|Barked: Fri Apr 13, '12 9:22am PST |
|Happy, I don't want to pick on you, but points in your post are so off base that I have to address them.
"Tia any 'mixed breed' study tends to be very slanted. The health of the particular group of mixed breed dogs will relate directly to the health of which dogs went into the mix.
Yes Hybrid vigor is used in livestock circles, but that doesn't mean that random breeding of two dogs is going to actually Work.
For example of why these studies tend to be slanted ... there are a genetic conditions that are exclusive to one breed or group of breeds. If the study is trying to say 'mixed' breeds have less of a chance of getting Collie Eye Anomaly, than Shelties, Collies, or Australian shepherds is Only true if the mixes aren't collie/aussie mixes... The same study could prove that Doberman's are less likely to inherent this trait, it doesn't really prove anything."
What do you mean by “random breeding of two dogs is going to actually work?” Work how?
We are not talking about ‘working’ here, we are talking about best chances – which means some are going to luck out and some are not.
Overall an owner has the best chances at escaping health issues with a random bred dog. Yes, some dogs will end up worse off than others. Yes, the chances in INDIVIDUAL dogs depends on each parent, but we are speaking of overall averages here and the overall averages pan out to favor the mixed or mutt dogs.
It does need to be recognized that a wellbred purebred dog, from a breed with a good effective population size, is also going to enjoy a comparably high chance at escaping health issues. At the same time there are some/many breeds in which health issues are inescapable no matter the breeding, and the health conditions are such that there are no solid tests for them so that is not going to change soon.
It does need to be recognized that the reason purebreeds are important is for predictability of traits. That is importan. They also can be bred in smarter systems than are currently being utilized, IMHO.
Regarding the idea that SOME of these studies are slanted because they are targeting specific conditions and your remark that ‘it doesn’t prove anything’, I'm going to call you on that.
You have ignored the fact that the MOST common conditions in dogs are amongst the studies I put up – cancer, glaucoma, and hypothyroid being common conditions that affect all breeds – and mixed breeds come out on top BY FAR.
This also completely ignores the studies on resistance to health issues faced and fought better by mixed breeds, parvo (CPV) being one that I cited above.
"This doesn't even address the fact that Inbreeding is actually the best and Easiest way to remove simple genetic faults form a population. You always hear that inbreeding is awful and horrible because it piles up on bad genetics but this is actually the most important part of it's use as a tool."
Inbreeding is FAR from the BEST way to remove simple genetic faults from a population. It is also not the easiest.
To eliminate simple recessives you need to produce 35 of 35 clear pups from a suspect carrier sire or dam, bred to multiple of its own offspring to give even a 99% certainty he was not a carrier.
So please do not state that inbreeding is the best and easiest way to remove simple genetic faults when that is not true.
What breeders tend to do is inbreed a stud to a daughter or grand-daughter or two and then declare he must be ‘safe’. Actually what happens is just the opposite of what the aim was as this has the effect of fixing mutations in the gene pool.
I have also seen breeders used inbreeding - in a compromised breed - to help scientists identify a DNA marker. That does not fall under the same concept as breeders "removing genetic faults" through inbreeding as the reliance is on the development a test.
"I'm not saying that everyone should go out and randomly use inbreeding but it's proper use is undeniably an asset to a population. This is used Heavily to remove bad genes from the breeding pool In livestock so you can't look at it as a black and white issue."
Inbreeding is an asset to a breeder that wants to quickly set a trait. For that it is often used.
It is not heavily used to remove bad genes and never has been. Again, if you are suggesting it has please provide evidence as I believe you are expressing an unsupported opinion here.
I also don't look at it as a black and white issue. I don't, however, wear rose-colored glasses when looking at the inbreeding concepts touted.
"I'll state I'm a heavy working dog person, I raise livestock and used to raise border collies, they're a breed that is build heavily on out crossing sometimes even to. Because you breed the dog that works rather than the dog who has a perfectly symmetrical marked coat."
And I’ll state that I have been involved in livestock breeding for the better part of 50 years – cattle predominantly but I have known well many who produce the occasional litter of pups from good working dogs.
Edited by author Fri Apr 13, '12 9:34am PST
|my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|