dogs - purebreds vs mixed breeds/mongrels

timshel.

prob a silly question but if alot of purebred dogs are prone to certain health issues then why do people generally advise against getting mixed breeds? or is it just against the new "designer breeds"?

I understand that proper breeding standards come into it but why do people advise not to get a mixed breed? is it just because they dont have a proper histories so u cant gauge temperament etc? but no two dogs are alike so i cant imagine why thats a factor

I have a king charles cross and he doesnt have any of the health issues that generally affect cavaliers as a breed in general and i had a jack russel cross that lived until he was 18 so i dont really see the point in going for a pure breed... or is that just me being ignorant?

portgirl123

i think what it is, that these so called designer breeds are basically just x breeds who are been sold for 100s when in pounds all over the country the same dogs are been pts. why pay 100s when u can save a live in some cases for nothing.
agree though x breeds/mongrels seem to be healthier

trio

I don't think people advise against it because they're mixed breeds - it's advising against spending hundreds of euro on what is basically, just a mixed breed.

It's more trying to stop the madness. A labradoodle is just a mixed breed with no guarantee that it'll be remotely non-shedding, therefore caveat emptor.

timshel.

ah i see, i thought it was something about the breeds themselves.
although i would have been of the opinion that cross breeds are less expensive than pure breeds? for a pug is about 800 whereas a pug cross is less than half that...

although i am of the opinion that people should look in rescues first, i do see the logic in taking the more affordable option if you are buying based on the appearance of a dog

SophieSakura

I wouldn't advise against getting a mixed breed from a rescue or accidental litter or something.

But if people are just letting their dogs breed to any old dog and selling on the pups for money, or breeding designer breeds to try to make money, then I wouldn't buy from them.

I think it depends what you're after, if you don't really mind what breed your dog is, then go for a mixed breed. If you're after something specific, like a small dog, certain temperament, looks, or whatever, then get a purebred. I know it's kinda shallow to go for a dog just for looks, but obviously we should put temperament first, and if it's a cute dog, then that's an added bonus

Shanao

The problem with these designer dogs is that only puppy farmers and backyard breeders breed them, meaning the parents are not health tested, and probably overbred to death. Especially as most of the breeds used for these designer dogs are dogs that have health issues. Reputable breeders breed to try and breed out the health problems. Puppy farmers and BYBs are only in it for the money, and will charge unreal amounts and slap a stupid name on it like Maltichons or cavachons or whatever, even though they aren't breeds. Take maltese x shih tzus, because there's maltese in there, puppy farmers will ask for €400+ even though you could get a pure bred shih tzu for that amount. Or a pure bred from a rescue for a donation, and there are plenty of them out there.

theghost

trio wrote: »

I don't think people advise against it because they're mixed breeds - it's advising against spending hundreds of euro on what is basically, just a mixed breed.

It's more trying to stop the madness. A labradoodle is just a mixed breed with no guarantee that it'll be remotely non-shedding, therefore caveat emptor.

A woman in the park a couple of years ago asked me what breed my eldest is and when I told her she was a labrador/collie cross she immediately replied "Oh, a Colliedor. How sweet". She seemed to think that by giving the dog what sounded like a breed name it negated the fact that it was actually a crossbreed.

TooManyDogs

theghost wrote: »

She seemed to think that by giving the dog what sounded like a breed name it negated the fact that it was actually a crossbreed.

I love doing the opposite to people. The one's who have 'puggles' or 'chavipoos' or other ridiculous named crossbreeds. When they tell me they have a 'chi-poo' I always say, 'Don't you love having mutts, I think mine are so much nicer than purebreeds' The look on their face is priceless as they realise I'm comparing my 'ill-bred' rabble to their expensive 'designer' dog!!!

lrushe

Having had both mixed breeds and pedigrees I can't say as I find a difference, a dog is a dog is a dog. Unless you want a certain breed for you own personal reasons (which I have) a mongrel is as good a pet as any pedigree. However I detest needless breeding of any dog and while that especially applies to mongrels it applies just as much to pet quality pedigree dogs also.

theghost

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I love doing the opposite to people. The one's who have 'puggles' or 'chavipoos' or other ridiculous named crossbreeds. When they tell me they have a 'chi-poo' I always say, 'Don't you love having mutts, I think mine are so much nicer than purebreeds' The look on their face is priceless as they realise I'm comparing my 'ill-bred' rabble to their expensive 'designer' dog!!!

Must try that

Rew

Definitely recommend the pound and rescue centers whether your looking for purebred or mix. The amount of stunning dogs that A Dogs Life and other rescue centers are trying to rehome is a disgrace:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Dogs-Life/270131087473

seamus

timshel. wrote: »

I have a king charles cross and he doesnt have any of the health issues that generally affect cavaliers as a breed in general and i had a jack russel cross that lived until he was 18 so i dont really see the point in going for a pure breed... or is that just me being ignorant?

No. The problem is that most people who go and buy purebreed dogs, do so with very little consideration of what they're buying and from whom. They buy a dog as if they're buying a car, and so long as it looks like a Lab, then it must be a Lab, as good as any other you would buy elsewhere.

Properly bred purebreed dogs are as healthy as mixed-breed dogs, in general. A purebreed with health issues will not be used to sire or dame any offspring by a real breeder.
The problem is that there is a lot more improper breeding taking place than proper breeding. So purebreeds with health issues are being bred, and their offspring being bred, and so on. The result is that more people buy purebreeds which are being sold at a "bargain" by puppy farmers or other idiots and otherwise unsold dogs end up in rescues. This means that the unhealthy purebreeds outnumber the properly-bred ones, hence the popular idea that purebreeds are prone to health issues; if you buy one from a backyard breeder or rescue one, then you are more likely to get one with health problems.
Good strong examples of purebreeds rarely end up in rescues. That's not to say that purebreeds in rescues are all sick. Far from it. They will cost you more, but a purebreed dog from a good breeder will be strong and healthy.

IMHO, buying dogs is something which should only be done by people who know what they're doing. Someone who's never owned a dog or never taken dog ownership seriously shouldn't be considering buying one. At least not without doing serious research and taking lots of advice.

The Sweeper

Dog breeding is complicated.

Basically in order to achieve a perfect specimen of the breed, breeding a purebred dog often involves linebreeding.

The logic behind linebreeding is that if, for instance, you mate a bitch with her great-grandfather, you are guaranteeing certain traits in her puppies. The defence is that with an older dog you know precisely what you're getting in terms of his genetic package - his longevity, his conformation, his temperament, so on. Additionally the logic was that if he'd shown no diseases and you know she's from the same line and shows no diseases, mating the two of them will guarantee puppies with no diseases. The argument also says that if you mate the bitch with a completely unrelated dog, you risk introducing an 'unknown' element since genetically your bitch could be a latent carrier of a single gene and the introduced dog could carry genetic material that activates that latent gene in the offspring and produces diseased puppies.

(Apologies to all students of genetics - I know my explanation is painfully over simplified and possibly not entirely accurate as a result.)

Before you shout 'Linebreeding is a crazy idea, those people are sick, who the hell doesn't see immediately what a bad idea that is??', just remember, linebreeding of at least some intensity is the reason we have dog breeds of any kind these days. That's how you make a breed - you take dogs from similar stock and you breed them, until the progeny and the progeny's progeny all start looking the same. That's what a dog breed is.

The problems with purebreds came about for a number of reasons. One reason is if you linebreed too often in too small a gene pool, after a few decades it's nearly impossible to breed dogs that don't strongly share a common ancestor. The same genetic logic that says breeding a dog to another relative from the same family guarantees genetics was a double-edged sword, concentrating genetic flaws in some lines and producing dogs that, while they looked like spectacular examples of the breed, literally began to crumble from the inside out.

These days breeders are supposed to stringently health test and seek genetic material from diverse backgrounds. Modern technology means we can literally import genetic diversity - in the form of dogs and cats flowing internationally, or sperm frozen and flown internationally to be used in IVF impregnation.

It is possible to calculate an 'inbreeding coefficient' - the probability that both copies of any given gene are derived from the same ancestor - but you need a lot of ancestral information about the animals on whom you want to establish that coefficient. However that's what a pedigree is for - it's a family tree that goes back generations.

The upshot is that hopefully what got pedigree dogs into this mess - linebreeding through a closely monitored family tree - will be able to get them out of this mess as well. All serious modern-day breeders should be testing for inherited diseases and the really serious ones will be contributing information to the breed standard scientists, the information that helps build the databases that can calculate the inbreeding coefficient so when you come to breed your dogs, you can work toward the maximum breed example with the maximum health.

Cat breeders even work on identifying the genes that throw colour in the kittens - especially in ragdoll breeders and other popular breeds where there are a number of allowable colours and points. It means in theory when you come to breed your queen you can choose a sire based on genetic information that should give a strong indication of the likely colour of the kittens.

So that's why pure breeds are where they are at the moment.

(Crufts this year there was a fuss about a dalmation who most of us couldn't distinguish from any other dalmation - except she's the result of a breeding programme where someone introduced I think a german shorthaired pointer into the mix for his genetic material, in an effort to eradicate a syndrome dalmations suffer from which is very similar to struvite and oxalate urinary crystal problems in cats - which is why it caught my attention. The breed purists have stated unequivocally that she's a mongrel and shouldn't be permitted at the show.)

The flip side of why designer breeds are no better?

The things that got pure breed dogs into trouble are just as likely to happen with designer dogs - more so in that they're being bred more intensively, so bitches have a litter every season instead of three litters maximum in their lives. The more pups with common genetic material, the more chance of inbred matings. Plus these designer puppy factories and the backyard breeders that take advantage of them haven't got a clue where their dogs come from and could well be breeding half brother to half sister for all they know most of the time.

The dogs that make designer dogs are pure breeds themselves - so they come with that tag of common ancestry already.

Don't kid yourself - designer dog breeders are breeding for appearance just as much as pure bred enthusiasts - they want small white fluffy dogs. SWFs (small white fluffies) are in huge demand among families not least because they make adorable puppies.

What about hybrid vigour? Is it a real thing?

Well it is, sort of, but not the way you think. It's possible for two quite inbred parent dogs to throw healthy offspring when mated, as long as those two parent dogs don't share any common ancestor. Evolutionarily it's a genetic tweak that allowed species to persevere past episodes of isolation - you might have been stuck humping each other for decades before the icecaps melted or the riverbed dried out and you could move around again, but as soon as you meet another tribe who aren't related to you and get your nasty on, those kinks will iron out and we can all get on with not having seven toes any more. (Apogies to the weeping geneticists again for my method of explanation.)

However designer dogs are no guarantee of hybrid vigour. Hybrid vigour doesn't mean that any crossbreed is a better dog. It can only be claimed when the hybrid offspring is proven superior to each parent. SWF designer dog family trees aren't tracked because the dogs aren't pedigree, so after a few years you could conceivably buy a SWF that's closely related to your existing SWF, and you don't know it, and if you get your Backyard Breeder mojo on and start mating them for puppy cash, you're just setting us all on the same path that lead to the pedigree problems.

Even if you cross two dogs that you're certain aren't related - e.g. a cavalier king charles spaniel and a pug, for instance - you're still playing genetic roulette. A true breed fancier will know that in the 17th and 18th centuries, the pug WAS bred in with the lap-spaniel lines and formed a part of the creation of the king charles and cavalier king charles spaniels. That means that all of these dogs can share common ancestors. Genetically it means every litter of 'pugaliers', pug/CKC crosses, run the risk of having DOUBLE the health problems instead of fewer problems.

One dog has a heart condition, another has luxating patellas. Designer dog breeders would have you believe that hybrid vigour is a proactive magical miracle that means if you cross those two dogs, the pups will have neither a heart condition nor sliding kneecaps.

In fact the opposite is true - IF the pup has neither of those conditions, THEN the pup can claim hybrid vigour. However there's as much a chance that the pups will have both a heart condition AND wonky knees given that the breeder has no idea of the origins of the dogs he or she is breeding.

So there you go - designer dogs are worse than pedigree dogs because, while in the short term they appear more desirable, long term they'll be in a pickle a lot quicker because of intensive rates of breeding, they'll be in a worse pickle than pedigree dogs because the breeders have no idea who's related to who because nobody's kept a record of anything.

Hope that explains some of it - breeding really is extremely complex when done properly (and I am happy to be corrected in my explanations on that basis, because when it boils down into homozygous and heterozygous and XXs and XYs and XYXs and dominant genes and what mixes with what and what alleles do which to who, I freely admit you completely lose me.)

