# Purebred vs Mixed - who is healthier?



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

So in this thread about a pup in rescue that a board member is thinking of getting http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubb...&gonew=1#UNREAD a small side track of who is healthier purebred or mixed was started.
This can be a fascinating subject and I'm hoping we can have it here.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> * <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And let me say, if this gets rude, mean or out of control I will ask for the entire thread to be deleted, so let's keep this civil!!! </span> </span> * </span>


----------



## littledmc17 (Apr 9, 2008)

In my own personal experience My mix lab, shepherd, Rottie, dobbie lived to be 17 with minor health issues.
so I would have to say mix!!


----------



## Mozart396 (May 11, 2009)

I think biologically (evolutionarily) speaking, in a broad sense of population, genetic mixing is more desirable. This allows more of the population to contain those genes that may be advantageous to survive in the present or suddenly changing environment. The animal kingdom is full of examples of casting seed far and wide.

Doesn't mean that any particular one individual compared to another is more or less healthy. Pure breeds have similar strengths and reinforced weaknesses -- look at GSDs, smart dogs, desirable temperament, weak joints and certain eye/blood problems. I'm sure some mixes have better and weaker traits, depending upon the genetic lottery.

Some of my wife's family has a history of heart problems and myopia. Some members of my family has blood pressure and diabetes issues. Our son may have all of the issues, some, or none of the issues. God willing, he will have only the good traits.


----------



## Prize (Feb 5, 2009)

Just from personal experience, I stand with the "mixed" group, too.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

I think it's luck of the draw. 

I had a mixed breed otterhound/lab/whatever who was healthy until she was a senior and had senior issues. 

Zamboni, who is a beagle/cocker mix, has had virtually EVERY malady that both beagles or cocker spaniels have. Cherry eye (both breeds), thyroid (beagle), pancreatitis (cocker), two ACL ruptures (cocker)... for starters.

In theory, the idea is that the gene pool for either pure breed is small (sometimes "bottlenecked"), so if you bring in a whole other genepool, you get a better situation. Well, that *might* work. But if you cross a GSD with a Poodle, you're still going to get a dog predisposed to bloat. If you cross a GSD with a beagle, you'll still get a dog predisposed to thyroid problems. 

And, sometimes, you just get a dog that brings out the worst in both breeds. I adore Zamboni, and certainly, she is 16 years old, so she is more inclined to incur more illness over her life than a dog that only lives 10 years. But she has had her full share of illness. 

But my purebreed Camper did too. And I've lived in a lot of counties/states, so I can't blame it on environment. They've eaten different diets as commercially available food and knowledge of what constitutes a "good diet" has improved over 16 years, so I can't blame it on diet. Plus Grover, my mix, was healthy until she was older. So that tosses any of those correlations out the window. 

I really do think it's luck of the draw. 

Edited to add: That said, I've observed that *many* of the elder members of this board are mixed breed dogs and/or many are female. Not all, but most. So maybe there's something to consider there. There's healthy, then there's longevity.


----------



## kshort (Jun 4, 2004)

I have read so many things that contradict each other about "hybrid vigor", so all I'm going to post is actual facts of my dogs. I'll limit it to my dogs as an adult, and not the ones we had when I was growing up.

Wolf/hybrid, lived to nearly 13, 130 pounds, health problems: pannus

Gsd/lab, lived to 13+, 90 pounds, health problems: none until shortly before he passed

Sheltie/spitz mix, lived to nearly 17, 30 pounds, health problems: thyroid - on meds for 7+ years, died of old age

GSD, lived to nearly 12, 108 lbs at peak, approx. 95 pounds at 11, health problems: degenerative disks in back, but maintained for approx. a year and half before succumbing to this condition

Sheltie/keeshond mix, 17-1/2 (and still with me!), 30 pounds, health problems: none outside of aging - hearing loss, eyesight diminishing

GSD, 19 months, 88 pounds, health problems: sensitive digestive system, tested mutant/mutant for MDR1 gene. Fingers crossed for good hips and back, since he was a rescue and we have no background.

It's pretty apparent in my case that the mixed breeds were healthier and lived longer.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

I would guess that if the sire and dam are of good genetics and health,
the offspring would likely be as well. There is no doubt some decay
among purebreds can, does and has occurred, otherwise outcrossing would
never be desirable, and hybrid vigor would have no meaning.

