# The Myth of Hybrid Vigor in dogs...is a Myth



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

I got in a discussion about this the other night with someone. And it sparked a renewed interest. I thought I'd share this article, as it's quite well explained.


The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth - The Institute of Canine Biology


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Several other articles of interest should any one choose to follow the hyperlinks. 
Thank you, Poodlebeguiled. Very interesting.


----------



## Carolinek (Apr 2, 2014)

Thank you , that was a good article. 

I thought it framed the concept nicely, and supported it with facts. Of course there is such a thing as hybrid vigor, or the outcrossing of the gene pool- that's just biology. Most people understand excessive inbreeding is not a good thing.

But it's been manipulated in the marketplace to sell a product, which is a whole different story.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

Carolinek said:


> Thank you , that was a good article.
> 
> I thought it framed the concept nicely, and supported it with facts. Of course there is such a thing as hybrid vigor, or the outcrossing of the gene pool- that's just biology. Most people understand excessive inbreeding is not a good thing.
> 
> But it's been manipulated in the marketplace to sell a product, which is a whole different story.


Yes, exactly. We talked about this here a while ago. I remember mentioning that there was a group...I think it was some husky breeders, maybe in Alaska...real working dogs (it's been a long time since I read about this) some time back who were outcrossing a completely different breed here and there into their stock..not enough to really undo the homogeny of the breed looks-wise, but enough to broaden out the gene pool a little bit...probably not a bad idea at all with the state of things. 

But yes, you're right...an excuse some byb of designer breeds use to make everyone think they're doing it right so they can let themselves off the hook for not doing due diligence when breeding. Not all, but I suspect a lot.


----------



## Carolinek (Apr 2, 2014)

Didn't they outcross Dalmatians too to fix a health issue? I don't remember the details, but it was something like that. Makes sense to me, better than losing the breed.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

Yes, I remember reading something about that on another forum once... that someone crossed a Pointer with a Dalmation to try and steer away from bladder problems in Dals.... one single out cross. I think when they're outcrossed like that they need to register the descendants (after some amount of time) with a marker (some kind of initials) in the registration to indicate that they were the product of out crossing.


----------



## spotsonofbun (Jan 3, 2013)

Poodlebeguiled said:


> Yes, I remember reading something about that on another forum once... that someone crossed a Pointer with a Dalmation to try and steer away from bladder problems in Dals.... one single out cross. I think when they're outcrossed like that they need to register the descendants (after some amount of time) with a marker (some kind of initials) in the registration to indicate that they were the product of out crossing.


It was a geneticist who did that and the bladder problem was caused by 1 gene I think so he knew exactly how to get the desired results. It wasnt random like the doodle breeding which isnt going to do much for the biggest killers like bloat and hipdysplasia which is in both labradors and spoos. 

I feel sorry for breeders in regards to the diseases that we dont know how or whether they are hereditary like bloat. So many variables and what ifs must be really hard to try to do the right thing. Although I dont buy the hybrid vigour hypothesis modern breeders must acknowledge that in purebred breeding COI% must be kept down. For some breeds that have such difficult problems breed standards might need to be changed and outcrossing similar to the pointer-dalmatian considered. I dont think poodles need that though.


----------



## Luce (Mar 4, 2013)

I know Petplan uses that to charge higher premiums for purebred dogs - I'm pretty sure I read that on their website. Their argument points to 30 years of pet insurance claims states that purebred dogs have higher incidents of hereditary health problems then mutts. That being stated, I haven't read anything on their site that specifies well bred dogs. 

From what I have read here on PF and some breeder sites I have been to, most of them guarantee their puppies do not have any of these genetic problems, and if the puppy does develop a genetic problem, they will take the dog back as part of their guarantee. If this is true about good breeders, I would not be surprised if a lot of the owners of these puppies would not have insurance on their dogs so the insurance company would not have this population of dogs in the records.

Knowing this, when I signed up to have Luce insured, I marked her breed as a pure bred mini poodle. I do not have registration papers, but I did see both her parents and spoke with the owner. Both parents looked and acted like poodles so that was good enough for me. Petplan did not to ask to see registration papers to prove she is a purebred, they took my word for it.


