Quote:
Originally Posted by roosmom  That's not true that it would double the risk because most genetic illnesses are recessive meaning that two dogs that both have the genetic recessive mating would be more likely to get it than one dog that has the recessive and one that doesn't have the gene. Now I'm not saying this is true for all genetic diseases but cross breeding does cut down on the risk for example- my yorkipoo puppy is still at risk for knee displasia so that must be dominant but it is very unlikely that she will get liver shunts. Now if you take my spaniel/rottweiller/??? mutt she has ZERO defects- 100% healthy dog- it's just a fact that pure breds tend to have more genetic problems- whether you try to breed them out or not! |
No, it is not fact, it's an opinion.
And let me assure you, I am fully aware of what recessive and dominant are.
I didn't study genetics and take cellular and reproductive biology for nothing. :P
Comparing the health of your own dogs does provide enough info for you to claim that to be a 'fact.' Are there additional sources of your claim? I would suggest reading 'Contol of Canine Genetic Diseases' by Dr. George Padgett who has done lots of extensive research on the subject. IMO, it is like the bible for any breeder striving to produce healthy generations. There are some very eye opening, FACTS that are explained. The offspring of cross bred dogs ARE capable of contracting the same diseases. In addition, there is conclusive evidence that there are additional conditions (try 102) likely to occur in the offspring of cross bred dogs that are not prevalent in purebreds. So I guess technically, it doesn't double the risk, it triples it.