Mixed vs Purebred - Which is better?

[BostonBullMama]

So as the title suggests, I'm pitting purebred dogs and mixed dogs against each other (well.. hypothetically of course )

Do you think there is ever an instance where a mixed breed dog, is better off than being purebred?
For example; Toby - English bulldog/Boston terrier.

I don't know a whole lot about pure bred Boston's and whatnot but I do think that in Toby's case, he's far better off being mixed with a Boston, rather than be a purebred English bulldog. I find EB's are becoming more and more exaggerated in their features and it's just not something I personally like the look of. I also know of families who've had their dogs in for cherry eye at under a year old + the breathing problems and slew of other health problems that come with them.

Yes, Toby still has his share of the health issues in his gene pool such as;

- Allergies which require a special diet, and when he comes into contact with an allergen results in hives and fur loss.
- Mast cell cancer
- Temperature sensitivity (may pant excessively in the warmer months, needs a coat in the cooler months)

but he doesn't have;

- Breathing problems
- Regular skin infections
- Joint issues, including hip dysplasia
- Eye problems
- Problems with his rear end (tail)

And although he's flat-faced, he doesn't display any other signs of being brachycephalic aside from reverse sneezing.

So in Toby's case, I do feel he's healthier as a mix than he would have been as a purebred English Bulldog - as for the Boston side of him, it's hard to say as I don't know much about them.

 

[lancerandrara]

I think this subject has propped up many times before-

With a good breeder and health testing with CERTAIN breeds, most health problems can be avoided (Aussies, Goldens, GSD, and many others), but even then not always, and this doesn't apply for all breeds.

A mix's inherited issues are basically still unknown... a mutt of a mutt could have a million issues in one dog or no health issues at all or everything in between, imo. And without health testing or careful breeding, it's the same case with purebred dogs.

Overall, I think it depends on what breeds you're comparing... something like a pug or a pekingese mixed together would still have their avalanche of health problem. But if mixing them here and there, getting out of their original physical extremes that caused most of their health issues to begin with, there's a less chance of stuff like eye ulcers and skin infections in their wrinkles. But that doesn't mean they didn't inherit some OTHER issues along the way.

That said, I don't think there's a real right or wrong on this subject... it really all depends. And a huge part depends on health testing parents before breeding for both cases.

 

[Laurelin]

Neither is 'better' than the other. It's a very complicated subject with not terribly a lot of research put into it (though every study I have seen puts mixes as having a slightly longer life expectancy compared to purebreds)

There is benefit to having genetic diversity in dogs. I am not a big fan of the closed studbook or breeding for show looks. I find a lot of dog breeding to be completely misguided and short term and have seen enough to know that many 'reputable' breeders are dishonest and not putting health as a priority. A lot of mixed breeds come from unknown backgrounds so you really just don't know what you've got. Some, especially popular small mixes, are being bred from some pretty bad stock in puppy mills.

There are breeds I would not buy because of health. Also, if I am adopting, I'd prefer to adopt a mix that seems to be comprised of relatively healthy long lived breeds.

But in the end with any dog you don't know their health till they've lived out their life. Mia was very healthy acting till she hit almost 5 years then started having problems.

 

[RBark]

If you like the dog it is better. Wherever it is from.

 

[xpaeanx]

When you're playing with the genetics of random vs random neither is better.

 

[LMost]

The most recent research says purebred.

Prior the motto was larger gene pool was better health, where it is really "you can have a chance at every issue every breed included has".

Really it's about health tested parents with purebred dogs and finding a breeder who is actually breeding to improve the breed.

Yes you pay more upfront, but far less in vet bills.

 

[Kat09Tails]

Yeah, maybe more up front and more vet bills too. I don't care how much health testing you do - a great many breeds are so confounded by structural problems, immune compromises, and genetic dysfunction that one cannot expect a healthy specimen that will live the normal lifespan of a generic dog of the same size.

The basic rule is that which is not selected for is lost. If you or nature does not select for functional health it will be lost and it will be lost quicker if the gene pool is small to begin with.... ie... the cavalier king charles spaniel vs oh say an off the track greyhound.

To answer the OP's question. It really depends on what you want the dog for to determine what's better and better for whom.

 

[Laurelin]

The most recent research says purebred.

Prior the motto was larger gene pool was better health, where it is really "you can have a chance at every issue every breed included has".

Really it's about health tested parents with purebred dogs and finding a breeder who is actually breeding to improve the breed.

Yes you pay more upfront, but far less in vet bills.

Which study is favoring purebreds? I'd like to look into it if you have it becuase I've never seen one favor purebreds. Most are not great to begin with sample size-wise and are kind of inconclusive but leaning towards mixes having slightly better health/longer lives.

I see the UC Davis study cited a lot to show that purebreds are healthier than mutts but that isn't what they found at all. 13 disorders were found the same frequency in mixes and purebreds, 10 were found more often in purebreds, and one found more often in mixes.

Even the headline here kind of skews the findings.

"Purebred dogs not always at higher risk for genetic disorders, study finds"

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

The large genepool is important to avoid inbreeding depression... which is very well documented in many populations of living creatures.

