And if Capt Noonie was a nano -- would that be "Nano noonie" or "Noonie Nano?" :D I kinda like the ring of it! My mom had Yorkie that she named Chip way back when PCs were just becoming "the thing." It was short for Micro-chip -- but I supposed today, he could have been a Nano-Chip!

You will probably find certain breeds within the purebred category that are "sicklier" than other breeds. On the surface, it would look like there is something wrong with the breed itself, but with a little more investigation you will learn that the breed is too popular for it own good. When a breed is extremely popular, you get breeders who are breeding only for profit, and not to produce a beautiful healthy dog. Yorkies would be considered one of the most popular, and most genetically at risk breeds. That's why it's extremely important to find a great breeder when you are looking for a dog that's in the top five in popularity. Breeders, who breed lower rated dogs in popularity, are probably on the whole, doing it primarily because they themselves love the breed, and want to do right by it.

I also believe this to be true. I think the clincher is that dogs live significantly shorter lives than wolves, despite the fact that they live pampered lives with optimum nutrition and health care. All dogs come from recessive wolf genes, and it's clear that these are not the best genes for longevity.

Pet insurance also indicates that research confirms mutts are generally healthier, because it's cheaper to insure a mutt. Insurance companies don't have any agenda other than making money, and it is in their favor to price their product properly.

Finally, it's well known that breeders have often bred close relatives, even parent to child to "set" their line. This is bad for species, period. It is never good. It's very clear with inbred humans and it's clear with dogs. There's a reason that nature drives most animals to seek outside mates.

It seems to me that breeding is a dicey business - leaving it up to nature guarantees that you won't have specific breeds, and of course, nature mercilessly culls the weak. On the other hand, we humans with our limited knowledge and varying motives cannot make perfect breeding choices.

I've read that some breeds of dogs can literally be traced back to as few as a dozen ancestors. That blows me away.


(Disclaimer: I'm not saying all breeders are evil or anything like that. Breeding is like the economy - a lot of factors we don't fully understand come into play, and try as we might, we can't really control it.)

Wowza! Ha ha, a lot of replies! I don't think I can answer to every single one! We didn't do any tests in our lab involving dogs. Only plants. My TA was the one who was telling us about genes (and yes, alleles), and how she has a purebred dog that is in the vet every other week, and a mutt (which is the SAME THING as a mixed breed) who is always healthy. (We also took a survey of the class, and all purebred owners took their pet to the vet more than the mutts) Then she showed us why, that when mixing two, true purebred dogs, you are getting only a limited possible amount of genes that could be expressed in the pups.

Don't get me wrong here folks! When breeders do genetic testing to make sure their dog is healthy, that is great! And also expected! It usually makes for healtheir dogs! But if none of that was done, and you were just to mate two, purebred dogs, the likelihood that the pups would be sickly is very high! With a mutt, you have a variety of mixtures of genes, and they are usually healthy dogs with no genetic defects. Of course, there are those some rare occassions where a disease is passed down, etc. etc.

Also, I'm not just talking about digestive problems. It was simply an example. All I was trying to say was that when you keep the breed just in the breed, there is limited genetic diversity. :)

I don't know, I just thought it was interesting and something I never really thought about. We are going to get more into it on Monday, so I will let you guys know what comes up. ;)

You are a genious .

I have also heard that this was true . However, having two purebred dogs myself, so far, they have been healthy . Knock on wood ! i don't have to take them to the vet every other week , nor have they been sick . If this were always true then I would suspect people would not be buying purebreds all the time, and not be wanting them either. It would not be preferred , AND we would also be seeing a LOT of pure breds in the dog pounds and put to sleep in greater numbers then the mixed breeds , overall , in great numbers , then the mixed breeds combined . This is just my opinion , of course. I do feel strongly about buying from reputable breeders and staying away from BYB's puppy miller's and puppy stores . No designer breeds puppy brokers, internet puppy sales , either. Education , education and more education is the key to knowing the propper way to to bring home a healthy sound, puppy for life, no matter pure bred or mixed breed. :thumbup:

I like the sound of Noonie Nano! (We sometimes call her Noonie Nunez) But Uni is DEF not a nano! She's 5 1/2 pounds, perfect size for me! :D

I think you may be thinking of something called Hybrid vigor, but this works only if natural selection is in operation.


"Don't be duped into thinking that mixing breeds will result in healthier offspring. The truth is that puppies, whether purebred or mixed, inherit genes from each parent. If the parents pass along the genes for a hereditary disease, the pups stand a good chance of having that disease. Hybrid vigor—the idea that unrelated parents produce healthier offspring—works only if natural selection is in operation. In the wild, a dog with clinical symptoms of a debilitating disease such as hip dysphasia or epilepsy would not be able to survive, and so would not pass on its genes. But in the modern world, with reasonable veterinary care and a constant food source, dogs with serious, even deadly, problems do survive long enough to produce lots of pups. "

Purebred vs. Mixed Breed and other pet resources - FamilyEducation.com

Wow, thats really rude


I don't have any facts or research to add to the debate, I do have personal experience with both mutts and purebred dogs though. Growing up we had a mutt, he was large breed and had lab and ??? in him. He was as healthy as could be while we had him but my mother was a big animal rehomer and I don't know how old he lived to be. I myself have always had purebred labs, and now a boston terrier and yorkie. My labs have all had no medical issues at all, 2 of them came from BYB and 3 from very reputable breeders that do do all the testing and know their bloodlines. I really feel like it was a gamble with the 2 that came from byb's though, I just go lucky. Anyway, I'm very interested in everyone's thoughts on this (whether they are backed up by research or not) :)

And, a mixed breed and mutt are the same thing.

Haha, just thought it was funny. Look who is talking, genius :p. No need to be mean.

But almost by definition, mutts are driven by natural selection (ie, random mate selection / stronger males more likely to woo females and healthy females more likely to birth pups), whereas purebreeds are planned, no? Natural selection still operates on humans, despite the fact that our lives are significantly easier than they were in the Stone Ages - it's just different pressures, that's all.

In cases where humans are severely inbred, many undesirable traits crop up, and not necessarily related to disease. Intelligence is severely affected, as is height and general health. This was very obvious in western Europe with arranged marriages of royalty (ie, PEDIGREE), when a few too many cousins got into the mix.

I read some interesting cases of breeding gone wrong in Temple Grandin's work. Specifically, she mentions chickens, which are bred for white feathers and large breasts (I think this was a specific line of chickens). Apparently roosters need to do a little dance to get a hen in the mood. Somehow, by breeding for what humans wanted out of chickens, farmers unintentionally bred this courting ritual out of rooster instincts, and these roosters actually rape and kill hens, which is clearly bad for species continuation - it's never a good idea to kill the mother of your eggs.

It depends how you define the word "mutts". I'm not sure what we call a mutt is really natural selection. A large part of natural selection is that only the healthiest can survive to reproduce, as stated earlier, a dog with joint problems, or Liver Shunt wouldn't live long in the wild, so he couldn't pass these traits on.

I agree with you about inbreeding, it can produce extremes in either direction though, but this is different than breeding purebreds, and this is why I recommend breeders study up on breeding and genetics before they hook up their pair.

I have heard the same thing. Thanks for your post. I am interested in hearing more on Monday.

Great minds must think alike. ..... LOL! See my post #10 in this thread....."The theory your prof is talking about is hybrid vigor. But... it does not take in to account a breeder that makes wise decisions and there are other things to consider such as.....:"

PS -- I am JK here and not calling either of us a genius. Wanted to make that clear before .... well you know.....:D