Dogsey

About time someone put that bit of news out there.

Just like with mongrels and crossbreeds pedigrees really depends on who breeds them, good breeders will breed all of them well bad breeders will breed none of them well. Which makes the difference IMO

The above is right to a point, but even good breeding will not eradicate many health issues dogs suffer from, they like us are not immune to cancers, and many other health issues, sometimes no matter what you do , you cant predict something you don't know will happen.

A friend of mine has just been to a health seminar and basically the consensus was........ you can test for something's but generally most is "don't know , wait and see , he did say that "autoimmune diseases are on the rise, as it is with humans....... years ago this was rare, but today its all to common, same with cancers........

I think the consensus is , if we can test for it, we will but there is so much more we can`t test for and that's the problem.

These diseases don't discriminate between pedigree and crossbreed, all canine and humans are at risk of many of the same problems.

I find it funny that vets even have to try and put that out there. Mongrels and half breeds shouldn't be as healthy as well bred and "health tested" pure bred dogs, but often are. All the money that people pay for these pedigree dogs, you'd think that there wouldn't have had to be an argument to begin with but nope.

Test away breeders, but pure bred dogs won't be healthier than mutts in general, ever IMO. I truly believe that. And because of that I'll always adopt mixed breed dogs. Sure, you cannot predict a dogs health, and you can test for certain problems only to end up with another.

Well to be fair I have had crosses and mongrels and pure bred all have had their problems some from breeding one cross and one pedigree and some from just not being lucky in life although we all die of something so perhaps lucky is the wrong word.

Agree with that big time. I've had mostly healthy dogs, as well. Even when I was little, my parents rusty dogs were healthy. We all die of something and there's no way to prevent tons of things, so take it a day at a time.

I guess mjfromge knows better than the study done at the RVC...not sure what you mean by your statement. " finding it funny vets have to try to put it out there " , they are simple publishing the results of a study done on ALL DOGS, pedigree or not...

For to long we have heard the crossbreed is healthier than the pedigree, for once an unbiased study has been conducted to prove what many of us already know.

If you still wish to ignore a professional account then nothing is going to change a closed mind .

You're excused. I never refuted the study in it's entirety. I simply said that I believe that never will anybody be able to prove that in general pedigreed dogs are healthier than mixed breed dogs.

THIS one study certainly has not proved that (merely saying that they are "as healthy" as mixed breed dogs), so not sure what you're talking about?

You need to step so far back it isn't even funny. A closed mind? Off of one study? That was funded by the hated RSPCA? That JUST got posted?

And you DARE utter the word "unbiased"? Are you serious? Oh, please. HAHA! Move along madam, you're on something ELSE.

Can anyone link to the study? I guess it's in the article, but at the moment I can't read it.

I've not owned a purebred dog yet so can't really compare my experiences, but my two crossbreeds are very healthy ( touch wood ). I am of the believe that most genetic diseases are greatly reduced In mixed breeds. Makes sense that with a wider gene pool you'll have healthier animals in general.