Conversely, if the sire and dam are the worst of the worst, genetically and health wise,
the pups are likely doomed as well.

As for who is healthier, as a point of discussion or contention, I'm sure
folks could opine either way, but without data, it would most likely be
simply conjecture based upon one's experience.

There are breeders who worry about what they produce, and seek
to only improve things. Sadly there are many who don't, and we see and/or hear of the sad stories
all the time. But the recent trends to produce designer dogs by deliberately crossing two different
breeds are I hope a passing fad, and certainly not something I'd pay the sort of prices some charge
to host. Not that they can't be wonderful dogs, certainly they all have that potential, no matter the mix,
or combination of mixes...let's face it people, if mutts were so much less than, most of us wouldn't exist
let alone thrive!


----------



## ozzymama (Jan 17, 2005)

I think anytime animals breed it is a crap shoot. Genetic study can help, but nature seems to find a way to exist despite and inspite of man's attempts to "right" her.

Growing up we always had pure breds. My parents were purist snobs







Actually they believed pure bred equalled fewer health problems due to selective breeding.

My kids are mixed. Sandi's papa, nobody knows who he was, her dam was pure. Ozzy, well gawd only knows what is in him, sometimes I think gsd X demon. Truthfully he's probably lab/gsd or rottie/gsd, but I lean more towards lab.

Sandi has been plagued by only old lady problems and at 13 is still doing pretty good. Ozzy well, he has an issue we deal with and I worry about bloat with him etc. Beau who was dh's GSD was a showline, from a great breeder up here, he succumbed to HD and his life was shortened because of it.

I don't think necessarily one can say A is healthier than B because of this as it pertains to this thread. I think genetics has a much longer way to go before such things can be decided. Too many variables exist and *I* do not believe the influence of genes is truly understood. For instance how does one set of genes mutate, yet the rest of the genes are unaffected? I don't think we will ever have all the answers that's the brilliance of evolution in it's simplest form. Science can never catch up! Nor should we want it to.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Mixed is my opinion, but this is from my own experience.
I had a mix of Golden Retriever and Border collie "Clover", who was very healthy, she recently passed at almost 15. Her only problem was arthritis and that didn't start til she was around 12. I didn't give her the best food either, til I got into GSD's I was ignorant on that, thinking SD and Iams were top, (when Nutro came out, that was best at the time!)but I switched her food around all the time, grocery brands mostly. She was on RAW for her last 2 yrs. 
In the late 80-90's I had a GSDx and he died at 11 of bloat, healthy til then-no allergies, ear problems ever! 
Again~ same diet as Clover.
I know of a neighborhood built near/on a landfill from a pharmacutical company. Several pure-bred dogs have different health issues,(people, too) and they are now starting to think it could be the environment. They are on city water.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

No idea, haven't ever seen any real studies/comparisons. 

My purebreds have so far been healthier than my mix (hot spots, sensitive stomach, possible HD and need to get him x-rayed now that he's mature).


----------



## weber1b (Nov 30, 2008)

Our first dog was a shepherd mix, no real problems, just got old and we finally decided it was time.

Next was Sophie, a mix of uncertain breed, but likely lab/setter. No major problems, but had issues with a weak stomach, always had to be carefule of her food. Died of cancer at 11

Out two current dogs are both PB GSD (we think on Max, more on him)

Clover is 3 and has been the model of health. We understand she came from good stock but we got her as a rescue. she can eat anything, has never been to the vet other than the base requirements.

Max was no boubt from a backyard operation and he is a mess. Allergies, skin issues, bad hips. 

So it seems we are 50/50 on mutts and on PB. I think genetics and diet have a lot to do with it but science would favor the mix, all else being equal I think.


----------



## lauramichelle (Mar 11, 2009)

Just from experience....I vote mixed breed.

We had a pure bred mini-schnauzer. He got pancreatitis, all kinds of skin problems, and liver disease all before the age of 7. He died at 10 years old after thousands of dollars in vet bills.

My pure bred beagle died with invertebral disc disease at age 6....a genetic disease common in beagle and dauschands.

Our 14 year old mutt is still going strong...never been to the vet for anything but routine shots.