Quick

Sorry about that. I was unjustly Harsh, removed the comment.

The Sweeper

Quick wrote: »

you have way too much time on your hands!

It's so true!! But I have two choices. I can educate myself about something that I'm passionate about, involving other living, breathing creatures, and then try and share what I know with like-minded individuals, OR...


...I could post a smart arsed retort on an internet bulletin board where I haven't actually contributed anything else of any use. :pac::pac::pac:

Cherry Blossom

The Sweeper wrote: »

...I could post a smart arsed retort on an internet bulletin board where I haven't actually contributed anything else of any use. :pac::pac::pac:

If you were an avid promoter of a non-breed "oodle" there wouldn't be much else you could do to follow that post while still making your presence known

Quick

Sorry about that. I was unjustly Harsh, removed the comment.

Ponder013

I've got a couple of terriers, I always go for terrier types (rescues), but am not too keen on pedigrees.

THe only experience I have of a pedigree is a POM we inherited after our neighbours did a moonlight flit and left the Pom tied to out gate post (nice)

We decided we'd keep her, but after a few weeks it became obvious the dog had many problems. A serious overbite meant she couldn't eat properly and she was proving impossible to housetrain, or indeed train at all.

The vet diagnosed her as having the dog equivelent of a learning disability. and unfortunatly a serious congenital heart problem. SHe collapsed about two months after we took her in, despite numerous trips to the vet etc.

I don't think I'd ever go for a pedigree again, given the amount of congenital problems all the popular breeds seem to have. It's a shame what breeders (including the so called 'reputable' ones) have done to the dog

borderlinemeath

I would have no problem getting a rescue dog but I wouldn't get a rescue pup. My sister got a rescue pup based on what the rescue told her about the cross - that it was a terrier x and it would be a small to medium sized dog and would require moderate excersise.

The reason she choose this one was that her husband was recovering from a debilitating illness, they wanted a dog that would need the routine of a short walk (as opposed to a long trek) and wouldn't be too strong if pulling on the lead as her husband was fairly weak after a 6 month lay up.

In short the pup turned into a monster, he is a medium to large dog with behavioural issues, he knows me but will still snap at me if I call to the house and he's in the house. His walks are torture for my sister or her husband as he's so strong and he pulls even on a harness or halti.

She wouldn't dream of returning him to the rescue as she's had him 2 years now, she knows well he'll be pts and she couldn't bear it. He's the family pet around them and their teenage sons but any outsiders are not welcome!!

Whispered

Borderline, If she has to rehome the dog, a no-kill rescue would be the best way to go (along with a donation). How does she know he'll be put to sleep if she returns him to the rescue? Or was it the pound she got him from? There is a huge difference, most rescues would not put a healthy dog down, they run on donations and volunteers, a lot of the time the dogs live in a home environment with fosterers. With the pound, a dog can be pts after 5 days, they are government funded and mainly have paid staff, the dogs live in kennels etc

Regarding the size of the dog, of course they were given incorrect information, but you can't blame behavioural issues on the rescue if they dog arrived with your sister as a pup. The lead issues and growling at guests are simply down to training.

borderlinemeath

Whispered wrote: »

Borderline, If she has to rehome the dog, a no-kill rescue would be the best way to go (along with a donation). How does she know he'll be put to sleep if she returns him to the rescue? Or was it the pound she got him from? There is a huge difference, most rescues would not put a healthy dog down, they run on donations and volunteers, a lot of the time the dogs live in a home environment with fosterers. With the pound, a dog can be pts after 5 days, they are government funded and mainly have paid staff, the dogs live in kennels etc

Regarding the size of the dog, of course they were given incorrect information, but you can't blame behavioural issues on the rescue if they dog arrived with your sister as a pup. The lead issues and growling at guests are simply down to training.

She doesn't want to give him up, he's fine with the immediate family - any visitors, even regular are the problem. She has had many dogs over the years, at one point having 3 at one time with no problems training them but this guy is a bit "special" as she puts it.
I called in to her on Sunday and as usual I didn't ring the doorbell because that gets him on guard, she opened the door about 3 inches and he went to snap at me. He settles eventually, the trick is to put him outside then he comes in once the "visitor" is settled and he realises they're not a threat.

kylith

timshel. wrote: »

although i would have been of the opinion that cross breeds are less expensive than pure breeds? for a pug is about 800 whereas a pug cross is less than half that...

