Okay so there's a study where they looked at a bunch of medical records with certain genetic illnesses and the purebreds were more likely to have most of them. The anti-pure crowd loves it. The issue with that is it's anything labeled as one breed from the archives they used so could have been from a shelter and they guessed it was pure but wasn't, from BYBs, from pet stores/mills, people with mixes that just gave the dominant breed, etc. When you add in all those that basically amount to uncontrolled breeding then yeah makes sense "pure breeds" will be sicker.
But good breeders will have healthier than mixed dogs because mixed with no controls is still random genes smashing together. While well controlled will weed out all the genetic ailments possible and you could even breed for longer lifespan in general by saying x's parents lived this long but Y's parents lived this much longer and breed Y instead(assuming both lines were cleared of testable ailments). However getting a pup from a good breeder requires some work. Good breeders will have waiting lists so it might even be a couple years after you decide you want one to get one from them, plus even before that you want to get to know the breeder, what do they test for, what are they breeding for, do they know how long their line tends to live on average? What do other buyers of theirs think. It is much more than looking at a list of breeders that show and choosing one.
If that is more than a person wants to do then get a rescued mix and your odds are probably better than a rescued pure. A mix from a breeder would not be any better than the rescue unless that mix breeder does health testing and all that other stuff listed above.
So in short mix vs pure health depends greatly on the source. Want it easy get a rescue mix and it has better odds than a rescue pure of living longer. Want the longest lifespan odds possible get a pure from a good breeder.
All Breed of Dogs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest