In for this as both my beloved dogs are mutts.
I've stolen this quote from another thread. Apologies to the author.Hereditary disorders are actually one of the main reasons I prefer mutts: the less closely related the parents are, the better chance of avoiding some of these disorders! It’s simple genetics and it applies to everything from bacteria to humans. Colloquially it’s called hybrid vigor, but it applies to more than just corn. Of course, if the parents of your pup are tested (not for the disorders themselves, but for the alleles that cause them), you eliminate that chance altogether - for the genes that you tested for. Can you tell I'm a biologist?
I would totally get behind such a plan. I also agree that the closed registry system needs a serious overhaul. It's basically running off a 19th century belief system.I'd like to see us go to a system where each breed had allowed outcrosses, you had to apply for a litter permit with the registry to do an outcross litter, all helath testing would have to be done, and then the offspring would have a letter appended to the end of their registration number for 5 breeds. The 6th generation would be considered purebred again. The 1-5th generations from that outcross could only be bred to dogs that were NOT within 5 generations of an outcross breeding, so breeds would remain relatively pure and predictable but still be able to benefit from outcrossing.
The thing is, those gene pools are smaller than you think. Cardigan Welsh Corgis started with a pool of 50 dogs. Siberian Huskiies started iwth 32, IIRC! Swissies were down to like 8 dogs after WW2, and a lot of other breeds where the vast majority of the breed was in continental Europe nearly went extinct at that same time, because there just wasn't anything to feed them. Some breeds- like Basenjis- still have unregistered gene pools which can be accessed. In a few cases, like the American Eskimo, deliberate crossbreeding has been allowed by ommission (people have imported white German Spitz from Germany and registered them as Eskies with the blessing of AKC, and exported them as GS as well) But the vast majority don't have that kind of option.Also, it kind of seems like some people think all purebred dogs are inbred. It's not like every member of a certain breed is related to one another, that's like saying all British people are related. Though I'm sure there are SOME extremely rare, underpopulated breeds that have to use inbreeding to keep the breed alive, but the vast majority of breeds has PLENTY of genetic diversity.
Then what exactly is it called? Because that (hybrid vigor) is what I've always heard it referred to, time after time for as long as I can remember, whether it crosses bloodlines within a breed or different breeds."You can produce "hybrid vigor" in a dog (although it's not generally called this among breeders) by crossing different breeds. Please don't imply that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to this subject; I've taught several university-level courses which covered genetics.
Is it common for breeders to do genetic testing? I recall all sorts of health testing (ie hips, eyes, etc) but not genetic testing.This also highlights the importance of the genetic testing done by responsible breeders. If two unaffected and untested collies are bred and their genotypes are Aa and Aa, then on average 1/4 of their offspring will have the disease, but no one would suspect they would, because neither parent has it!
The ones the quote hybrid vigor in their advertising are certainly more likely to health test their dogs the average purebred breeder.Seeing as how the majority of breeders who bleat on about 'hybrid vigor' as an advertising point are usually crossing 2 purebred dogs which are un-health tested for their breeds' common diseases, I would be very suspicous of people claiming that their mix puppies were automatically 'healthier'.
Are you sure? I have to say that if I see the term "hybrid vigor" in a dog ad, it's not generally a breeder I'd consider to be ethical.The ones the quote hybrid vigor in their advertising are certainly more likely to health test their dogs the average purebred breeder.
The average purebred breeder is only slightly better then a puppy-mill and is unlikely to have ever even heard the term hybrid vigor (or genetic health testing for that matter)Are you sure? I have to say that if I see the term "hybrid vigor" in a dog ad, it's not generally a breeder I'd consider to be ethical.
Please further explain your logic here. The way I see it a purebred breeder, be they quality or not, cannot claim thier dogs are "hybrid". So it's a moot point to say the ones who quote it are better than the ones who dont. Perhaps I'm just not understaning your opinion correctly.The ones the quote hybrid vigor in their advertising are certainly more likely to health test their dogs the average purebred breeder.
Nowhere! I would NEVER advocate breeding a mutt. Ever. You spay and neuter them ASAP.But once you get past that F1 breeding where do you go.