How many of us have heard this argument now?  I must admit, I take a certain perverse delight in dispelling it by pointing out my ailing crosses, mean as that may be :-P  And I now have an extra bit of fuel for that particular fire.

Yesterday River went to Derby for an MRI, as her pain levels and general soreness have not improved much since she was diagnosed with HD and arthritis.  She's had 4 months of hydro and it's done next to nothing.

Turns out, she has a chronic problem with one of her discs - it's protruding/bulging a bit, and putting pressure on the nerve roots both above (within the L7 (I think) vertebra in her lower back, past the end of the spinal cord proper) and to the sides, where they come out of the vertebra and go off to the peripheries.  I had thought that the great dane that attacked her last year had damaged her but it seems he just made her worse enough that she started showing signs - this has been going on for a while :-(

So no, crossbreeds (River is 50/50 lab/collie) aren't necessarily healthier!  And this one has a few months at least of on lead walking, no jumping around, no running, and no playing with Remy because he tries to hump her, before she goes back for surgery next year (I have to wait for her insurance to renew again but it's a good thing as it gives us time to calm everything down as much as possible around the disc before what will be a tricky surgery).

Poor lass, hope it all gets sorted, sounds as if barely a pound of her hangs the right way :(

> I take a certain perverse delight in dispelling it by pointing out my ailing crosses

And I could add that my 15 year old cross isn't on any medication apart from fish oil and, apart from being a bit deaf and stiff in his rear end, can still jump onto the sofa, chase his ball in the garden and go for a good walk around the local common, although he does now prefer sniffing and dawdling round rather than being a yo-yo dog running backward and forward :) :) :)

It just depends who the parents were in any mating :) :) I'm not so sure why we are so obsessed with the health of our dogs when lots of humans take scant regard who 'they' mate with nor look after their own health ie food that they eat or exercise etc etc There are probably lots of people who shouldn't reproduce for one reason or another :) :) :)

I have a 10 year old never needed a vet and I hope I am not tempting fate and a 13 year old that has only been for dentistry the last I lost was on his way to 15 and and had been castrated at 11 with a benign tumour. They are pure breeds as were the 4 before them also never needed a vet, the only one that has was with problems related to the fact he was castrated young.

> I have a 10 year old never needed a vet

I should have added that I have a pedigree aged 11 that has never needed the vet apart from an accidental injury :)

The local rescue a few month back has a cavalier cross peikanese pup that had spingomaleria poor little thing.

Well, we all know that if you mate two dogs together who have health problems you will get pups with health problems it really makes no difference if they are pure bred, cross bred or mongrels - only thing I would think was a sure bet is that good breeders of pure bred pups health test and do their level best to produce fit, healthy quality pups - can't talk for those who breed cross, mongrels, or poorly bred pure breeds.

Niki,
Just wanted to say (((good luck))) for River's surgery.. All paws crossed for you both. Keep us posted.
Lots of love x

Im afraid that dosnt really prove anything, citing individual cases dosnt tell us whether "as a whole" crossbreeds are healthier or vice versa.  It has to be a generalization or average rather than one or two individuals ......these are just a part of the average

Im afraid that dosnt really prove anything, citing individual cases dosnt tell us whether "as a whole" crossbreeds are healthier or vice versa.  It has to be a generalization or average rather than one or two individuals ......these are just a part of the average
Quote selected text

Your right, of course, which is why it is totally daft to say that cross breeds are healthier than pure breeds, how the hell would anyone know.

> Your right, of course, which is why it is totally daft to say that cross breeds are healthier than pure breeds, how the hell would anyone know.

Wasn't there a recent study that claimed cross breeds live a year longer (on average) than purebreds? There was a discussion about it on Radio 4 - "a year is a long time in dog terms" they said, which may be true, but without any quality of life study to back it up, and a year isn't that long in human terms. An extra year of life doesn't matter to the dog, but matters more to its owners.

I'd have been much more impressed if they had said cross breeds live 5 years longer than purebreds.

and also isn't it true that small to medium size breeds live about the same length of time as crossbreeds as the majority of crossbreeds fall into the small to medium bracket, without the extremes of size variation of purebreds taken as a whole from Irish Wolfhound to Chihuahua.

The average for my breed seems to be 13 years 5 months, which I believe is about the same as crossbreeds.

> the majority of crossbreeds fall into the small to medium bracket, without the extremes of size variation of purebreds taken as a whole from Irish Wolfhound to Chihuahua.

I was going to comment on that in my post above but decided not to, as giant breeds do live shorter lives and the smaller ones longer and I would think they took that into consideration. So, proudly stating cross breeds live on average a year longer, still doesn't impress me, unless they bracketed it into size groups.

