Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I found this list when I was looking up something for another thread, but thought it was interesting enough to post on its own.

This is the list, by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), of the relative percentage of dogs with hip dysplasia by breed. As the list is very long, I will post the URL: http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html

This list, of course, only reflects breeders who test. It doesn't reflect BYB, which I'm sure would skew the results. But it does give you an idea of the incidence in well bred dogs (or at least ones with breeders who care enough to test).

I thought it was fascinating that Maine Coon cats are #25. (listing goes from highest to lowest incidence) And labradoodles are #59. So much for hybrids being so much healthier. The sighthounds as a group overall seem to have the healthiest hips.

Check it out for yourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
This is really interesting. Very counter-intuitive to what I had thought. Before I got my puppy, I was warned by everyone how common HD is in labs. According to this list, it's not exceptionally common, and the sample size is abnormally (for the list) large.

Also, I would not have expected so many small breeds to be near the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,946 Posts
And labradoodles are #59. So much for hybrids being so much healthier.
No one ever said that hybrids would be healthier when considering traits carried by both parents. If you breed a lab with bad hips to a poodle with bad hips, then yeah, you're gonna get puppies with bad hips. That's a no-brainer. Hybrid vigor only works for diseases that are common in one parent's breed and rare (or non-existent) in the other parent's breed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
No one ever said that hybrids would be healthier when considering traits carried by both parents. If you breed a lab with bad hips to a poodle with bad hips, then yeah, you're gonna get puppies with bad hips. That's a no-brainer. Hybrid vigor only works for diseases that are common in one parent's breed and rare (or non-existent) in the other parent's breed.
I completely agree with you. But so often you hear about how "mutts are healthier" but that's not necessarily so. And here are some stats to show it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
I completely agree with you. But so often you hear about how "mutts are healthier" but that's not necessarily so. And here are some stats to show it.
Of course it is not necessarily so. Everyone knows that don't they? I have always thought so and I've yet to hear or know anyone state anything differently so I always get baffled when the point that 'mutts can have health problems too' seems to be celebrated as IF there is an argument that they can't.

I'm probably a little irked about this very point right now as I've just read a blog post starting with the pretense that "There is a general misconception that mixed-breed dogs and cats are inherently free of genetic disease", which is complete B.S. being trotted out - as IF anyone has ever thought that.:rolleyes:

I'd like to point out that one of the reasons that some hear 'mutts are healthier' so often is that those of us that like mutts have had it shoved down our throats for a very long time that mutts aren't worthy of being bred by those rallying a political war against designer dogs. I get upset by that position as it is unwarranted canine bigotry, and as well landraces such as Farm Collies and Alaskan Huskies have gotten caught up in the crossfire.

When people state 'mutts are healthier' do some believe they mean each and every mutt will be healthier than each and every purebred? I just don't get why those involved in purebred dogs get so riled up by the common idea that mutts on average are healthier than purebreds - on average. When you consider some of the breeds running around with prevalent breed wide health problems this only makes sense and it is NOT an insult to well bred purebred dogs - but it sure seems to be taken that way.

The strength of a purebred is its predictability. Nothing can take away from that.

So I'd love to understand why the Labradoodles position at #59 is pointed out as a talking point? What is the reasoning. How does it 'show' mutts on average are not healthier than purebreds on average?

To me that position of #59 shows that this hybrid mix, from two parent breeds that juggle CHD, will also be affected by CHD. In the UK where hips are scored the breed average of Labradoodles sits right in the middle between Labradors and Poodles, as is to be expected. Nobody that I know of or have ever read has said anything to imply the situation should be different from that.

http://www.bva.co.uk/public/documents/chs_hip_scheme_breed_mean_scores.pdf - Labrador BMS is 15, Labradoodle is 14, Standard Poodle is 14, Min Poodle is 13 (the Rough Collie is 12 and Smooth Collie is 6 if you are curious).

In fact this phenomena was noted by Scott and Fuller way back in 1965 who specifically did hybrid studies. They deliberately paired a high neonatal mortality breed (Cocker Spaniels) with a recently established purebred breed that had low neonatal mortality rates (Basenjis) and lo and behold the neonatal mortality rates of the hybrid pups was in the middle showing the weakness in pups from the Cocker side showed through - Cocker at 18.9%, Basenji at 3.5%, and the Basenji x Cocker litters were at 12.9%.

