I would really like to get the opinions of breeders/owners of breeds of dogs classed as giant breeds.  I've always liked the laid back, friendly nature of many of the larger breeds of dogs but when it comes to researching a particular breed for my family I find time and again the same phrase coming up "giant/large breed dogs do not have a long life span" - many of these dogs more often than not do not live to be even ten years old and any information about them is usually accompanied by a long list of potential health problems.  I find this quite troubling and would like to know if there is any evidence that modern breeding practices are actually working to reverse this trend.  Some things I would like to get a knowledgeable opinion about are:

Did breeds such as Wolfhounds, Leonbergers, Mastiffs, Bull Mastiffs, Pyrenean Mountain dogs, Great Danes etc (the list goes on...) used to have longer life spans?  Does anyone have a recollection of this?  I would at this point mention that as I understand it some mastiff/molloser type breeds do have life spans of up to 12 or even 14 years, such as the Tibetan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Central and Caucasian Ovtchuraks, Akbash etc.  One thing those breeds have in common is that they are much closer to their working/original heritage and have not yet been bred extensively for show/conformation.

Are modern "ethical breeding" methods such as health screening etc actually working - are these breeds starting to live longer and/or healthier lives?  Has anyone actually observed the situation getting better?

Is there a point at which out-crossing to other breeds would/should be considered to improve genetic diversity and health?  I've heard this was done with Dalmatians out-crossed to Pointers and then bred back to Dalmatians to reduce kidney problems but the healthier dogs were rejected by pedigree breeders (is this true?).

Given that one theory is that the rapid growth rate/weight may be a factor in both joint problems and some cancers should the standard weights and heights of certain breeds be revised?

I know many breeders are opposed to the "designer dog" situation and for the most part I understand why, but when I read about breeds such as the Mastiff and Bulldog amongst others being "difficult to breed" because of reproductive and/or structural problems being a common occurrence I have to wonder if nature is trying to tell us something, namely that these genes should not be being passed on as they would not be in a natural setting.  Sorry for the long post but I wanted to try to make it as clear as possible what I'm getting at.  Many of these gentle giants have wonderful temperaments that should quite rightly be preserved as they fit much better into a modern society than the more aggressive mollosser types but should something more be done to preserve and improve their health and does the answer lie beyond the breed standards and the rules of pedigree dog breeding?   

Hi,
You've asked some interesting questions. I just wonder though, for the record, are you researching just for your family and your own interest, or are you also reseaerching for something else: maybe you are a journalist or a TV researcher?

>Given that one theory is that the rapid growth rate/weight may be a factor in both joint problems and some cancers should the standard weights and heights of certain breeds be revised?

I think the idea of making a Mastiff smaller to increase life span defeats the purpose of the breed - if you want a smaller, longer-lived dog then don't get a Mastiff! Where did you hear the theory that joint problems and cancers are the reason for the Mastiffs short life span?

>I know many breeders are opposed to the "designer dog" situation and for the most part I understand why, but when I read about breeds such as the Mastiff and Bulldog amongst others being "difficult to breed" because of reproductive and/or structural problems being a common occurrence I have to wonder if nature is trying to tell us something, namely that these genes should not be being passed on as they would not be in a natural setting.

What are the difficulties in breeding Mastiffs? I have not read/heard anything about this other than if medical assistence is needed it is going to cost a hell of a lot of money.

>Is there a point at which out-crossing to other breeds would/should be considered to improve genetic diversity and health?

What would you suggest out-crossing a Mastiff with as every breed has it's own set of genetic problems and you then risk the sound temperment of the pure-bred dog by introducing a different temperment into the mix not to mention the fact that out-crossing with other breeds also carries the risk of introducing new health problems.

>Did breeds such as Wolfhounds, Leonbergers, Mastiffs, Bull Mastiffs, Pyrenean Mountain dogs, Great Danes etc (the list goes on...) used to have longer life spans?

Considering the wonders of modern vet care and the type of lives led by the early Mastiff  (war dogs etc..), I would have thought that todays Mastiff leads a much happier, longer life.

