People ASSUME mutts are healthier than purebreds because:
1. They don't realize that they can get MANY of the same health tests done on their mutts as the purebreds (OFA, CERF, Cardio, BAER, etc)

2. They don't CARE to have these things done

3. Sheer ignorance

4. Statistics

Purebreds can seem to have more problems than mutts due to sheer health statistics. The health statistics of purebreds are monitored through the health testing that is done through OFA/PennHip, CERF, BAER, and the like.

Also, even if many mutts WERE tested, there is such an infinite number of mixes, there really is NOTHING to compare to. You just have one category....mutt.

OFA Stats (hips only), listing the incidence of HD by breed:
http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html

By the way, as a plug for the GSD, they are #39 on the list. The top of the list? The Bulldog, Pug, and Dogue de Bordeaux

BUT I am also not completely blinded by statistics!

The GSD had 95,437 OFA hips submitted, so they are going to see a higher incidence of passing scores due to sheer numbers.

The Bulldog 443, the Pug 377, and the DDB 312. They are going to have CRAPPY statistics due to the numbers game.

 

If really depends on who you get your purebreds from. Responsible breeders test their dogs and try to breed out inherited health problems from their breeding stock.

 

I would really love to see some real numbers on this, but getting a valid sample would be very difficult.

A lack of facts never seems to interfere with strong opinions.

 

LMAO....you are too funny

 

It has been proven that out crossing does benefit a gene pool .
As far as being healther if the parents carry a genectic problem it can pass on to the off spring .
The only way to responsibly breed mixes or pure bred is to have your breed tested for the problems they carry . Plain and simple .
I can see some of the reasons for breeding the hybrids not all.
There are some serious breeders trying to delvelope a new breed called Carlins . This is a mixture of Min-Pins and Pugs.

 

It has been proven that out crossing does benefit a gene pool.

Have a source for that? As a biology student, my genetics training hasn't shown me anything that supports your claim.

The only benefit that outcrossing infers upon a genetic pool is a better chance or reducing the chances of recessive conditions showing up. The vast majority of breeds have a gene pool that is more than adequate for keeping these conditions under control, without having to sacrifice anything in looks or performance.

Hybrid vigor, as it's termed, as nothing to do with breeds of dogs. It is a legitimate term stolen from geneticists and warped to fit the agenda of people who want to push mutts on everyone.

You want a guaranteed healthy dog? Buy a puppy from a breeder who has shown that they truly care about the health of their dogs, not the pound.

I 100% guarantee that if you took 10,000 dogs from breeders who fully health test their purebred dogs, and pair them with a sample of 10,000 mutts, that the mutts would have more instances by % of every single health problem in the book.

The problem is not purebred vs mutt, it's crappy purebred breeders vs responsible ones.

 

I used to think mutts were better off than purebreds.. then all the sudden my 3 year old mutt tore her acl... without much force btw.

The thing about mutts is. You can't know what their genes are like unless you knew their parents etc.

Btw Xeph... i didn't know you could have mutts tested. Im sure it costs (from what I read of redyre's thread). I think most people that pick mutts up out of a box outside the grocerystore... or even from the HSUS or SPCA etc are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for testing... If I had it I would but I dont.

 

Wonder how the ''Free to a good home'' puppies compare to pet store purebreds?

 

Probably close to the same, they're both from irresponsible breedings. Pet store puppies, purebred or not, are notorious for having health problems.

 

I'll state first and foremost...I do not have facts to back this up, just life experience. My true heart felt belief is that mutts do TEND to be healthier than purebreds. And "healthier" is a relative term also. Growing up, we had a shelter mutt who lived until the ripe old age of 15.5 years old without one single health problem....literally never saw a vet besides for yearly shots. And as an adult, I now own two purebred boxers and one rescued stray pitbull mix aka mutt. I am the first to admit, that as much as I love my boxers, I will probably never own a purebred again. My female boxer was diagnosed with hypothyroidism at the age of 2...extremely young. She has allergies, chronic ear/feet yeast infections caused by her allergies. She has seasonal flank alopecia also. My male purebred boxer is overall healthy (knock on wood) but he did have a growth in his ear that required meds that luckily worked to avoid surgery... but he and my female boxer both have breathing problems due to just being boxers. They overheat in the summer in no time flat when it's not even that hot out....its actually quite sad. These muscular dogs that are full of energy can't run and play because they have so much trouble breathing due to their short faces that I have to make them stop.
And then there is my mutt....my pitbull mix. He is healthy as a horse...was found as a stray. He could eat metal and nails all day and it wouldn't affect him. He has zero health problems and can run and play with the best of them. He is just as my mutt was growing up with no health problems at all. Again, this is all just life experience but it follows this trend with friends and family as well. I don't think it's a myth personally. Just my opinion.

Also, I'm part of a very large network of boxer owners and with all honesty, the number of incidents of purebred boxers from top quality breeders who do all the appropriate tests who still get cancer, hypothryoidism, etc is just about equal to those purebred boxers that came from BYB's.....for what it's worth....

 

I'll state first and foremost...I do not have facts to back this up, just life experience. My true heart felt belief is that mutts do TEND to be healthier than purebreds. And "healthier" is a relative term also.

I've had somewhat similar breed experiences, but I don't fall on this belief because of dealing with pure breds.

Growing up, we had a shelter mutt who lived until the ripe old age of 15.5 years old without one single health problem....literally never saw a vet besides for yearly shots.

I don't think this should be discounted at all. But there are pure dogs which have lived to this and beyond too. I certainly have no stats on which tend to be more healthier, but healthy, long lived pure breds do exist.

My female boxer was diagnosed with hypothyroidism at the age of 2...extremely young. She has allergies, chronic ear/feet yeast infections caused by her allergies. She has seasonal flank alopecia also. My male purebred boxer is overall healthy (knock on wood) but he did have a growth in his ear that required meds that luckily worked to avoid surgery... but he and my female boxer both have breathing problems due to just being boxers. They overheat in the summer in no time flat when it's not even that hot out....its actually quite sad. These muscular dogs that are full of energy can't run and play because they have so much trouble breathing due to their short faces that I have to make them stop.

Sounds like my same experiences with Boxers.

And then there is my mutt....my pitbull mix. He is healthy as a horse...was found as a stray. He could eat metal and nails all day and it wouldn't affect him. He has zero health problems and can run and play with the best of them. He is just as my mutt was growing up with no health problems at all. Again, this is all just life experience but it follows this trend with friends and family as well. I don't think it's a myth personally. Just my opinion.

Sounds like my same experiences Pit Bulls. Which are pure bred. Decent life spans to boot (13-16yrs). I'd expect the most Pit Bull mixes to be the same. Just as a such a pure bred Pit Bull isn't going to be more likely to be riddled with health problems compared to the mix. My senior Pits don't have health issues. I hope for them to continue to be free of problems and live long lives.

Though he is a mix (mystery mix I'm assuming). This goes to show that certain breeds tend to be healthier then others. That would be no myth. He is probably healthy because he is a mix of breeds with less genetic defects and they did not pass any to him. Of course without knowing it is possible that he could have sibling(s) with genetic health problems. But we don't know either way. All we know is thus far no problems.

Boxers tend to have a lot of health problems. Even with responsible breeders, in that breed you can still get heart problems and cancer somewhat prevalent.

Pit Bulls very little, despite there being tons of irresponsible breeders.

If you mix breeds that are usually more healthy you will be more likely to get healthy mutts. If you mix unhealthy breeds they will probably produce the same problems.

A Boxer mix is probable to be less healthy compared to a Pit Bull mix. Though of course this depends on what they are mixed with.

English Bulldogs are no doubt prone to various health problems. So mutts would tend to be healthier on average then EBs. Though GSDs can have health issues and are extremely popular, overall they are still a healthy statistically healthy breed, especially if from a good breeder, but even if from unknown background you can get a healthy one. Same with Rat Terriers (at least in my experience) the pure bred RTs and RT mixes I've known have had healthy lives and are not dying young. Canaan Dogs are not popular but seem to be a very healthy breed. So overall they are likely to be healthy on average compared to mutts. Especially certain mutts, if you have a mix of less healthy breeds you get the health problems. If you mix a French Bulldog and Shih Tzu I wouldn't be on getting a healthy dog just because they are a mix. My in laws Doxie/Chi mix had health problems during in life, especially heart problems and was on all types of medications for it. Finally that is what killed her. Their pure bred Chi had a longer life span.

Also, I'm part of a very large network of boxer owners and with all honesty, the number of incidents of purebred boxers from top quality breeders who do all the appropriate tests who still get cancer, hypothryoidism, etc is just about equal to those purebred boxers that came from BYB's.....for what it's worth....

Don't forget the heart issues. I'll probably never own another Boxer.