Not all health issues can be tested for. Sadly I've lost 3 purebreds under 1 year old and none from issues you could potentially test for. Then poor Mia with all her issues galore. I did have a mutt with HD and time will tell with Hank.

 

[Laurelin]

I also like this one: "The Surprising Truth About Mixed Breed Dogs"

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/07/05/pet-genetic-disorders.aspx

But are mixed and designer breeds really healthier? Not according to what many veterinarians see in their practices... and not according to a recently published five-year study of veterinary cases at the University of California, Davis. This research indicates that mixed breeds don't automatically have an advantage when it comes to genetic disorders.

And then later:

According to the study, which was published in the June 1, 2013 edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association1, the prevalence of 13 of the 24 genetic disorders was about the same for purebreds as mixed breeds. Some of those disorders were hip dysplasia, hyper- and hypoadrenocorticism, cancers, lens luxation and patellar luxation.

Ten conditions were found more frequently among purebred dogs, including dilated cardiomyopathy, elbow dysplasia, cataracts, and hypothyroidism.

One disorder was actually more common in mixed-breeds – cranial cruciate ligament ruptures.

That is not saying what they are saying it is saying!

10 > 1.

Ergo as a whole purebreds seem to be more prone to having genetic disorders. Maybe not as often as people tend to assume but it's not saying mutts are less healthy than purebreds like they make it sound.

 

[LMost]

Which study is favoring purebreds? I'd like to look into it if you have it becuase I've never seen one favor purebreds. Most are not great to begin with sample size-wise and are kind of inconclusive but leaning towards mixes having slightly better health/longer lives.

I see the UC Davis study cited a lot to show that purebreds are healthier than mutts but that isn't what they found at all. 13 disorders were found the same frequency in mixes and purebreds, 10 were found more often in purebreds, and one found more often in mixes.

Even the headline here kind of skews the findings.

"Purebred dogs not always at higher risk for genetic disorders, study finds"

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

The large genepool is important to avoid inbreeding depression... which is very well documented in many populations of living creatures.

Not all health issues can be tested for. Sadly I've lost 3 purebreds under 1 year old and none from issues you could potentially test for. Then poor Mia with all her issues galore. I did have a mutt with HD and time will tell with Hank.

The University of California, Davis study is the newest done. Please show me newer.
Also even Vetstreet which most will jump to, says up to 75% of the purebred health issues seen today are from puppy mills.

 

[Laurelin]

The University of California, Davis study is the newest done. Please show me newer.
Also even Vetstreet which most will jump to, says up to 75% of the purebred health issues seen today are from puppy mills.

But the UC Davis study doesn't show that purebreds are healthier which is what you said. 13 disorders were found the same frequency in mixes and purebreds, 10 were found more often in purebreds, and one found more often in mixes.

 

[StillandSilent]

I've worked for 2 different doggy daycares, the current one of which is attached to a vet clinic. So I'm looking at a sample of around 1000 dogs. Granted, I don't see the whole picture, but I do dole out the meds.

Honestly, I don't see much difference healthwise. The worst case of allergies goes to a mix, but she's followed very closely by a lab. I see more purebreds on prozac, more mutts with bad hips. Thyroid seems to be about even.

Cancers seem most common in boxers and goldens, but seem to be just as prevelant in mixes of those.

Gambit has never been Ill, though he may have true hybrid vigor going on. Gimmick appears to be just as healthy, though he is very young still. Mt mixed breed Argon died far too soon from a disease that likely could have been avoided by proper screening of the parents. The last two family dogs, one mixed, one pure, died of different cancers at the same age.

In your case, I think just about anything mixed with an english bulldog will make a healthier dog. That said, if I crossed my whippet with a bulldog, I would probably get pups that were healthier then bulldogs, but I don't know that they would be healthier then the average whippet.

Mixed breeds are such a crapshoot that I'm not sure you can say one way or the other.

I think I may have just babbled on without getting my point across

 

[Paviche]

Neither is 'better' than the other. It's a very complicated subject with not terribly a lot of research put into it (though every study I have seen puts mixes as having a slightly longer life expectancy compared to purebreds)

There is benefit to having genetic diversity in dogs. I am not a big fan of the closed studbook or breeding for show looks. I find a lot of dog breeding to be completely misguided and short term and have seen enough to know that many 'reputable' breeders are dishonest and not putting health as a priority. A lot of mixed breeds come from unknown backgrounds so you really just don't know what you've got. Some, especially popular small mixes, are being bred from some pretty bad stock in puppy mills.

There are breeds I would not buy because of health. Also, if I am adopting, I'd prefer to adopt a mix that seems to be comprised of relatively healthy long lived breeds.

But in the end with any dog you don't know their health till they've lived out their life. Mia was very healthy acting till she hit almost 5 years then started having problems.

This is where I'm at. I like purebreds. My next dog will be purebred. But it seems that often TYPE is placed before health, when health should be the absolute most important thing. That, to me, is completely unethical. I think that there are some breeds that are impossible to breed ethically in their current state.

