So, pedigree dogs are unhealthier than crossbreeds are they?

ISDW

A study which people might find interesting, about the myth that crossbreeds are healthier and sturdier than pedigree dogs.

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613#.UaTzM5q1I7U.facebook

Mark Tapley

That study would seem to suggest they are

"The researchers found that the prevalence of 13 of the 24 genetic disorders was approximately the same in purebred dogs as in their mixed-breed counterparts. Ten were found more frequently among purebred dogs, and one such disorder was more common in mixed-breeds."

ISDW

ISDW wrote: »

A study which people might find interesting, about the myth that crossbreeds are healthier and sturdier than pedigree dogs.

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613#.UaTzM5q1I7U.facebook

Report title says "not always"

She noted, for example, that elbow dysplasia and dilated cardiomyopathy, a heart condition, appeared more frequently among purebred dogs. But rupture of the cranial cruciate ligament in the knee was more common in mixed breeds.

I'd rather my dog rupture the cruciate than have elbow dysplasia or an enlarged heart. Hope none of that happens to anyones dogs but it's simple genetics that shows pure bred (higher degree of inbreeding) dogs have a higher chance of disease, sensitivity and injuries than cross breeds.

ISDW

Deleted User wrote: »

Report title says "not always"

I'd rather my dog rupture the cruciate than have elbow dysplasia or an enlarged heart. Hope none of that happens to anyones dogs but it's simple genetics that shows pure bred (higher degree of inbreeding) dogs have a higher chance of disease, sensitivity and injuries than cross breeds.

Do you have a link to the scientific studies to back that up please? Surely crossbreeds are crosses of purebreeds, so why would they be less likely to have such health issues?

My rottie cross died of lymphoma, a condition known to affect rottweilers. Him being a crossbreed didn't save him.

Outkast_IRE

The study is actually confirming what we already know, and I think the thread title is poorly chosen.

The study itself confirms that certain breeds are more likely to have certain problems

"The data also indicated that the more recently derived breeds or those breeds that shared a similar lineage were more susceptible to certain inherited disorders. For example, four of the top five breeds affected with elbow dysplasia were the Bernese mountain dog, Newfoundland, mastiff and Rottweiler — all from the mastiff-like lineage. This suggests that these breeds share gene mutations for elbow dysplasia because they were descended from a common ancestor."

And that's just an example it says.

The problems that occurred in cross breeds are just as likely to be found in a pure breed.
"In contrast, disorders that occurred equally among purebred and mixed-breed dogs appeared to represent ancient gene mutations that had become widely spread throughout the dog population. Such disorders included hip dysplasia, all of the tumor-causing cancers and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a heart condition"

"Ten were found more frequently among purebred dogs, and one such disorder was more common in mixed-breeds."


So in conclusion I will still maintain that a crossbreed will have a lesser risk of many of the disorders they checked for.

Mark Tapley

ISDW did you read the article you linked to . I hope the study itself isnt as haphazard as that article. The title is misleading, like your opening post.

"University of California, Davis, indicates that mixed breeds don’t necessarily have an advantage when it comes to inherited canine disorders."

That's the myth blown out of the water then.

ISDW

My apologies for the crap title, must try harder, or possibly, not at all

looking_around

Well, from personal experience, crosses(and I mean those with a long history of crosses). Have had alot less health problems then purebreds.

But I think that has more to do with the fact that there's more inbreeding in pures than crosses.

ISDW

ISDW wrote: »

Do you have a link to the scientific studies to back that up please? Surely crossbreeds are crosses of purebreeds, so why would they be less likely to have such health issues?

My rottie cross died of lymphoma, a condition known to affect rottweilers. Him being a crossbreed didn't save him.

Why would you assume crosses are crosses of purebreeds? Dogs are a product of human selection, we choose dogs to breed based on desirable physical attributes. Sorry to hear about your Rottie cross but if you read up on genetics
you'll understand what I'm trying to say better.
If you want a human example look up the House of Hapsburg.

Mark Tapley

@ISDW apologies if my posts were too strident . I would hate to think I contributed to you closing your account.

Bullseye1

looking_around wrote: »

Well, from personal experience, crosses(and I mean those with a long history of crosses). Have had alot less health problems then purebreds.

But I think that has more to do with the fact that there's more inbreeding in pures than crosses.

I'm curious as to how you can establish that a crossbreed comes from aong line of crossbreeds? It would be impossible to establish unless you were actually breeding them yourself.

stusawop

An interesting and enlightening comment on the study by a blogger....http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.ie/