I wonder how long our dogs would live if left as nature intended, in a natural habitat, fighting for mating right and territory and food - not curled up by our feet with every medical problem sorted out. I also wonder why people blame breeders for the genetic problems of our pure-bred dogs, OK the breeders are the only ones that can help lesson the chances of an inherited condition - (no actually owners can help too, by making sure they get a dog from a reputable breeder and not keep falling for all this 'hybrid vigor' twadddle and thus getting crosses or dogs from BYB) but inherited conditions are just that - INHERITED, not created by man, which means that they have been passed down from the 'natural' dog and were there before man interfered.

>Did breeds such as Wolfhounds, Leonbergers, Mastiffs, Bull Mastiffs, Pyrenean Mountain dogs, Great Danes etc (the list goes on...) used to have longer life spans?  Does anyone have a recollection of this?  I would at this point mention that as I understand it some mastiff/molloser type breeds do have life spans of up to 12 or even 14 years, such as the Tibetan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Central and Caucasian Ovtchuraks, Akbash etc.  One thing those breeds have in common is that they are much closer to their working/original heritage and have not yet been bred extensively for show/conformation.

The only info I can find on the Spanish Mastiff lists it's lefe span at 10 years, the Mastiff is listed at 9 years so how do you come to the conclusion that 'extensive breeding for show/conformation' of the Mastiff could be the reason for it's 'short lifespan' in comparison to the Spanish Mastiff - thats 12 months difference.

How would you say the Mastiff has altered from it's original breed standard?

I'm just researching for myself and my family. 

I've loved dogs since I was a child and I suppose part of me would love to breed dogs one day if my circumstances ever allowed.  As it is I have to content myself with my two lovely dogs Scooby (Rhodesian Ridgeback) and Rosie (Rotti/Weimeraner cross) and reading loads about dogs on the internet.  I've had to research a lot about dog breeds because my husband is not so into dogs as I am and when it comes to getting our next dog finding a breed that we both like is going to be quite difficult, plus I just love learning as much as I can about dogs.  The most frustrating thing for me is finding out about wonderful breeds like the Mastiff, Great Dane, Leonberger or Greater Swiss Mountain dog (my number one favourite) only to discover that these dogs are not that likely to live past ten years old and will often have major health problems.  And then I've read about breeds like the Canaan dog and many others that have much healthier, longer lives and I'm left feeling like I would want that for any dog I owned.  I don't want to have to choose between the temprement that suits me and the health of a dog.  Its led me into reading and thinking about why we breed dogs the way we do in this country and whether a change of perspective could benefit certain breeds.  I've read about and corresponded with a few individuals who are trying to breed healthier bulldogs and have deviated from Kennel Club rules to do so and I think they do have their dogs best interest at heart and their goal is the improvement of the breed (which all breeders claim to aspire to).

If breeding pedigree to pedigree of the same breed and sticking to the Breed standards continues to work and the health of certain breeds can continue to be improved in this way then long may it continue, most breeds are after all fine just as they are.  But at what point does a different approach need to be taken for the benefit of the breed?  Is there, or will there come to be a need in the near future, for well thought out, professional and ethical cross-breeding programes to preserve the most desireable characteristics of the larger breeds?

its a very genuine point and valid question.

unfortunately the short life span of the large and giant breeds is simply down to the size, they don't run on as well as most smaller breeds.

> many of these dogs more often than not do not live to be even ten years old and any information about them is usually accompanied by a long list of potential health problems

the numbers you will be looking at are breed average lifetimes which can vary dramatically between lines. for example i've got bullmastiffs, we have had a boy live to 14.5 years and family of mine have had girls die at 6 or even younger. in both these cases though the bitches in question got cancer so had what might be considered a premature death.

bear in mind in this average there will be dogs that have died from accidents, bloat, that people have had pts after a serious injury and various other reasons.

health testing covers all the bases it possibly can but you can't test for everything, such as cancer. you can however pick a breeder who does the tests they can do and can tell you everything about their line and how they have lived and died so you can estimate.

i don't know the numbers but i can't imagine working breeds like those listed having longer life spans back in the day- for one you didn't have the vet and 2 in a working dog i imagine they would suffer burn out far sooner, they would be somewhat less 'coddled' than they are now.

were there any specific breeds and health issues that particularly concerned you?