Something I was going to mention earlier and forgot is that most of my dogs if they have ever had a health problem, it is something minor. This goes for both the mixes and the pure breds. These problems have typically been tit for tat if you are doing mix vs pure. I've had way more pure bred dogs, so stat wise they seem to be about level. Example allergies I've had 2 pure and 1 mixed. (One of the pure breds being one of my Boxers - Boxers is what reminded me of this)

Statistically speaking from health screening data we can see that some pure breds and mixes tend to be the same in having good health. Mixed breed is a wide range. If we could break it down into specific crosses I'm sure we'd see that certain mixes tend to be less healthy compared to certain pure breds. Certain pure breds tend to be less healthy compared to certain mixes. And x mix tends to have these problems but healthy in this area and no incidence of this. It would be no different then comparing pure bred to pure bred. Some pure breds have many healthy problems and can be seen with fair frequency. Others tend to have a low incidence of health problems. Some have a few minor issues. Others have only a couple but they are major.

All we have now is all mixed breeds lumped together. Probably not fair to some mixes to be lumped with the less healthy mixes just as typically less healthy mixes are in the stats of those that are prone to health.

Belgian Malinois should be considered a healthy breed. They are on average at least as healthy as mixes. If not more so, but mixes is a lumped group. There are possibly mixes which tend to be as healthy as Belgians. In no way are Belgians typically unhealthy nor are pure breds usually more healthy.

Labradoodles as a stand alone "breed" haven't had near enough tested to compare.

One cocker had a low thyroid, then a torn ACL. He died of a heart attack at 10 yrs. The other had a heart murmur, and liver disease. She developed cataracts at around age 10 and went completely blind and deaf.

Another Cocker I owned years ago died at age 11 of Congestive heart failure.

Wow that is a lot to deal with.

Thanks for sharing.

Sorry for your troubles, I'm sure that was hard.

 

Honestly there is no way to know...

Dogs are human made animals, they don't have 'survival of the fittest' going on anymore because we choose who to breed. The idea is that crossing many breeds (moving towards that generic wild type dog) and then they would be less likely to have these health issues. I think this could be true for indigenous dog breeds and ferals who are actively being selected against by nature as well as humans. But your average mutt doesn't really compare to this situation.

But really there is no evidence saying mutts are healthier than purebreds or that purebreds are healthier than mutts. It's just not possible. I think a lot would depend on the purebred you're looking at and the mutt you're looking at. Is the mutt a 1st gen designer cross from a puppy mill? And as far as purebreds many breeds are much less healthy than others.

There are benefits to outcrossing which some breeds seem to ignore, unfortunately. But outcrossing isn't a sure fire solution. You can also add in many genes that are not favorable too. ANy outcrossing to try to help breeds now needs to be done very carefully and with much consideration on the other effects it will have on the breed. (Also a very different situation than most crossbreds)

 

Going to the pound or buying a mutt with no history is like playing the lottery when it comes to health.

When you go to a BB or pet store you should be aware that the pups have a great risk for health issues.

When you go to a responsible breeder who tests their animals and breeds to actually better the breed and not for profit, health issues are at a minimum. For example, if my Brittany ever has any genetic issues my breeder will go out of her way to compensate me for it. This shows that she's confident that her dogs are very healthy and free of genetic problems, and that's what helped me decided to purchase from her and not the person selling the cheapest Brittany puppies I could find.

You can find a lot of mutts who are healthier than a lot of purebreds, but that doesn't mean you should go to the pound if you want a healthy dog. It just means you need to have some common sense when choosing your dog.

I used to be completely ignorant to this subject not too long ago. People told me all the time that mutts were healthier then purebreds. In fact, one of my boyfriend's friends told me that I should have gotten a mutt instead of my Brittany pup, "because mutts are healthier and smarter." Instead of taking their word for it, I did a little bit of research and found out for myself. This subject is one of those that you can't be influenced just by what people say.

 

Have you seen evidence that says it is true?

My pure breds are not less healthy.

There are healthy and unhealthy in either.

The problem with mixes is that there are so many different types that stats are not kept for them.

I think Xeph had a good post.

Except maybe I don't agree on the numbers thing. If a breed has a high or low incidence I think it will show that fairly accurately. Look at norwich, smooth fox, north American shepherd, and cotton de tulear. Low #s but low ranking. It has to do with how common it is in those breeds.

Hybrids rank 30 with 708 tested, beagles with 704 tested rank 46.

 

Anecdotally, my mutts have been healthier than my purebreds. Two Cocker Spaniels I owned died at 10 and 12. My mom's Lhasa had 3 bladder surgeries, numerous allergies and later developed diabetes. He died at 13. Her Shih tsu had bad skin allergies and died at 12. My 2 mutts died at 16 (GSD/Husky/Heeler mix...No I didn't breed him, but rescued him the day he was dumped as part of a litter of newborns), and the other at around 15 (Chow Mix). The GSD mix never was sick until about 6 months ago when he was DX w/Cushings. The Chow mix had an ACL go out when he was 11, and got Colitis once, but otherwise had no problems.

