would be 7 and one half pounds.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Oh yeah, I forgot you are Canadian so all your measurements
are different than in the US! Am I correct?
I will say no more as I do not wish to upset the Applecart.
Ottersatin. ldtimer:

 

[MaggieJ]

Ottersatin, just because ARBA uses a method on its pedigrees (and you might have cited that when I first asked about this) does not override standard mathematical notation that has been used to express fractions since long before ARBA existed.

I'm glad we all know now how you arrived at this method of expression for weights. Here in Canada we officially use metric (kilograms and grams) but most of us are still conversant with avour du pois measurements (pounds and ounces)for weight. If you go to the store to buy seven and a half pounds of apples, I doubt very much if you would ask for 7.08 pounds.

I think it is good that we upset the applecart on this. At least the subject got aired thoroughly and we all know where other members are coming from - even if we don't all agree. For myself, I will write out weights in full rather than leave people guessing which system I am using. I value clarity over a few extra keystrokes.

 

[xlt]

Standard Lunacy is still lunacy.