----------



## Woodreb (Oct 27, 2008)

I've had one GSDx and 3 purebred GSDs:

Max: GSDx - HD diagnosed and showing difficulty getting up at about 7 months old. Had TPO done on both hips. Didn't really have any other problems until his kidneys started going at about 14 years old and lived until almost 15. So - generally good health over the years.

Kelly - GSD (American Lines), good breeder (at least I thought so) Diagnosed with mild HD at 2 years old, but it never seemd to cause her much trouble over the years. Had an occasional upset stomach. Died very unexpectedly of cancer at 10 years old. All in all, healthy over the years.

Rica - GSD (American Lines), byb (I know I should have known better) She's had chronic ear problems ever since she was a puppy - probably from allergies and could not get the problem under control until I switched her to grain free food. Diagnosed with severe HD and back problems at 5 years old. Been on supplements and meds ever since to maintain her. Had one major surgery after she decided that rocks would be a good addition to her diet. But I have to admit that until recently, she's been healthy in other respects. She has been having infections of various types fairly often recently, but she's 12 and the HD/arthritis is rapidly catching up with her. All in all though the least healthy of any of my dogs.

Aodhán - GSD (West German Lines) The only problem that she's had was when she speared herslf with a stick at around 2 years old racing around the yard. Other than that, her hips are good, she doesn't have stomach problems, she doesn't have allergies. She wins for being the most healthy of all my dogs - and the one I took the most time researching before I got her.

Out of 1 mix and 4 purebreds only 1 purebred has really had multiple problems, but I'm not sure it's fair to say from my experience that mixed is healthier than purebred. Max still inherited his Mom's hip problems. And none of mine had any of the other problems that can exist in the breed, just mainly the HD.


----------



## Alto (Nov 18, 2008)

Note that _*hybrid vigor*_ can only come into play when crossing *species* - many people attempt to apply this concept to <u>mixed breed</u> dogs which are all one species, so No, hybrid vigor does not apply. 
I'm sceptical that mixes have fewer health issues, though one need only look at Cavaliers for a consequence of inbreeding


----------



## Mary Jane (Mar 3, 2006)

Inbreeding limits or eliminates genetic diversity-that is the whole point. This applies to simple traits arising from single gene loci or more complex traits. Remember that (generally) you carry two genes for every trait-one inherited from your mother and one from your father. What is not obvious is that an individual may carry a gene for a harmful trait-let’s say from the mother, but it may not be visible because the gene inherited from the father is normal and in this particular case, the normal gene is expressed (is dominant). It gets a bit more complicated because a harmful gene can be recessive (only expressed when inherited from both parents); recessive to certain other genes only; codominant (expressed together with whatever is inherited from the other parent); or dominant (expressed regardless of what is inherited from the other parent.) The simple recessive trait everybody knows is blue eyes: brown eyed people can have blue eyed children. In nearly all cases, blue eyed people only have blue eyed children.

The general discussion is that when GSD became very popular, inexperienced people began breeding without knowing the history and relatives of the dogs being bred. It should be pretty clear that a breed in which many individuals are related has a higher chance of having the same harmful gene present in both parents. If the harmful gene is recessive, the parents will be normal, but the offspring has 1 chance in 4 of expressing the harmful trait. Older breeds often were developed when it was the practice to cull any breeding stock in which harmful traits were visible. 

On the other hand, if you breed two unrelated individuals-like dogs of different breeds-it’s less likely that they will carry the same harmful genes.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: AltoNote that _*hybrid vigor*_ can only come into play when crossing *species* - many people attempt to apply this concept to <u>mixed breed</u> dogs which are all one species, so No, hybrid vigor does not apply.
> I'm sceptical that mixes have fewer health issues, though one need only look at Cavaliers for a consequence of inbreeding


Exactly.

I think the problem is not pure vs. mixed, but how they are BRED. If people were intentionally breeding mixed breeds with health problems, then it would be very similar to the current situation we have with many lines/kennels of GSDs. Breeders are overlooking major health issues in favor of conformation, and dare I say money, and THAT is why the breed as a whole appears "unhealthy." You can use linebreeding in favor of bettering health and genetics, too.

