Ranting about horrible mix breeding between all animals no matter what the animal is

[black_cat]

That's not certain. Plenty of properly bred purebred of any species can live long healthy lives, just like plenty of mixed breeds can have numerous issues

Health issues are brought by breeders that are only breeding for conformation and have no regard for the health of the dog. You shouldn’t be buying one of those dogs anyway, unless they’re strictly on o be shown in conformation and not a pet at all.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

Health issues in purebreds is a complicated subject. Sometimes it is brought on by failure to select parents properly, sometimes its failure to outcross and freshen up the genetics.

Back in the 1800s when there was an explosion in new domestic animal breed varieties, and especially with dogs, people didn’t have as many philosophical hangups with 1) culling inferior individuals and 2) outcrossing to different breeds of similar traits when appropriate. Dogs were treated more disposable back then.

It often seems with animals, both wild and domestic, the more compassion we have for an individual animal the more it may hurt the overall species or breed.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

I also suspect back then people weren’t getting rich on dog breeding. There is a huge profit motive today to continuously turn out members of a particular breed even if they are inferior.

 

[roosterhavoc]

I’d like someone to define purebred to me. We have all sorts of breeds of chickens that are considered *purebreed* but are now a different color. Magically it’s now a *lavender whatever* that in itself defines it as a mix, cross etc..
Just because the birds can come looking similar by locking in traits through inbreeding doesn’t make it pure. The terms are thrown around loosely.

 

[NatJ]

I’d like someone to define purebred to me. We have all sorts of breeds of chickens that are considered *purebreed* but are now a different color. Magically it’s now a *lavender whatever* that in itself defines it as a mix, cross etc..
Just because the birds can come looking similar by locking in traits through inbreeding doesn’t make it pure. The terms are thrown around loosely.

If a chicken looks right for a certain breed, and breeds right for that breed, then it IS that breed.

So I would call it "purebred" if both of its parents were the same kind, and if it can breed with another of that kind and produce more chicks of the same kind. Basically, it breeds true.

Chickens do not have the kind of registries that are common with dogs and horses, where they are "purebred" only if their parents are both registered members of the breed. (I like the chicken system better--if it has all the right genes, who cares what the ancestors actually were?)

As for the different colors: first the breed does not exist in that color, then the color becomes a "project color," and eventually it may become an officially accepted color for the breed. The American Poultry Association has a specific process for adding new varieties of existing breeds, and for adding new breeds, and organizations in other countries typically have such a process as well.

Breeds did not just spring into being at a certain point in time. They were created by people using the animals that were available, and selecting the ones they considered best. That kind of work is still happening, and adding new colors to existing chicken breeds is one example.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

I’d like someone to define purebred to me. We have all sorts of breeds of chickens that are considered *purebreed* but are now a different color. Magically it’s now a *lavender whatever* that in itself defines it as a mix, cross etc..
Just because the birds can come looking similar by locking in traits through inbreeding doesn’t make it pure. The terms are thrown around loosely.

Chickens are defined as purebred if they have all the traits of the supposed breed and breed true every time when breeding with another identical bird. They can come in recognized colors and project colors

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

I think purebred is a relative term. Usually its most properly used when referencing genetic purity to a specific genetic lineage, but the starting and ending point in the lineage is subject to definition and redefinition. It has a degree of biological reality but only a limited degree of such. For the most part the concept more lives in our minds than it does the DNA of the animal.

Let's use my American game bantams for example. Frank Gary created the American game bantam by crossing red junglefowl (or IMO a junglefowl hybrid) to a pit bantam. He selectively bred them over several years and they began to breed true, and somewhere during that time or afterward a standard of perfect was created for them. Frank Gary's bloodlines are thought to have went extinct some time in the 1990s or 2000s. So those birds began as mixes and genetically are some sort of "half-breed." And yet there came a point where someone decided to no longer define them by their heritage and instead define them by what they became and bred true to. Was there a point they stopped being biological mixed breeds? Who decided when that change happened? The closest biological marker that has an objective reality is when they breed true. But what if they breed true in a relatively short amount of time? Say in the F2 or F3 generation? Are they a mixed breed at F1 and purebred at F2 if the F2s breed true?