It is kind of common sense wouldn't you think?



http://books.google.ca/books?id=nba...l Scott, John L. Fuller. Dog Behavior&f=false (go to the preview of page 405/406)

Overall, however, the hybrid neonatal mortality rates (all F1 crosses on that chart) was lower than that of the purebred dogs (3.4% vs 14.4%). That is common sense as well when the concept of heterozygosity and first gen crosses is understood.

SOB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,068 Posts
I find it interesting that breeds bred to run seem to have lower incidence of hip dysplasia and are more likely to score "excellent"... for example, the Siberian Husky, Greyhound, Borzoi, Saluki, etc..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
actually SpanielorBust I have known people who stated outright that "I didn't get a purebred because they can have health problems, so i got a mix because they don't have those problems." and I have also known MANY other non "dog people"(aka the majority of the common dog owners) make very similar comments making the basic statement that purebreds have health problems and mutts don't. So yes it is a problem that needs educating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,722 Posts
actually SpanielorBust I have known people who stated outright that "I didn't get a purebred because they can have health problems, so i got a mix because they don't have those problems." and I have also known MANY other non "dog people"(aka the majority of the common dog owners) make very similar comments making the basic statement that purebreds have health problems and mutts don't. So yes it is a problem that needs educating.
I was about to say the same thing. I've heard the statement many times that mixed breed dogs are healthier, and when I was chatting with someone quite recently and they asked what my dogs are and I said mixed breed, he said very matter of factly that "yeah, mixed breed dogs are healthier than purebreds, hybrid vigour you know".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
actually SpanielorBust I have known people who stated outright that "I didn't get a purebred because they can have health problems, so i got a mix because they don't have those problems." and I have also known MANY other non "dog people"(aka the majority of the common dog owners) make very similar comments making the basic statement that purebreds have health problems and mutts don't. So yes it is a problem that needs educating.
I had heard the same misconception......and now that I know more I've thought about it. I think it has to do with the number of BYBs and unethical breeders out there. My guess is that if you change the statement to "a mutt is going to have less health problems than a POORLY BRED purebred" it would be reasonably close to correct in most cases. If you add to the fact that people who don't care if they have a mutt or a purebred are less likely (well, at least in my case) to want to spend big bucks for a purebred dog from a reputable and highly rated breeder. That would make that particular potential owner more likely to get a poorly bred, and therefore possibly dysplasic or otherwise genetically sick dog. Does that make sense? Like I said, I don't disagree but there are circumstances where it could definitely seem to be the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Interesting, the Mastiff has fallen a few spots from the last time I looked at this, something I'm very glad to see!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
actually SpanielorBust I have known people who stated outright that "I didn't get a purebred because they can have health problems, so i got a mix because they don't have those problems." and I have also known MANY other non "dog people"(aka the majority of the common dog owners) make very similar comments making the basic statement that purebreds have health problems and mutts don't. So yes it is a problem that needs educating.
. . . "so i got a mix because they don't have those problems."

And when you hear that statement you believe those people are meaning that they believe their mixes are immune to health problems! That statement is just a simple way of saying that they believe mixes have a better chances. Why would anyone take it to mean more without asking for clarity?

I was about to say the same thing. I've heard the statement many times that mixed breed dogs are healthier, and when I was chatting with someone quite recently and they asked what my dogs are and I said mixed breed, he said very matter of factly that "yeah, mixed breed dogs are healthier than purebreds, hybrid vigour you know".
"yeah, mixed breed dogs are healthier than purebreds, hybrid vigour you know"

And again that is NOT the same as insinuating that mixed breed dogs are immune to health problems, which is what some want to frame an argument over.

There is no denial on my part or anyone elses that there is a perception that mixed breeds/mutts are generally healthier - ON AVERAGE. In fact EVERY bit of research I've have undertaken points in this very direction.

Arguing that, however, is NOT what is done. The argument is framed completely ridiculously as IF people believe mutts are immune . . . and THAT irks me to no end, especially when intelligent people deliberately do it, as it is such a junior high type tactic - changing the parameters of what is really believed so a point can be made.

Interesting, the Mastiff has fallen a few spots from the last time I looked at this, something I'm very glad to see!
I find it interesting to flip back and forth from the OFA table (self reporting and inspecific) to the BVA scores. Reporting hip scores is mandatory for KC dogs in the UK. The Neopolitan Mastiff has a fairly high BMS, but some other breeds are quite worrisome. It is always wonderful to read/see improvement. Notably I understand from UK breeders that the Labrador Retriever BMS has been dropping. This breed makes up so much of the purebred population that is also wonderful to know.