----------



## dogsavvy (Mar 6, 2015)

This has always struck me as a marketing ploy that would be funny if it weren't about living animals. Hybrid vigor would only apply to hybrids (such as breeding a horse to a jack which the offspring is a hybrid, a mule). But when you cross one breed of dog to another breed of dog... it's not a hybrid as they are the same species.

But if you take two healthy, well bred specimens. Say a Mastiff & a Standard Poodle (ugh, please...don't). They've cleared on hips, eyes, elbows, cardio, etc... & breed them, then yes you stand a chance that the offspring will be very healthy, because the parents were healthy. Then again if you breed two mediocre to poor specimens you stand a high risk of health issues. That's nothing to do with vigor but commons sense.


----------



## Ladyscarletthawk (Dec 6, 2011)

Poodlebeguiled said:


> Yes, exactly. We talked about this here a while ago. I remember mentioning that there was a group...I think it was some husky breeders, maybe in Alaska...real working dogs (it's been a long time since I read about this) some time back who were outcrossing a completely different breed here and there into their stock..not enough to really undo the homogeny of the breed looks-wise, but enough to broaden out the gene pool a little bit...probably not a bad idea at all with the state of things.
> 
> But yes, you're right...an excuse some byb of designer breeds use to make everyone think they're doing it right so they can let themselves off the hook for not doing due diligence when breeding. Not all, but I suspect a lot.



In Alaska there is a "breed" known as the Alaskan Husky.. Please for the love of god never say they are a mix, even tho they technically are lol. Anyway they tend to be of different colors and looks.. But they all look like some form of small husky or shepherd mix. They are highly prized as a sled dogs and they did introduce different breeds into them for their work abilities.. Seems like that is all there is in shelters tho. Of course they are not held highly by siberian husky breeders because many of these dogs do require booties while sibs and mals don't.. their words not mine lol. People that own them of course like the better than sibs or mals.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

According to Ray and Lorna Coppinger, authors of Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution  and who raced sled dogs, think the Alaskan Husky is indeed heads above the rest for sled racing. 
Conversation with Ray & Lorna Coppinger, Authors


----------



## ericwd9 (Jun 13, 2014)

One of the very few dogs that ever bit me was a Malmut. No growl, no posturing, no snap just BITE!! to the bone. Then let go and retired while observing my reaction. VERY dominant!!!
Eric


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

In the case of the Alaskan Huskies, instead of an actual breed, couldn't they be more appropriately labels as a landrace? There is no shame to that at all, and I think it woulod be more accurate. 

Just a random dumb thought.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

BorderKelpie said:


> In the case of the Alaskan Huskies, instead of an actual breed, couldn't they be more appropriately labels as a landrace? There is no shame to that at all, and I think it woulod be more accurate.
> 
> Just a random dumb thought.


Awesome! Love that double meaning there.


----------



## Tiny Poodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Luce said:


> I know Petplan uses that to charge higher premiums for purebred dogs - I'm pretty sure I read that on their website. Their argument points to 30 years of pet insurance claims states that purebred dogs have higher incidents of hereditary health problems then mutts. That being stated, I haven't read anything on their site that specifies well bred dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am thinking that their statistics must be due to that the vast majority of purebreds still don't come from reputable breeders. Petplan does not take into consideration if a poodle came from an Amish Puppymill, or the best breeder in the country. 
It does annoy me to pay more because I never have, and very likely never will have a poodle with an inherited illness, still Petplan has paid me way more than I have ever paid them, so I can't complain too much. Though probably they will make it up on Teaka - her rate is already $125 a month, she has not used it since her dental three years ago, and I shudder to think what her rate will be if she lives a healthy 19 years like I just heard that her Sire did! They may very well make up for their losses on Tangee with Teaka.
FYI, Petplan told me that when a dogs heritage is unknown, they will go with whatever the Vet's documentation says it is, so I always try to let Vet's know that they will do their clients who adopt dogs a favor by calling it a mix of whatever breed it looks like rather than just calling it that breed!