But, on the flip side, I like predictability. I like knowing a dog's history and heritage and knowing that the dog had lots of positive socialization and experiences from a young age.

 

[CrystalGSD]

Neither is 'better' than the other. It's a very complicated subject with not terribly a lot of research put into it (though every study I have seen puts mixes as having a slightly longer life expectancy compared to purebreds)

There is benefit to having genetic diversity in dogs. I am not a big fan of the closed studbook or breeding for show looks. I find a lot of dog breeding to be completely misguided and short term and have seen enough to know that many 'reputable' breeders are dishonest and not putting health as a priority. A lot of mixed breeds come from unknown backgrounds so you really just don't know what you've got. Some, especially popular small mixes, are being bred from some pretty bad stock in puppy mills.

There are breeds I would not buy because of health. Also, if I am adopting, I'd prefer to adopt a mix that seems to be comprised of relatively healthy long lived breeds.

But in the end with any dog you don't know their health till they've lived out their life. Mia was very healthy acting till she hit almost 5 years then started having problems.

Basically this.

 

[BostonBullMama]

Sorry guys! I didn't word the question how I meant to... I sometimes have trouble with wording things. I also didn't have time to hop on and correct until now as it's my sons birthday.


Basically I meant like.... which breeds of dogs are better off as mixes than left purebred. Which is why I used Toby as an example, because I feel he's truly better off as a mix than as a purebred English bulldog.

 

[noludoru]

The purebreds are real dicks to the mutts. I wouldn't buy one just because of that. It's like they know they have papers.

 

[Dekka]

Its not comparing apples to apples. When it comes to health.

All those puppy milled dogs with papers get lumped into purebred. So do the very unhealthy breeds.

Is a well bred JRT (for example) likely to be healthier than a random bred JRT cross. Or are we comparing well bred JRT to well bred JRT cross? Like a sport cross. Or are we comparing anything that it said to be a pure (well JRTs are a type.. but you get what I am saying) to anything claiming to be mixed...

 

[lancerandrara]

Its not comparing apples to apples. When it comes to health.

All those puppy milled dogs with papers get lumped into purebred. So do the very unhealthy breeds.

Yeah, it really all depends on each individual dog's line/genetics. Both purebreds (puppy mills? Bad breeders?) and mixes (random as random can get) can suffer from the same hereditary health issues, if not carefully bred for health.

 

[Torch]

Anecdotally, my mutt has been extremely healthy. His structure is not the greatest, which results in mild arthritis, but otherwise he's very healthy. He's eight and never been sick a day in his life. Never had hives, an allergic reaction, and has only very rarely had an upset stomach. He's also a very easy keeper.

My purebred has environmental allergies that have been tough to get under control and that has caused some other secondary issues. Otherwise I would consider him very healthy-he's from health tested stock so I feel confident about his heart, hips, thyroid, etc. He comes from a long lived line so I'm hopeful there too.

I think a healthy dog is simply a healthy dog. You can find super vigorous animals that are either mutts or purebreds. A lot of variables go into each individual. I do think that going with healthy known stock will give you the greatest chance of good health.

 

[*blackrose]

Breeds of dogs that need some help health wise? Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, English Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, Pugs, Boxers, Goldens, Cocker Spaniels, Shar Peis...basically, any dog that walks through the office front doors and we say, "Yup. I'm not surprised," when it is diagnosed with X issue. For example: Bulldogs with ear/skin/knee issues. Shar Peis with narrow ear canals that cause ear infection after ear infection. Cocker Spaniels with horrible ear and eye problems. CKC Spaniels with heart issues. Boxers and Goldens with cancer. French Bulldogs with skin issues. Dachshunds with IVDD. The list goes on.

That being said, there are just as many mixed breeds with these issues as purebreds. And in some purebred breeds (and mixed, too), the structure of the dog is just so unsound the health issues are quick to follow.

I think your best bet is to acquire a structurally sound dog from health tested lines, versus a randomly bred dog, pure or mix breed.

My experience:

Pure bred dogs I have owned: Labrador, Yorkshire Terrier, Dachshund, Chessie. The Chessie is the only dog from health tested lines.

Mix breed dogs: Labrador mutt (daughter of Labrador above), Collie/Aussie mix, Lab/Spaniel mutt.

Lab passed at 14 years due to cancer. Had mild arthritis, but no other joint issues. Aside from the cancer that reared its head at 13 years, was healthy as could be. Yorkie is 4 years old, has luxating patellas (low grade) and collapsing trachea. Dachshund is 6, has very bad environmental allergies. Chessie is 1.5 years old, but so far so good, aside from some mild crepitus in a knee.

Labrador mutt passed at 14 due to a combination of heart failure and kidney issues. Mild arthritis, but never any other joint issues. Suffered from mild incontinence after about 12 years. Collie/Aussie mix is 7.5, has mild food/environmental allergies and a bum knee which has lead to some arthritis. Lab/Spaniel mutt is almost 9, has spondylosis in her lower back, mild arthritis in her hips, mild environmental allergies and has idiopathic megaesophagus.

Which group is healthier? They seem really similar to me. (Of my lovely sample size of 7. Hahaha)