For these reasons, I don't even see the value in determining whether purebreds or mixes are healthier.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I always thought it was a myth that mixed-bred dogs were healthier than purebred dogs. You can have a mixed dog that is free of both health defects of each breed, or you can have a mixed breed that has virtually all defects from both breeds. I think (good) breeders are trying their best to eliminate common health problems in purebred dogs, and people aren't really doing that with mixes. Also, if you aren't sure what kind of mix your dog is, the health issues it could have might be a complete mystery until they start being problematic. At least with purebreds you can prepare yourself and adjust the pups lifestyle early on for the problems they are susceptible to.

I can't really say who I think is healthier. There's too many variables, such as what kind of mix is it? Is the purebred dog a well-bred dog or a backyard bred dog? Things like that really matter.


----------



## Alto (Nov 18, 2008)

Limitation with this scenario is that you are assuming mendelian genetics applies to the genetic trait & that the trait is controlled by a single locus on one chromosome ...


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Before I came to this forum...I would have said mixed instantly. I have learned so much from this forum and it making me look harder outside this forum. It has even been in my experience that my mix is healthier. 

Now I believe there have been some instances where mix breeding may have side steped a health issue...but I believe now that...mix breeding is a short cut to what good breeders are trying to do with one breed, breed health issues out. 

The answer to the question is not mix or purebred...it is GOOD breeding practices makes healthier puppies....period.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I do not think either purebred or mixed breed dogs are inherently healthier in general. I have owned both purebred and mixed and have had a mixed bag as far as health goes. Personally I have had both purebred and mixed breed dogs with various health problems. One of my recent dogs Pooch was a mutt who appeared to be mostly terrier. He was a small mixed breed about 25 pounds and he had severe hip dysplasia. He was also close to being brachycephalic and had some mild issues relating to that (for example he would sometimes have fits of reverse sneezing.) The mixed breed we had before that was half "cockapoo" (cocker/poodle mix) and half "mutt" and she had cataracts and hypothyroidism. My dog I lost most recently, Ginger, was a Golden Retriever. She was a purebred but she was a stray rescue so I don't know her past. She had severe bridging spondylosis as she got older and developed DJD in her hips and arthritis in her hips, back and wrists. Both Ginger and Pooch passed away from cancer. Ginger was 12 and Pooch was 14.

Any dog can inherit genetic problems, whether purebred or mixed breed. The only dogs I think might be healthier than the average are those who have been bred for health for many generations and whose parents, grandparents etc have been tested for genetic and inheritable health conditions. In most cases these are purebreds because it is rare to find breeders of mixes or crosses who are doing this type of health testing for that many generations, but it is possible. 

If not being purposefully bred for health, both mixed breeds and purebred dogs may end up with health problems. Now, some specific breeds DO tend to have more health problems than the average dog (mixed or purebred) due to their physical features, such as Bulldogs and brachycephalic breeds. You can end up with mixed breeds with these same problems if they inherit the physical features from one of these breeds though.

As far as genetics and having a smaller gene pool with purebreds, whether this is a factor really depends on how the genes for a medical condition are inherited. If there is only one gene involved in causing a condition and it is a simple recessive gene for example, it would be more likely for both parents to be carrying the gene for a health condition if they are of the same breed, but this may also be the case if the parents are of two different but related or similar breeds or breeds which are both common carriers of the same disease/condition. However many health conditions may be polygenic, codominant, or have other factor involved in the gene expression.


----------



## lcht2 (Jan 8, 2008)

im going to say, in general a mutt probably be healthier. everyone i know that has a mutt never has vet bills other than yearly vaccinations. if your breeding a purebred dog for health, temperment etc etc then it may be a different story.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Even though different breeds of dogs are all one species, there's no question that most purebreds have extremely limited genetic diversity because they originated with very small gene pools. So, given that situation, the odds of breed specific genetic problems cropping up are quite a bit higher in purebred than if that dog is a mix of breeds. So, in that sense, crossbred dogs are statistically less likely to have breed-specific recessive disorders. But they are equally likely to have dominant disorders, because they only need one copy of the allele to have the problem. And, as alluded to above, there are quite a lot of health problems that are controlled by multiple genes or have both genetic and environmental components. 

My gut feeling is that statistically mixed breed dogs are healthier but in my personal experience that doesn't necessarily translate into longer lived. So, what "healthier" means, is somewhat subjective.