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderKelpie 
In the case of the Alaskan Huskies, instead of an actual breed, couldn't they be more appropriately labels as a landrace? There is no shame to that at all, and I think it woulod be more accurate. 

Just a random dumb thought. 

*Awesome! Love that double meaning there. *

Leave it to me to miss the so obvious pun that I accidentally made. lol 
The landrace vs breed thing is an ongoing 'discussion' with ******/Koolie folks. *I* have a suggestion that if people would be open-minded enough to consider would actually eventually fix all the arguements. *sigh* It's an uphill battle, and a vent for another place. 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

BorderKelpie said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by BorderKelpie
> In the case of the Alaskan Huskies, instead of an actual breed, couldn't they be more appropriately labels as a landrace? There is no shame to that at all, and I think it woulod be more accurate.
> 
> ...


Dang! I forgot to come back to this thread. I'm seriously getting forgetful. LOL. I thought you did mean it as a double meaning. I wouldn't have guessed. haha. I am familiar with Landrace strains of plants and things. So I guess these dogs would be considered landrace...the original that started right there. 



> *I* have a suggestion that if people would be open-minded enough to consider would actually eventually fix all the arguements. *sigh* It's an uphill battle, and a vent for another place.


So what would your idea be? Now if they started outcrossing to other breeds here and there, just a little, they may not be able to qualify as landrace anymore, right? I mean, if the breeds come from some other place, not Alaska. I wonder how many people, breeders, organizations are considering ways to broaden the gene pool a whole lot more in our breeds. It sure is needed. And I don't see a way without inserting some other breeds. 

What do the koolie people have to say when they discuss the idea of landrace vs breed? What's their idea and purpose? I'm a little confused. (not unusual, mind you.) :2in1:


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Right now the Koolie vs the ****** people are bickering over bloodlines, etc. It's the same basic 'breed' just the ******* here in the USA are being bred to just other ******* (hopefully), which in my mind leans toward a breed, while the Australians are still breeding Koolies not necessarily following a stud book per say, but by working ability, etc. so, in my opinion, a landrace. Not that there is anything wrong with breeding for working ability at all, actually, I appreciate it. There is still a bit of the old 'tradition' (for lack of a better word, my opinion, again) of breeding dogs based on working ability, complimentary conformation and ethic, etc. I have noticed a tendency for the merle pups to be labeled Koolies and the solids (meaning tan patterened usually) to be labeled Kelpies. It's not as common anymore, but it does still happen. 

Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing. Here in the states, we're getting a little bit bottlenecked for lack of a large enough gene pool. But when my friend imported a pair from Australia, I noticed a HUGE difference already in style of work, conformation and temperment. When I first met them, I thought the female was a Border Collie. BUT, they are still Koolies, they are showing herding ability already as pups. One is merle and one is a brown tan patterned (um, phantom for poodle people). lol I see the Australian Koolies as a landrace, I see the American bred ******* (yes, we're even disputing the spelling now lol) as a breed. There is even a split on working styles between the dogs from the two separate countries. There are differences in the style of how we raise livestock, so it makes sense that there is a shift in working styles. 

What I would like to see happen is perhaps we should split the two different styles of dogs into Australian Koolies and German ******* (this is how they are known here in the states) but allow the stud books to remain open to carefully expand the gene pool while maintaining health, work ability and ethic, etc. I would LOVE for the feuding to stop and we all start working together because there is a much more important issue to work out. Namely, a devestating genetic disorder that we still haven't found a DNA marker for. (boy, that is grammatically awkward!).


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

Oh, that is a_ very _interesting post. I must come back to it. But I need more time to go through it again. And I'm getting so tired tonight. lol. So, tomorrow I will try to get back and think because this is an intriguing topic you bring up. If I, in my overly-full brain (yes, no more giga bites left) forget to return, will you beckon me? LOL.


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Poodlebeguiled said:


> Oh, that is a_ very _interesting post. I must come back to it. But I need more time to go through it again. And I'm getting so tired tonight. lol. So, tomorrow I will try to get back and think because this is an intriguing topic you bring up. If I, in my overly-full brain (yes, no more giga bites left) forget to return, will you beckon me? LOL.