I currently have 3 dogs, all mixes, that have never had any health problems. THe oldest is 9 and has never been sick.

 

tw Xeph... i didn't know you could have mutts tested.

Indeed you can! Shaina OFA'd Kim and Webster

Except maybe I don't agree on the numbers thing. If a breed has a high or low incidence I think it will show that fairly accurately. Look at norwich, smooth fox, north American shepherd, and cotton de tulear. Low #s but low ranking.

I agree. I thought of that after I posted it, but I was too lazy to correct it (Shame on me xD)

 

Just curious how were your cockers unhealthy?

My oldest 9yr old has not been sick either. She is a pure bred.

 

One cocker had a low thyroid, then a torn ACL. He died of a heart attack at 10 yrs. The other had a heart murmur, and liver disease. She developed cataracts at around age 10 and went completely blind and deaf.

Another Cocker I owned years ago died at age 11 of Congestive heart failure.

 

Another question I have is where did everybody get their purebreds (that had the issues) from?

 

All I have is useless anecdotal evidence.

A lifetime of mutts that never had any issues, vs my only pure breed that has allergies.

It always seemed a trade off to me. Say your choosing a small puppy

A mixed breed may be slightly more likely not to have genetic issues but so much about the dog will be unpredictable. Size, weight, looks, coat, temperament, personality, working ability all are more unpredictable.

A pure breed all those issues are much more predictable. You know how big it will get, what it will look like, what it will weigh, temperament, coat, working ability etc. to a great degree but have a slightly higher chance of a genetic issue.

 

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be healthier than the average giant breed.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be heather then purebreds bred for very flat faces.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be healthier then purebreds bred for very wrinkly skin.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is as healthy as the average purebred offspring of untested parents that don't meet any of the above extreams.

The only time purebreds have a heath advantage are if they offspring of heath tested parents who aren't giant breeds, and don't have flat faces or wrinkly skin. These account for only a small percentage of purebreds.

So overall it appears that overall mutts have a small heath advantage over purebreds, but if you want the healthiest possable dog, acquiring the offspring of healthy parents (purebred, mutt, or hybrid), is the way to go.

 

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be healthier than the average giant breed.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be heather then purebreds bred for very flat faces.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is going to be healthier then purebreds bred for very wrinkly skin.

It is reasonable to assume that the average mutt is as healthy as the average purebred offspring of untested parents that don't meet any of the above extreams.

The only time purebreds have a heath advantage are if they offspring of heath tested parents who aren't giant breeds, and don't have flat faces or wrinkly skin. These account for only a small percentage of purebreds.

So overall it appears that overall mutts have a small heath advantage over purebreds, but if you want the healthiest possable dog, acquiring the offspring of healthy parents (purebred, mutt, or hybrid), is the way to go.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand this statement?....Which is the small percentage?...the amount of dogs that are pure bred without flat faces or wrinkles or is a giant breed? ....

 

I think if you're judging a poorly bred, untested mixed breed against a poorly bred, untested pure bred, then there's a chance that they could very well both be unhealthy.

If you're at a well bred, health tested mixed breed (like a working dog) and a well bred, health tested pure bred, then there's a good chance that they'll both come out of it healthy.

There is a chance of inbreeding un pure breds, I agree, but I don't think that just because a dog is a mixed breed that it's immune to inbreeding. There are definitely instances of stray dogs out in the wild breeding over and over, and end up being very inbred, too.

I think a lot of people's view are based on the fact that there are a LOT of average americans that think all pure bred dogs come from pet stores, which are notorious for being crippled with health defects and being inbred. And yes, the average mutt has a much lower chance of being inbred. But that doesn't mean that mutts will always be healthier than purebreds for any other reason besides being a mutt. It's a lot more complicated than that. You have to consider how it's being bred.

Also, there are plenty of mutts out there that have the same "exaggerated" traits that purebreds have. There are mutts with flat faces, wrinkley skin, bulging eyes, too large for their joints, too long for their spine, etc. etc.

 

Great link Bladerunner. Brings up all kinds of questions. I currently have a 60 pound Lab hiding in a 92 pound body. He still has a waist. He is only getting 2 1/2 cups of Pro Plan a day now and only a couple of small Milk Bones. Long story.

I keep harping about keeping your dog lean, http://www.longliveyourdog.com/twoplus/RateYourDog.aspx

From that page, there should be a link to Purina's big weight vs lifespan study.

So which owners are worse about over feeding their dogs? Where does bloat fit in?

I may save that link to answer the questions about how long this or that breed lives that come up from time to time. However dubious it is, anybody that disagrees will have to find a better one.