What did impress me was the BBC2 Horizon programme on cats tonight, where they said 15 years is average for a cat. When I first bred cats, 25 years ago, 12-13 was said to be the average, though most of mine didn't get that far due to accident or genetic illness.

>What did impress me was the BBC2 Horizon programme on cats tonight, where they said 15 years is average for a cat.

At work we consider cats over 15 to be 'elderly' - between 10 and 15 they're 'getting on a bit'. This astonished a Spanish vet we had working with us because in Spain they consider a cat over 12 to be very definitely elderly.

Im afraid that dosnt really prove anything, citing individual cases dosnt tell us whether "as a whole" crossbreeds are healthier or vice versa.  It has to be a generalization or average rather than one or two individuals ......these are just a part of the average
Quote selected text

Too true.

Over forty years of having dogs I've had more or less even numbers of both.

I've had crossbreeds that have lived to be well over their expected ages and never had a days illness in their life but just one who sticks in my mind who had more than his fair share of 'problems'.

But I've also had pedigrees that I can say exactly the same about. 

Curently I've 3 crosses and 3 pures.  The 3 crosses are in excellent health but 2 of the pures have genetic/hereditary problems.

What was the size of the sample and how was the research done?

This was just one person but when she met me and told me her dog had died I consoled her and asked the age and she said he would have been 15 in May - I went home and thought about it - the dog was in fact 12 - so word of mouth is not going to be very helpful. However the research was done they would have had to have a record of when each dog was born and when each died and one assumes from what, do wonder if the dog is not a registered pure breed just how this was done.

Have we not just had a survey to say that humans in some areas live longer than other - wonder how they factored that into the dog study.

I maybe wrong was the research funded or partly funded by an insurance company ? I think it was based on their data although could be wrong but something in the back of my mind rings a bell .

Had a quick look and the only recent one I can see is one done by Vetcompass who looked at a sample of 5000 dogs with an average of just over a year difference in favour of cross breeds. Personally don't think that is in anyway a large enough sample to give a accurate figure. It all depends on funding I suppose .

>a sample of 5000 dogs with an average of just over a year difference in favour of cross breeds. Personally don't think that is in anyway a large enough sample to give a accurate figure.

The findings that 'prove' the mammary cancer risk in unspayed bitches were based on a survey of about 25 bitches! A sample/response rate of 5000 would be considered fantastic for any survey.

Most of these sort of surveys/statistics and pointless there are too many other matters that are not factored in, and the numbers involved laughable.

Records of cross breeds, mongrels and poorly bred pure breeds are just not good enough rendering the results of such 'research' pointless and without any value.

I briefly saw a american article saying that crossbreeds don't always have this so called hybrid rigor, but I didn't look fully at it as o was busy, this was last week.

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613

If hybrid rigour or vigour worked with mammals over 99% of the human race would be super fit as we invariable out cross.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This was just one person but when she met me and told me her dog had died I consoled her and asked the age and she said he would have been 15 in May - I went home and thought about it - the dog was in fact 12 - so word of mouth is not going to be very helpful. However the research was done they would have had to have a record of when each dog was born and when each died and one assumes from what, do wonder if the dog is not a registered pure breed just how this was done.

Interesting point. In registered dogs you have the registration of the DOB so it is accurate in ageing them... crosses not the case. If they are from rescue then you really have no firm idea of age and it is a guess.

At the end of the day ill health happens to all dogs in the end as it does with people, some before others. Deliberate and careful breeding can help to reduce this and that is why it is optimal. There are lots of breeds that are good examples of this as they have had medical issues eradicated or significantly reduced. I've no problem with crosses, a dog is a dog and I'll cuddle them all :) but I do have an issue with people being daft and not listening to logic and spouting that crosses are healthier.

> If hybrid rigour or vigour worked with mammals over 99% of the human race would be super fit as we invariable out cross

But then you are back to the 'nature or nurture' debate :) How many otherwise healthy humans would live a lot longer if it weren't for smoking, overeating, lack of exercise ...................... Just the same in dogs - how many dogs die prematurely because of a bad diet etc  ?? Do pedigree dogs get treated better than mongrels ? Do mongrels tend to live in worse environments ? I like to think that my two dogs are healthy because I look after them well - but then they could just be from healthy stock (Tara's dad lived to 16) and what I do makes little difference :) :)

As has been said, it needs an awful lot more research :)

At work we consider cats over 15 to be 'elderly' - between 10 and 15 they're 'getting on a bit'.

Just like in dogs this is breed related.