SOB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Most people go with whatever the breeder that has puppies ready now says. Meaning they usually end up getting information from the byb's who breed often and have slick lines like 'testing is only required for show dogs' and so on.

I think what happens is the dog buyer might ask, but gets told it's 'only for show dogs' and assumes that show dogs have health problems because they do test. The byb's dogs are fine and don't need to be tested. Backwards but I hear it all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
I too was kind of surprised by the listings. Owning a Papillon, I also took a peek at the patellar luxation statistics and found that Papillons were actually near the bottom of the list.. not even close to the top. I think it was something like 2-4% of Papillons were affected, it could be lower.. but it's definitely better than a lot of the breeds on there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
in the general public, there absolutly IS the asumption out there that mutts dont have health problems..I have heard this a number of times from general dog owner, and BYB's are the ones putting that into their heads. I have had real convo's with people who honestly think that if you breed a dysplastic lab to a dysplastic poodle the puppies wont be affected because of "hybrid vigor". drives me nuts, and I am no friend of the KC mindset!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
. . . "so i got a mix because they don't have those problems."

And when you hear that statement you believe those people are meaning that they believe their mixes are immune to health problems! That statement is just a simple way of saying that they believe mixes have a better chances. Why would anyone take it to mean more without asking for clarity?
I guess you had to be there because these people honestly thought that mutts have NO genetic health problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Also VERY interesting (given recent thread topics) is that SO MANY CKCS (9139) are in fact being tested for cardiac conditions. They are ranking in at #8 for cardiac problems with 97.1% of dogs trested being NORMAL. The way many have talked about the breed you'd think the chances of getting a healthy CKCS was slim. They are second only to the Golden in number of dogs tested, I wonder if just as many of the lower ranking breeds were tested how the rankings might look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
Also VERY interesting (given recent thread topics) is that SO MANY CKCS (9139) are in fact being tested for cardiac conditions. They are ranking in at #8 for cardiac problems with 97.1% of dogs trested being NORMAL. The way many have talked about the breed you'd think the chances of getting a healthy CKCS was slim. They are second only to the Golden in number of dogs tested, I wonder if just as many of the lower ranking breeds were tested how the rankings might look.
Isn't listing the results voluntary? I wonder how many CKCS came up with bad results on their cardiac and the owners chose not to list. As long as listing is voluntary I'm afraid I can't take the results seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
Isn't listing the results voluntary? I wonder how many CKCS came up with bad results on their cardiac and the owners chose not to list. As long as listing is voluntary I'm afraid I can't take the results seriously.
The thing is - those records are at our fingertips if we want to look. If the dog didn't clear or results aren't available, choose a dog who did clear and whose results are posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
No one ever said that hybrids would be healthier when considering traits carried by both parents. If you breed a lab with bad hips to a poodle with bad hips, then yeah, you're gonna get puppies with bad hips. That's a no-brainer. Hybrid vigor only works for diseases that are common in one parent's breed and rare (or non-existent) in the other parent's breed.
Yes they have basically. The fact is they don't take into consideration the genetics of the parent or health problems in the parent breeds. It's a no brainer to you, to me, but not to so many people.

When I try to explain to them how their mix could have a health problem I get a blank stare or looked at like I'm crazy or stupid. They have no understanding of genetics or cause of disease. Their only arguements are pure breds are known to have health problems or mixes don't have health problems.

I've even used the very same disease example you put forth and they still don't get it. It's not possible in a mix or they don't have the same genes. It's also ironic because a lot of the DD people don't even know what type of health problems they are trying to avoid. The don't know the issues of the parent breed they could have had if they got a pure bred in which is why they don't understand the risk.

SOB no one is saying every mutt lover is that dumb. Some are. They are not saying there is less of a chance. They are telling me they didn't get a pure bred because they didn't want a dog with health problems. They got their DD because mutts don't have health problems. You can explain using science and legitimate facts but they rather live in blind ignorance. SOB you are educated dog person, so you have an understanding not everyone does. I've even had people tell Pit Bulls don't have health problems.

People take "mutts are healthier than pure breds" out of context often.

I'm not a "breed bigot" the last dog I bought was a cross.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top