 

The life expectancy study is intriguing and does prove the point that it's too complicated to generalize. Smaller breeds typically live longer than larger breeds and giants typically live the shortest. So a giant breed mix is not likely to live longer than a purebred toy dog.

Similar related question... why do giant breeds have such short life expectancies? It just breaks my heart to see the life expectancy at 6 or 7 years. Why is life expectancy so closely related to size of the dog?

 

Similar related question... why do giant breeds have such short life expectancies? It just breaks my heart to see the life expectancy at 6 or 7 years. Why is life expectancy so closely related to size of the dog?

I think because of joint issues. Larger dogs have a higher growth factor and bigger growth period so they also are more likely to have bone and cartilage problems. And thyroid problems and heat strokes are common in giant breeds.

http://www.the-puppy-dog-place.com/extra-large-breed-dogs.html

 

I would imagine it's also more taxing to the heart to keep such a large frame running. This partially accounts for people who are overweight having shorter life spans. I would think it would account for the same in dogs.

 

I'm not gonna read ALL the responses as I Know this is always a heated debate.. I'm just gonna add my 2 cents...

ANY dog has the chance of a genetic defect. All it takes is 2 recessive traits to come together and Boom... you have a defect. It can be a pure bred, it can be a mutt... defect does not discriminate. Are they less likely to happen with pure bred dogs... not always... are they more avoidable with pure bred dogs... sometimes... because you have the wonderful world of testing and a blueprint of the last 100 years to know what could go wrong. The whole cleaner genepool thing for mixed breeds , I don't buy that either... again referr back to the 2 recessive traits comment.

If you have a mutt of known origin and mix and research what genetic defects are prevalent to each breed you still have the chance of getting that defect if those 2 chromosomes get together.

 

I've always thought it had something to do with added strain on the heart. More blood to pump, so it works harder?

But then why do horses and elephants live so long? They're huge x.x

 

Because that size is a horse's and an elephant's natural design?

I believe that, left to their own devices, all dogs naturally select into a particular type of mutt...medium in size, golden brown, triangle ears at half-mast, sickle tail. Giant breeds have, I assume, been artificially produced over the course of the centuries. Perhaps dogs are simply not supposed to be that size.

Giant humans live shorter life spans as well. A person can be born with gigantism, just as a dog can be born a giant breed. But humans are not meant to be giants and people with gigantism generally live a shorter life than people of average size.

 

Somebody else and I have already mentioned weight or body condition. It is so intuitive that lean dogs live longer, I am surprised Purina spent a fortune doing their big study on it.

Another factor may be diet. The dogs I am most familiar with are in service dog programs. Health is a very high priority in breeding. The dogs are mostly fed common brands of dog food and little else. As puppies, they are seen once a month, and the raiser will be publicly berated if it is over weight. Once a trained dog is sent home with its partner, they are free to feed other brands of food, too much, table scraps, and things I would rather not think of. Still, most of them stick close to what they are told. The dogs do quite well, often still healthy enough to be working at 12-13 years old. So pure breds can do well. The interesting thing is they do some cross breeds. It would be nice to see how the mixes compare. Well bred, well cared for, same diet, same gene pool, etc. I get a chance, I am going to bug some of the staff about why they never publish all the good info they have. I know it isn't competition because the different schools share it with each other.

I say mutts get cheaper food and more table scraps than pure breds. While I don't fear the cheap food as much as some, I am very negative on table scraps. The dogs that I know are eating Pro Plan, Iams, Science, etc. look good to me. I don't see many of the ones eating Old Roy or Shep from Aldi's. This Saturday, I will once again be out front of Wal*Mart all day for a fundraiser. I will have a puppy from the dog guide program with me. I never seem to be able to move a conversation with those with a bag of Old Roy in their cart around to what dog they have and how healthy it is. I always have a dog, and nobody ever asks me what I feed it. Often they tell me about their dog, but don't bring up its health. I try not to roll my eyes when they tell me their Lab weighs 90 pounds.

 

I suspect that natural selection might work in favour of the mutt.

Owners of unhealthy mutts may tend to be less inclined to pay for expensive, life-saving veterinarian services and therefore, the dogs may not survive to breed.

On the other hand, purebred dogs which do particularly well in the show ring might tend to get bred, even if there are health concerns. We've all seen that happen.

As far as "designer" mutts are concerned, I suspect that crossing a mediocre Poodle (which has undergone minimal, if any, health tests) with a mediocre dog of another breed (which has undergone minimal, if any, health tests) would not result in that infamous "hybrid vigour" we keep hearing about. (note: I have absolutely nothing against these dogs but, like others, I question the motives and integrity of the breeders.)