|
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 319
|
|
Originally Posted by
wildmoor
Some Health Stats;
Epidemiology of canine visceral leishmaniosis in the endemic area of Montes Claros Municipality, Minas Gerais State, Brazil;- Blood samples were collected on filter paper from 33,937 dogs, representing 96.1% of the canine local population; The most affected breeds were:Boxer (24.6%) and Cocker (26.9%); Mongrel dogs had a prevalence of 7.8%.
Extract ; Myth#1. Purebreds are "weaker" than mutts. Mongrels display more genetic faults and inherited disease traits than any one breed. There are endless sets of statistics to prove this idea is a myth, but they never seem to convince anyone. This is probably due to the combination of the following:
a) Sick and crippled mongrels are less likely to be counted as they are less likely to be among the living, let alone among those dogs taken to vet clinic for expensive care.
b) No owner (breeder/vet) ever attributed a disease to a mongrel's breeding.
http://home.comcast.net/~NoPuppyMill..._genetics.html
This view is now outdated, the last 10 years has taught us where we've been going wrong. Do you know when this piece was written I noticed it points you in the direction of books/articles written in the 80's. Going back further the Nazis and the Royal family also used to think that inbreeding was the way to achieve a superior race. They were proved wrong. Linebreeding/inbreeding has been proved to be detrimental, do we stick to believing what we did in the good ole days instead of facing up to what we know now.
Not sure what a study on campylobacter and internal parasites in Hearing dogs has to do with this? It doesn't mention how many of the dogs they tested were pure breed and how many were mixed breed.
Originally Posted by
wildmoor
dogs with insurance claim for Atopic Dermititis;
The most common breeds were German shepherd (n = 16), Labrador retriever (n = 10), West highland white terrier (n = 10), golden retriever (n = 9), mongrel (n = 5), dachshunds (n = 4) and English springer spaniel (n = 4).
This is actually lower than what I would have thought considering the population of non pedigree dogs. Do you know what breeds and how many the insurance covered? and how many of them were mongrels? do you have a link? As said before insurance companies reflect their price on the likelihood of the said dog costing them money in vets fees, the very reason pedigrees cost their owners nearly twice the amount compared to mixed breeds to take out insurance.
Not sure what you're pointing out here. How many dogs were used ? how many were crossbreeds? how many of them were German shepherds? were there other breeds? A brachiocephalic breed like the bulldog, pug, peke, even the mild ones like shih tzus are at a higher risk of anaesthetic complications compared to mongrels with normal mesocephalic heads and open airways
Originally Posted by
wildmoor
''It is not true that mixed breed dogs are free of genetic diseases due to “hybrid vigor." Dr. George Padgett, a leading canine geneticist, wrote in Dog World in January 1997 that mixed breed dogs can have the same genetic diseases as the original parent breeds.. Padgett said that his files include information on 102 genetic defects identified in mongrel dogs, more than double the number identified in the Cocker Spaniel, one of the country’s most popular breeds. ''
http://www.geocities.com/ccrhearts/Poo.html
Mongrel (dogs) suffer from various genetic diseases, most diseases are recessive so in the population of dogs the likelihood of two dogs with the same recessive disease gene meeting up is uncommon. Inbreed these dogs (pedigrees) and the likelihood of two dogs with the same recessive disease gene meeting up is increased, even more so if the pedigree dogs are then inbred further. So whilst mongrels can suffer from a wider range of hereditary illnesses the occurrences are drastically smaller compared to pure breeds.
"In the 1990's Veternarian and Geneticist George Padgett wrote a book (Control of Canine Genetic Diseases) from which he is often quoted as saying that mutts are subject to more genetic diseases than purebred dogs. What Padgett doesn't say in his book, though, is what the chances of a mutt getting any one of those genetic diseases is, compared to a purebred from a breed where the genetic disease exists. "
Example - Prevalence of primary breed-related cataracts in the dog in North America
Fifty-nine breeds of dogs were affected with cataracts above the baseline prevalence of 1.61% seen in mixed-breed/hybrid dogs. The breeds with the highest cataract prevalence included: Smooth Fox Terrier (11.70%), Havanese (11.57%), Bichon Frise (11.45%), Boston Terrier (11.11%), Miniature Poodle (10.79%), Silky Terrier (10.29%) and Toy Poodle (10.21%).
"11.7% compared to 1.6%. That's phenomenal."
http://everydogsblog.blogspot.com/20...-of-mutts.html
I agree throwing two mongrels suffering from diseases together is not going to produce healthy pups. That doesn't however justify breeding two health tested, related, pedigrees together. Both are detrimental to our dogs health.
Not sure what your pointing out here?
Originally Posted by
wildmoor
Any genetic disease is caused by random mutations in the DNA which persist and are passed on to succeeding generations, any dog can get any inherited condition, I am sure if you all look you will find for one arguement there is always a counter arguement.
Yes you're right I could quote papers from years ago that support the eugenics theory that recommend breeding best to best and keeping blood lines pure, however the last 10 years we have learnt this is not the right way and is damaging. So should we shut our eyes and ignore modern population genetics in favour of how things have always been done despite the dogs suffering as a result?