I have seen so many questions today (if not every day) saying that breeding Mutts or mixing breeds results in healthier pups. I can see what most people think that by breeding two totally unrelated dogs that the cross *could produce healthy pups. But what about outcrossing in purebreds? For instance, I finally found a male border Collie to breed my female BC to. They are not related in any way (I searched back to the 10th generations on both), both are CEA/CH clear and TNS clear, so this means that when outcrossing you still check for genetic diseases.
So, what do you the similarities and differences are of breeding Mutts Vs. Purebred Outcrossing???
Anonymous2009-08-31T13:38:53Z
Favorite Answer
Well here is my answer to your question.
When you breed MUTTS you are incorporating BAD HEALTH from BOTH SIDES of the family.
So if the one breed has a-j health issues the other breed has k-z health issues. Now you breed the two. Congratulations you now have the whole alphabet of health issues. Mutt breeder of course never do health tests.
When one breeds purebreds, with health tests you are breeding away from the HANDFUL of health issues that are associated with a breed. More often then not eliminating them entireley. It has nothing to do with OUTCROSSING. You can linebreed dogs with health clearances. A healthy dog is a healthy dog.
Well, all purebreds are related. Many can go back further than BC's before you get the the beginning of the breed. Certainly if you go back 10 generations they can't be to closely related though.
I think in cross breeding mutts, the idea would be, to find two dogs with different hereditary diseases and try to eliminate them by crossing the healthiest pups in each litter. For example, BC's have 'collie eye', maybe if you bred it with a greyhound with its amazing eye sight you would have a new breed without eye issues in a few generations.
Though, clearly, there is more likely than not NEW genetic issue that will show up in the new breed you've created. Unless you some how create a breed of super dogs ... who are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and such
I think the major issue with pure's is all the inbreeding that takes place. I always hear people talking about breeding the grandparents with the pups to keep the line going strong ... not that I know much about breeding ... but doesn't that just sound wrong??
I'm a BC person too, but I love mutts & even mutts bred on purpose (all them doodle dogs too!) ... Just like most pure dog breeders aren't very good at what they do, most people breeding labradoodles are BYB's, but if you have a poodle and a lab that are of the breeding caliber ... who cares if you cross them??...well, lots of people clearly, but I think they should mind their own business. Good for you if you only want to spend 500$ on a pup, let someone pay 1500 if they want a labradoodle, what business is it of yours . We realize they aren't magical or hypoallergenic or anything, but if I want one, I'm going to get one and I'd like to see you stop me, this is America and I have the right to buy whatever dang type O Mutt I want
Add: Well, I just saw the answers after I typed mine, and I think only DJL touched on the Mutt issue in a meaningful way, everyone else just seems to be on their rant against crossbreeding though 'joyfnp' had some useful info too.
But as to DJL's logic in the a-b & c-d genetic disease theory, I think he's got it completely backwards.
If dog 1 has a-b issues And dog 2 has c-d issues Some pups would have -a-, others would have -a-c-, some -c-d-, some -c- and some unlucky pups would have -a-b-c-d- problems. It would be a mess of issues, but if you took the dogs who don't have issue -a- anymore and bred them with other mutts of the same mix without -a-, you'd have possibly eliminated issues -a- from your new dog.
That was the goal of Labradoodles, to create a guide dog of Lab size that was better for people with allergies like a poodle is...obviously it failed, but that was the reasoning ... seems like a good idea ... not that I'd have a clue about how to put it into practice.