> How would you say the Mastiff has altered from it's original breed standard?

they don't have a mane anymore :)

i did wonder about the breeding to...the only problems i've ever heard of in really any of the molossers is being a bit clumsy post birth.

>unfortunately the short life span of the large and giant breeds is simply down to the size,

Exactly. A giant-sized crossbreed or mongrel will have similar problems simply due to being such a large size.

>i can't imagine working breeds like those listed having longer life spans back in the day

Again, exactly. Dogs, of all breeds or crosses and sizes, generally have longer lifespans due to improved medical care and standard of living, just as the human lifespan has increased for the very same reason.

> will there come to be a need in the near future, for well thought out, professional and ethical cross-breeding programes to preserve the most desireable characteristics of the larger breeds?

> I've read about and corresponded with a few individuals who are trying to breed healthier bulldogs and have deviated from Kennel Club rules to do so and I think they do have their dogs best interest at heart and their goal is the improvement of the breed (which all breeders claim to aspire to).
>

well initially i'd say you can't really compare the two senarios. for instance the bulldog as we know it is enormously different from the original bulldog, however working molossers are pretty much exactly the same as when they were first developed (well the mastiffs changed a bit but 2000 years will do that to a dog :)) its not a case of inbreeding making them unhealthy, unfortunately the shorter lifespan is inherent in the dog itself. having just done a quick google apparently the average age of a dog in america/europe is 12.5 years. given the size difference in molossors 2.5 years is not that big a difference.

as to the change of breeding practises it is my understanding that the attempts made to recreate the original version of the bulldog have not been done very carefully and so are perhaps not a standard to consider such a move by. of course have not looked into this in a big way so could be totally wrong :)

what i would say to you though for considering this in your choice of dog, molossor types generally have very long puppyhoods, a good adulthood and a very brief old age. there tends not to be a slow decline thats so hard to watch, they tend to be in their prime right till they go. i personally like that, that they don't change so much and you don;t remember them sore and tired but vital and strong.

> I'm just researching for myself and my family. 

sorry if I was a bit OTT in my first post, I thought that you were just having a dig a pedigree breeders, sorry :(
I'm not a breeder and don't show, but have just fallen in love with the Mastiff breed and am very proud to now actually own one :)

>I've had to research a lot about dog breeds because my husband is not so into dogs as I am and when it comes to getting our next dog finding a breed that we both like is going to be quite difficult, plus I just love learning as much as I can about dogs.

SNAP!!! It took me 5 years to finally decide on what dog we were getting LOL

Thanks for your replies.  Sad that it just seems to be down to size but thanks for the point about different lines being a factor, it is something I will make sure I do more research on.

My info about Mastiffs being hard to breed came from an article I read - "So you want to Breed Mastiffs" by Sharon Medforth, a breeder of Mastiffs.  Perhaps it was just her that had problems or perhaps she was just deliberately trying to put people off breeding so only the most committed thought about *shrug*  She listed fertility problems in both male and female, whelping difficulties  being a problem and mastis being very common as well, when I read it it reminded me of things that I had read about bulldogs thats all but perhaps I was mistaken.  Thats why I made my original post, because I'm looking to get the views of people who know more about this than I do.

And while it is true that all dogs can carry genetic disease not all genetic diseases are dominant, many are recessive and outcrossing to other breeds that don't carry the genes for the same diseases can (I believe) reduce the expression of the disease carrying genes in the overall population whereas line-breeding can increase the expression.  Obviously I know it is not as black and white as that but the way we breed dogs with closed registries and the concept of "pure" breeds has reduced the genetic diversity of breeds and that can have a negative impact on the health of some breeds.  I'm not against pedigree breeding or anything like that, I'm just saying it does have potential pitfalls and surely people have to be prepared to consider breaking arbitary human construct rules about what breedings are acceptable or not if it were necessary and beneficial for a breed in general.  I don't know much about it but the example I gave of the Dalmatian Pointer cross to introduce a gene that Dals don't naturally have but need to prevent kidney problems would be a case in point.  But from what people have said there may not be a purpose for doing this in the mollosser/mastiff type dogs.  Oh well, I was only asking.