Not necessarily, I've heard of some cocker crosses going for more than it'd cost to get a cocker and whatever the cross was; i.e. Cockadoodle €1000 but Cocker €300 and a Doodle €250. These unscrupulous breeders put "RARE Cockadoodle" in the ad and the gullible fall for it hook, line and sinker.

moy83

What do ye think about a st. bernard / newfoundland cross

Cherry Blossom

moy83 wrote: »

What do ye think about a st. bernard / newfoundland cross

Care to elaborate at all?

moy83

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Care to elaborate at all?

We bought a st. bernard and a newfoundland a few weeks back after the wifes newfie died . It turned out that the st. bernard was actually pregnant by the new foundland so now we have five pups out of them . We can't keep them so hope to be able to sell/ find homes for them . Just wondering what people think of that kind of cross ?

Whispered

They will be big beautiful and a lot of hard work. I'd say they are gorgeous. Do you have pics?

Maybe you could start a thread and people (and rescues) will be able to give you tips on finding perfect homes for them, what questions to ask potential new owners, what to look out for, how to go about ensuring the pups are not used for breeding later in life etc.

timshel.

theghost wrote: »

A woman in the park a couple of years ago asked me what breed my eldest is and when I told her she was a labrador/collie cross she immediately replied "Oh, a Colliedor. How sweet". She seemed to think that by giving the dog what sounded like a breed name it negated the fact that it was actually a crossbreed.

hahaha colliedor! brilliant!

so what im taking from this is that breeding has EVERYTHING to do with it. responsible breeders obviously wont breed dogs with any health issues whatsoever therefore, if you get your purebred dog from a reputable breeder you should experience any health issues that are generally associated with the breed.
And then on the other hand these so called 'designer breeds' are generally bred by back yard breeders/puppy farmers who have do not care about and/or have no knowledge of proper breeding standards.

Thanks for all the replies though, i find the subject equally interesting and confusing all at the same time!!!

I find the whole subject of line breeding particularly mind boggling, i would have thought that breeding dogs of the same lineage was inbreeding and where the whole problem would have started?

and are the joint problems that are associated with large breeds a result of improper breeding? or is it from feeding them the incorrect food as pups (too much/too little protein) and causing them to grow too quickly?

moy83

Whispered wrote: »

They will be big beautiful and a lot of hard work. I'd say they are gorgeous. Do you have pics?

Maybe you could start a thread and people (and rescues) will be able to give you tips on finding perfect homes for them, what questions to ask potential new owners, what to look out for, how to go about ensuring the pups are not used for breeding later in life etc.

I will put up the pics when i can but i,m able to upload pictures yet . They are lovely puppies , only 11 days old yet . The parents are pure dotes if the puppies are half as friendly and quiet they will be no work just fairly hungry hoors

Whispered

moy83 wrote: »

the puppies.....they will be no work

(<- knowing smile :pac:)

Easiest way I find to post pics is to start a boards album (on your user CP) and upload pics to that. Then you can just copy the code straight into a post. Very handy. There are probably much better ways but I never figured out how to do it using other sites like flickr, so I post all my pics like that.

Cherry Blossom

moy83 wrote: »

I will put up the pics when i can but i,m able to upload pictures yet .

When writing your post click on the paper clip, click on the browse button, find the photo on your computer and click on it, then click on the upload buttons, the photos will appear after the writing when you submit your post.

:eek: At the person who gave you a pregnant dog and charged you for the privilage!!

moy83

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

When writing your post click on the paper clip, click on the browse button, find the photo on your computer and click on it, then click on the upload buttons, the photos will appear after the writing when you submit your post.

:eek: At the person who gave you a pregnant dog and charged you for the privilage!!

Thanks for the advice i'll get those pictures up yet ! The fella that sold us the dogs charged us very little in comparison to what they are worth , he had to get rid of them because he couldnt afford to live where he was anymore and only gave them to us because i have a farm where they can be left out all day . He was in tears the day we took them and still txts once a week to see if they are alright . So i wouldn't blame him he didn't do it on purpose .