There is theory called hybrid vigor, which can be googled, that all about people/dogs/anything inheriting the best traits from the parents .... though you'll see the exact opposite is true sometimes too...you get the worst of both
Really interesting read... I have not finished yet (only skimmed), but decided to answer it anyway, because I already have in my mind the basic answer to you question. Mutts vs Purebreds which is safer? Well - Any dog can bite. We all know that! But in my opinion it is not nearly so much a breed issue as a training, socialisation issue. People get so hung up on the breed! When there is so much more to it then that. Yes some breeds may more likely to bite and that question does need addressing. But sometimes I think it would be better, instead of the first or main question being asked after a bite being: What kind of dog was it? Would be to interview the owner and ask them a few more pertinent questions. What experience have you had handling and training dogs? What level of training have you and your dog got to? How long have you had dogs? Have you ever had a dog that has bitten before? How often do you socialise and exercise your dog? Why did you get this particular breed of dog? You may not always get honest answers, but you would get an idea at least. Besides, I wonder how many people say “a GSD bit their child”… when in fact it may have been a GSD x Golden Retriever. That would put it not only in the Mutt category, but the Golden Retriever box too!? Yet I highly doubt anyone would say “a Golden Retriever bit my child” when it is a dog of that mix. I think we would suddenly find the results begin to show, that ANY dog, without proper care, training, socialising and so on, is more likely to be involved in an incident, then those that do have those things. Instead of just labelling the GSD or Dobe as one of the worst... Perhaps a bit of time assessing the owner of said dogs and what role they played in the incident, would be of benefit. People are also more likely to report a GSD or Dobe or Rott bite, then something else. I know of an incident recently involving a child I know who was bitten by a Whippet in the face... left a bad scratch and only just missed his eye… but no report was bothered with. Had it been a “big aggressive breed”, I have no doubt there would have been a report made. As a long time Dobermann owner (over 40 years of Dobermann ownership in my family). I will say that none of my dogs or my families dogs, have added to those statistics. My dogs are also out in the public a lot, I take them to parks, the beach, fates and fairs when I go to browse and they get a lot of patting, friends houses and so on. Plenty of people and children to bite in all those places, yet no incident in all those years? Why? Because my dogs are well trained and socialised. The way every dog (not just certain breeds) should be. I come from a largish family, loads of nieces and nephews, cousins and so on… all of whom play (supervised) with my dogs, none of whom have been bitten. I really do think it comes down to management of the dog by the owner… when managed properly, incidents should dramatically be reduced. We can never rule them out completely, because we cannot control EVERY situation. No differently then if you drive your car carefully, you will be less likely, (not absolutely), to be involved an accident.
Let me preface this by saying I don't have an agenda (I'm not a breeder) and I'm not an advocate of either mutts or purebreds but I do think that the majority of the misunderstanding is on the purebred side based on all the previous posts on this subject.
Not ALL mutts are healthier than ALL purebreds nor are ALL purebreds healthier than all mutts. Linebreed/Inbreeding does not result in better traits overall nor does outcrossing ALWAYS result in a heathier pup. Hopefully we can all at least agree on that.
Now, let's deal with averages and distributions... imagine two bell-curves that overlap, but the average mutt bell curve is overall representing a healthier population (as an entire population) There will be many (mainly purebred breeders) who disagree with this premise but here is why they are wrong...
1) There are at least 300 known inherited disorders among canines
2) There a few genetic tests (around 20) that are very breed specific leaving the door open to the other 280 or so disorders that go undetected.
3) The fact is that breeding purebreds to purebreds (within the same breed) increases homozygosity whereby recessive mutations are more likely to be expressed in their homozygous form (ie Health problems). Many purebreds are also inbred/ line bred and many breeders think this is a good idea (even though most have no clue about how genes work). You are correct in thinking that outcrossing to unrelated individuals within the same breed is a better idea than linebreeding...
4) Mutts are more likely to have a higher level of heterozygosity as a result of outcrossing. Increasing heterozygosity (decreasing homozygosity) is a good thing if your talking about avoiding health problems in general. Many purebred breeders will disagree which proves they don't understand basic genetics.
Purebred breeders can say they are reputable and doing all the health tests, DNA, and hips and all that but this is all a mute point because of all of the other diseases that go undetected (again, because there are no tests for most diseases). OFA certifications on hips are subjective based on evaluation of x-rays and still the biggest reason for variation is the person doing the evaluation. I'm still waiting for the OFA to produce data showing that 2 parents with excellent hips result in offspring with excellent hips. It's not out there because hip dysplasia is such a complex issue (not just a single mutation) but rather multi-faceted with environmental factors as well.
So, am I saying that making more mutts is a good thing? No of course not. But there will be those purebred breeders who will say "STOP producing more mutts and get your dogs spayed and neutered" and I agree. And I will also say to the majority of purebred breeders pointing fingers.. STOP being a hypocrite yourself and STOP adding to the problem. You may be doing all the testing and think in your own mind you are a reputable breeder because your showing dogs and spending a bunch of money. (think about it, did you ever meet a breeder that didn't call themselves reputable?)
I'm not even going to go into the breeding of mutts. Even when you are out-cross with breeding purebred, all of the genetic health testing SHOULD be done. Most people that I know, like to line breed, BUT if you find a good dog of a completely different bloodline and it consistently produces a strong point that your line is lacking, no matter what b*tch it's bred to, that is a good thing, and I would go for it. Even when a breeder has decades of experience under their belt, including genetics, it really still is a crap shoot. So, that is why the best of the best should be bred, and the substandard dogs should be altered. Ya know, another thing is that sooooo many people blame everything on the stud dog. Well, they shouldn't because it takes two to tango. Even with a complete out-cross breeding, they are still purebreds and you know what breed you are producing....unlike breeding mutts. Mutts are not genetically tested so you never what might pop up from great, great grandpa. (you do know that I mean Sire, but I was just joking around with the terminology)
Add: I just wanted to state that different breeders do breed for certain traits, but they should breed for the whole package: Standard, type, soundness, funtion, temperament and longevity.