Hel..... Heck yeah!

Anyone willing to read the ramblings of a sleep deprived mad woman is someone I will need to beckon! 

LOL

Night night!


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

*"It is the pervading law of all things organic, and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things super-human, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law."**Louis Sullivan*



> Often called America's first truly modern architect, Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) argued that a tall building's exterior design (form) should reflect the activities (functions) that take place inside. His 1895 Guaranty Building in Buffalo, New York (view image) reflects Sullivan's philosophy and design principles.
> The Most Famous Phrase in Architecture, Form Follows Function


I think we, as a society of dog fanciers have attached ourselves very tightly to the concept and love of uniformity in dog breeds. That's, after all, how we got all these _distinctive_ breeds. But has it gotten too extreme? Has the horse run away with the cart? (Don't you love my metaphors?) 

This is the problem I have with some aspects of the AKC and the show world. I think they have forgotten what I feel is the life blood, the foundation of health....that _form ever follows function._ So I think the Australians have it right. Could they do with a little more uniformity with this breed? Maybe. Maybe there's a happy medium. We wouldn't have our distinct breeds if we didn't _repeat_ traits we like but in doing so, we reduce the gene pool and increase the chance for not only good things, but bad things. 

My ideal of a good dog would be one that can win in the show ring conformationally but also excel at what he is bred to do. If I were in the market for a Border Collie or an Australian Shepherd, I wouldn't hesitate to go to a farm or ranch where the owner has been raising his dogs to work on his ranch for a long time. If he were trustworthy and had been breeding dogs for ages, I wouldn't ask for health testing or show titles or anything. I'd see that his dogs are able to run all day herding, have the temperament it takes and know that a poorly constructed or unhealthy dog could not work like that. If they looked like the breed I was wanting, I think that would be good enough for me.

I think if they're bred without any homogeny in mind, then we'd lose our purebred dogs. Let's face it. 



> What I would like to see happen is perhaps we should split the two different styles of dogs into Australian Koolies and German ******* (this is how they are known here in the states) but allow the stud books to remain open to carefully expand the gene pool while maintaining health, work ability and ethic, etc. I would LOVE for the feuding to stop and we all start working together because there is a much more important issue to work out. Namely, a devestating genetic disorder that we still haven't found a DNA marker for. (boy, that is grammatically awkward!).


Yes, I think bickering over the different styles is silly. And two different sub types would be a great idea. Either that or come to an agreement and everyone get on the same page with breeding practices. But that doesn't seem likely because I am thinking Americans have gotten so use to the idea of breeding very closely to produce perfect homogeny. It's just the way it's been for a long time and not just Americans. I think the Germans played a big role in it, as they were really very good at fixing a type early in developing breeds. 

But now, with all the problems we're seeing with purebred dogs, their genetic health issues, some extreme, may well destroy the distinct breeds anyhow. Our purebred dogs are in real trouble. It's a land slide, gathering speed the more the same dogs are bred over and over again and their off spring bred over and over again. And only a matter of time before they die out or become so crippled by their health unless something drastic is done now. If it takes some outcrossing to other breeds, a little bit of loss of that uniformity to assist in diluting and maybe eliminating some of those genetic disasters that most all breeds have, I'd be all for it. I hope a happy medium can be found, so that we still retain the different breeds, but make sure that their form follows function. Make sure they can do physically and mentally what they're suppose to be able to do first and foremost. That should be the emphasis in my mind.


----------



## BorderKelpie (Dec 3, 2011)

The (working) Kelpie breeders had Kelpies pulled from the AKC misc group for just that reason. Actually, in Australia, there are now two Kelpie 'breeds' the Working Kelpie and the Bench Kelpie. Even a non-dog person can see the differences already. When I was showing in AKC, I was horribly disappointed to see Border Collies start that very same split in type. One of the most disappointing things I saw was a pretty BC fail a Herding Instincts Test. She was a finished show champion and they had plans on breeding her. She was pretty, but looked like an Aussie with a tail. We (working, herding folks) have a nickname for those collies - they are no longer Border Collies, they are Barbie Collies. I guess they're pretty, but in my eyes, and I realize that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder - there is nothing more beautiful than seeing a healthy, happy dog working. 