> "So you want to Breed Mastiffs" by Sharon Medforth, a breeder of Mastiffs.  Perhaps it was just her that had problems or perhaps she was just deliberately trying to put people off breeding so only the most committed thought about *shrug*  She listed fertility problems in both male and female, whelping difficulties  being a problem and mastis being very common as well,

I think that is an American article, Mastiffs are not common in the UK there were only 354 registered with the KC last year compared to over 45,000 Labrador Retrievers.

To mastifflover - I'm not surprised you are so proud, your boy looks like a fantastic dog.  And you were right about the Spanish Mastiff, I didn't read widely enough.  Some sites say their average life span is 12 which seemed higher than your average Mastiff or Bullmastiff.  But on going back over it I realise (as always with the internet) it depends very much on where you get your info from.

To Astarte - You make an interesting point about them having a short old age, I hadn't thought about that.  Quality of life is more important than quantity after all. 

> To mastifflover - I'm not surprised you are so proud, your boy looks like a fantastic dog

Thank you :)

> And you were right about the Spanish Mastiff, I didn't read widely enough.  Some sites say their average life span is 12 which seemed higher than your average Mastiff or Bullmastiff.

Researching dogs can give you a headache, sometimes the more you learn the more confused you are as there is so much conflicting info out there!!! I've found breedclubs to be a good source of info, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) variation between them (at least not the Mastiff ones :) ), but saying that, it's always best to check what country the website is from as there is variation between the countries, breed standards also differ in other countries.

in my breed they really ARE old by 8 9 or 10....its not a question of dying young because of some illness.....they just age much quicker. I have had a 10 year old terrier that looked like a 3 year old and went on to 17 but the hounds just age fast. Fact.

I don't have any giant breeds BUT would like to point out that large size equalling shorter lifespan is true for many animal breeds. Rabbits being a good example, where you can have Netherland Dwarfs and similar small breeds living over ten years, but British, Flemish and Continental Giants, being many times the size of a dwarf, only living 3 to 4 years. Horses -Shetland ponies will live much longer than giant breeds. It's NOT exclusive to dogs and it's NOT health related, it's simply size.

and its totally fair to ask. i think it's sensible to find out about these things if its concerning you before you set your heart on one.

> y info about Mastiffs being hard to breed came from an article I read - "So you want to Breed Mastiffs" by Sharon Medforth, a breeder of Mastiffs.  Perhaps it was just her that had problems or perhaps she was just deliberately trying to put people off breeding so only the most committed thought about

perhaps so. then again a carefully considered breeding of any dog is not 'easy', its an intensive task.

> And while it is true that all dogs can carry genetic disease not all genetic diseases are dominant, many are recessive and outcrossing to other breeds that don't carry the genes for the same diseases can (I believe) reduce the expression of the disease carrying genes in the overall population whereas line-breeding can increase the expression.

line breeding does not increase these occurances where health testing takes place as the testing removes dogs with 'bad' genes from the gene pool.

The most long lived dogs tend to be those that are small.

Wild Canids actually rarely live long past their reproductive age.

Wild Animals in captivity that live past their viable reproductive lives suffer from all the degenerative ailments like cancer arthritis etc

> And while it is true that all dogs can carry genetic disease not all genetic diseases are dominant, many are recessive and outcrossing to other breeds that don't carry the genes for the same diseases can (I believe) reduce the expression of the disease carrying genes in the overall population whereas line-breeding can increase the expression. 

The above theory only holds for the First generation, when you then come to breed from the offspring you will sooner or later be combining the recessive traits of one breed and the other so your combo breed will actually end up with both sets of problems.

this has actually happened with breeds in the past where an outcross has been made and a new problem brought into a  breed.

I suppose you could always just crossbreed, but what would you crossbreed with if no-one bred purebreds in the first place.

The Australian Labradoodles have found themselves breeding in health issues from both the parent breeds and are trying to outcross to other breeds, which of course will lessen things for a bit until that breed and it's issues are Incorporated into the gene pool.

The Border Collie is a breed which originally would have been various strains of sheepdog, from around the country and those in other countries like Australia and New Zealand.  Quite wide ranging gene pools yet the breed has at least four genetic conditions that DNA tests are available, has several different eye problems and also is as prone as any other similar size breed to HD etc, deafness and Epilepsy are also not uncommon.

Good post Barbara, I wonder how many of the problems within certain breeds stem from outcrossing at some point in the past?