Of 8 personal dogs I've owned, 4 were/are mixed breeds (but mixed breeds with at least one purebred parent), and 4 were/are purebred.

Of the 4 now deceased, the two mixed breeds (one Cocker mix, and one Husky mix) had almost no health problems within their lifetime and were structurally sound, maintained youthful energy levels, and were pretty much issue-free right up until they were struck down by cancer at age 10








far sooner than I expected to lose them, given their vitality up until that point. My two deceased purebreds (one Golden and one Rottie) in contrast had multiple and various health issues during their lifetimes, hot spots, allergies, structural problems, and hypothyroid, diminished physical capacity at a younger age, etc, but both lived to be 13 years old - which is quite old for their breeds. So...









I suppose it may make a difference what your dog is mixed with and how mixed it is. Of my sibling's two dogs and my parents one dog, all three extremely mixed with no obvious purebred ancestry, two lived to be 15 and one almost 16 and had fairly issue-free energetic lives. 

So, I don't know.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I also realized I forgot to add something. I think one reason why mutts are thought to be healthier is we don't have the health information or statistics with mutts that we do with purebreds. There is no one really tracking the health of mutts or what genetic diseases they might have the way this is done with purebreds.
Also in my experience it is much more common for people to do health testing on purebreds than mutts. If you own a purebred dog, you know what health problems that breed is prone to and you are more likely to be watching for those specific problems, and more likely to test for them as well. For example in my experience owners of purebreds are more likely to have hips x-rayed proactively when there is no problem, and thus they may find a dog has poor hips whereas an owner of a mutt is less likely to check the dog's hips (in my experience.) 

Another example-- if you take say a GSD and a mutt, I think something like hip dysplasia is likely to be diagnosed sooner in the GSD. Since the owner and the vet know that hip dysplasia is found in the breed, I think it is likely to be watched for more closely and a vet may also be more likely to come to the conclusion that a problem is caused by Hip Dysplasia if the patient is a GSD. 

I have experienced this with my own dogs as well. When my small mixed breed Pooch was doing bunny-hopping and holding one of his hind legs oddly, two different vets told me it was luxating patellas. They never mentioned the possibility of hip problems. I took him to another vet to be x-rayed to see if they could tell how bad his knees were, and they said his knees looked fine and under anesthesia they were not even able to luxate the kneecaps so they were perfectly fine. However they found he had severe hip dysplasia. Since he was a mixed breed and a small dog the other vets didn't consider that was the cause. In contrast, when I brought my Golden in to a vet because I noticed a slight swaying when she walked which was new the vet said she probably had hip dysplasia. When they did x-rays it turned out she had spinal spondylosis and her hips were not bad (she did later develop some degenerative changes in her hips as she aged.)


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

IMHO, it has more to do with the genetic lottery than anything else. While purebreds (bred by conscientious breeders) may be less prone to certain diseases due to breeders carefully choosing their stock, they are still choosing from a limited gene pool to keep the dogs 'pure.' Mutts may have a more expansive gene pool however, it's unlikely that the people behind their breeding are actively seeking healthy individuals to breed. Granted, something can be said for a dog's own knowledge of what can and doesn't mix (I believe pheremones can give animals knowledge of their potential compatibility).

Still, genetics are a crapshoot no matter how you look at it. You can have a purebred dog that's the picture of health or a mutt who's stricken with every disease common to its components.

Risa is my only dog and she's a mutt of unknown lineage. While I'd say she's overall quite healthy, she does have some chronic problems. Mainly digestive issues. She's had two bouts with SIBO and there are numerous foods that upset the delicate balance of her bowels. Not to mention she's a very anxious and fearful dog.

So, to me, it's just luck of the draw. You're gambling either way. You can choose to get a dog from a reputable breeder and hope their screening helps produce a sound, healthy puppy for you. Or you can choose to get a mutt and hope their mishmashed genetics will work out in your favor. No matter what, just enjoy their companionship.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

My parents had two dogs make it to 14, one a GSD mix, Princess; the other an English Setter, Pip. 

Princess had stomach cancer at 18 months old and needed a surgery. Other than that she was very healthy. At fourteen she had siezures with neurological signs, and the vet told us that it was her time. We euthanized her. 

Pip has been extremely healthy. At this point he is suffering from dimensia, but that is about it.


----------