My American game bantams were created using my junglefowl hybrids and crossing them to OEGBs. The F1 generation met the vast majority of the standards in the SOP for the American game bantam. Therefore they "are" American game bantams right out the gate. And so far my F2s seem to be coming out true to their F1 parents. But my F1s aren't "purebred" American game bantams if "purebred" means birds that come off of Frank Gary's line nor are they "purebred" if defined by coming off of parents that breed true to the breed. If "purebred" is defined to mean birds true to a lineage from a chosen point of time, my F2 and beyond generations are "purebred," but only purebred to my foundational lineage, not purebred to what came before.

I can think of a hypothetical where a bird wouldn't meet a SOP but would be "purebred." Take 2 white leghorns that breed. They're "pure" white leghorns in the sense that they've 50+ generations in to white leghorns of unbroken lineage. For the purpose of this hypothetical, its a given that no non-white leghorn ancestry has been introduced to them for a very long time. And yet when they mate they produce 1 egg out of 100 that has an odd mutation. The bird that hatches grows into an off color bird with a body shape that's decidedly non-leghorn. Yet its not a defect. The bird is healthy and if bred will pass this new body shape on.

It can be said that the hypothetical bird above is "purebred," but it doesn't meat the SOP for the white leghorn. So it could be possible that a bird to not meet the SOP at all and be purebred, and another bird that's the result of crossing can be meet the SOP exactly but not be a purebred at all.

I think the best definition has to be one that is based on genetic lineage. With the understanding that where the dividing or cutoff line is on the lineage is subject to arbitrary human decision.

 

[NatJ]

I can think of a hypothetical where a bird wouldn't meet a SOP but would be "purebred."

If you want a real-life example:
Wyandottes and Sebrights are supposed to have rose combs, but it's fairly common for them to produce chicks with single combs.

That's true even when people breed correct, rose comb birds for generations--sometimes the recessive single comb gene just does get passed down, and when a chick gets that gene from both parents you've got a single comb bird. No outcrossing needed, because the gene is still around from whatever original crosses created the breed.

 

[Franklinridgefarms]

To me if I am wanting a dog for a specific job or reason then a purebred is likely a better choice. An example being we have a working cattle dog, an Australian Cattle Dog. Mixed breed dogs comprised of dog breeds that are bred for similar tasks should also be well suited for their tasks. A mixed breed with several breeds in its background will likely not be as reliable to fulfill a specific job role, however they make a great companion. In my opinion it just comes down to what an individuals preference and or purpose is.

 

[Serenityintheverse]

There is nothing wrong with shelter dogs. It is not their fault that they are in there. Some are mutts and some are not. Each has had a run of bad luck and/or a worse owner that got them put there. Shelter dogs, most of them, need to go to a forever home. There is a big run on adopting dogs from China, India, Pakistan and other countries. Be aware that most of these dogs have not been properly vetted or vaccinated and been gotten into the country under the USDA radar. Dogs have been brought in that ended up developing rabies and there is now a new, Asian variety of Parvo, that has shown up on the West Coast. A strain that our puppy parvo vaccine does not work on. Also, for every dog you bring into the USA from a foreign country, a dog here in a shelter DIES because of it.

I have no issues with purebred dogs. Not all of them are ideal pets and some are terrible pets for the wrong people. These are some of the dumped dogs at shelters. Bad owner. Not bad dog. As for designer mutts, labradoodle, yorkipoo and whatever else you want to toss together, these dogs are $25 mutts. They are not worth anything and certainly not the thousands of dollars that gullible people spend on them. Used to be if you cranked out a litter of these, you quietly gave them away as an accident. Some clever person decided to market them and now, uneducated people are talked out of a lot of pocket money for anl essentially worthless mutt. Some of the mutts also have serious problems that "breeders" of them deliberately do not tell you. A bad one is the Goldendoodle. Many of these dogs suffer from painful matts because of the mixed traits of the tight poodle hair and the long Golden fur. The matts form close to the body and the only way to free them from the dog is to shave it. Save the shelter dogs and buy purebred ones. Stop supporting the breeders of "Designer Dogs" who are in it only for a fast buck.

Well said!! Bravo