Now, I am NOT blaming AKC for the divergence in types. What I blame is the mis-interpretation of the standards and humans' need (?) to be better, more extreme, or whatever drives that vanity laden nonesense that causes the health and temperment issues in our companion animals. It's not just dogs, look what humans have done to horses, cats, parrots, etc. (sorry, I will never be able to get over Impressive, the QH stallion issues and Munchkin cats - no offense to anyone with those, but look deeper into some of the health issues that have popped up with those as just two examples) Oh, and blue Amazon parrots - just why?)

Once upon a time, a long time ago, GSDs in Germany had to pass health and temperment tests to be issued breeding rights. Now, the temperment tests have been turned into a sport and dogs that are being 'tested' are trained from weaning to perform. That sort of skews the results a bit. 

Back to the K/*******, one of the biggest issues (not including the CA) is lately people are choosing the 'pretty' dogs since there isn't as many working venues for them. Quality tends to fall apart when any animal is bred just for asthetics. ******* are a merle breed, people look at the solids and think they don't 'look' like *******. Call me weird, (most people do lol) but I prefer the tan pattern/solids over merle. Although, if you looked at my *******, you wouldn't believe that. I chose mine for the jobs I had for them, not the flashy looks of them. (don't tell the others, but I think my cryptic merle is the prettiest color, but my blue-eyed, black sable merle with the heavy pied markings is by far the best of my *******). 

top be continued - I'm at work and should probably be IDK, working? lol


----------



## Poodlebeguiled (May 27, 2013)

BorderKelpie said:


> The (working) Kelpie breeders had Kelpies pulled from the AKC misc group for just that reason. Actually, in Australia, there are now two Kelpie 'breeds' the Working Kelpie and the Bench Kelpie. Even a non-dog person can see the differences already. When I was showing in AKC, I was horribly disappointed to see Border Collies start that very same split in type. One of the most disappointing things I saw was a pretty BC fail a Herding Instincts Test. She was a finished show champion and they had plans on breeding her. She was pretty, but looked like an Aussie with a tail. We (working, herding folks) have a nickname for those collies - they are no longer Border Collies, they are Barbie Collies. I guess they're pretty, but in my eyes, and I realize that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder - there is nothing more beautiful than seeing a healthy, happy dog working.
> 
> Now, I am NOT blaming AKC for the divergence in types. What I blame is the mis-interpretation of the standards and humans' need (?) to be better, more extreme, or whatever drives that vanity laden nonesense that causes the health and temperment issues in our companion animals. It's not just dogs, look what humans have done to horses, cats, parrots, etc. (sorry, I will never be able to get over Impressive, the QH stallion issues and Munchkin cats - no offense to anyone with those, but look deeper into some of the health issues that have popped up with those as just two examples) Oh, and blue Amazon parrots - just why?)
> 
> ...


Yes, I know that about the Border Collies....beautiful coats but the abilities are getting watered down. You're so right about humans and their need for extreme. And the looks being more important than their originally intended function.

I had horses for most of my life and I do know about Impressive, even though I didn't have quarter horses. It was so talked about and awful. And yes, Munchkin cats. How very pathetic to take a mutation and capitalize on it at the expense of an animal. The extreme of the English Bull dog and other brachiocephalic breeds, both cats and dogs. I once had a Himalayan cat, probably a byb...I'm not sure. It's been a long time. But I took him to the vet and said something like his face isn't as flat as they "should" be. He must not be show quality. And the vet said, "He can breathe so that is good." He was right. It breaks my heart to see some of the crap humans have caused.

I think I do blame in part, the AKC because there are written standards that have been in place for a long time. If those standards support the functionality of the dog, then the judges should stick to them. I think many times judges are bending to the whims you talk about....of vanity and extremes and not adhering to the standards in all cases and not strictly. I could be off base there. But that's what I have a feeling is part of it.

Anyhow... I do hope something is done to broaden the gene pools substantially...some how or another because as time goes on a little more and lessen genetic defects, I hate to think what the future holds for purebred dogs.


----------

