> And like I have asked CB without getting an answer -WHY do these people breed?

I suspect the reason we haven't had an answer is that the only answers left are the BYBs ones of - because he/she is so sweet, they want them to experience pups, they love breeding etc or the more honest but never uttered - for the money!

I think most people assume health and temperament are pre-requisites for breeding full stop, but that adherence to breed standard and/or working ability have to be there in addition.

No litter should be bred without the three areas being satisfied, health temperament and quality. 

That is the reason there are so many unhealthy dogs, dogs of poor temperament and poor quality in all spheres, and not because a breeders selection priorities are work or show.

> No litter should be bred without the three areas being satisfied, health temperament and quality. 
>
> That is the reason there are so many unhealthy dogs, dogs of poor temperament and poor quality in all spheres, and not because a breeders selection priorities are work or show.

Great post.

> can someone explain how a breeder decides which dogs are of good quality. In some high number breeds (say labradors), obtaining, say, a 3rd place several times in a high number class would, I assume, be good. In breeds where numbers are small, would the same level of places still indicate that the dog was good enough to breed from ??

Much more to it than this.

I have winning bitches and one or two who have been very sparingly shown. One in particular was shown a little as a puppy but not since.

I also have a very nice junior..never unplaced at championship shows in many very large classes ( upwards of 20+).
I wont be breeding from the nice junior because she has things about her I dont like despite many people thinking Im mad not to.Im pretty sure she will pass them on - so shes a no.

The virtually unshown one has just had a litter and it was probably the best Ive ever bred. Her mother, father and half sister are all of the type and good health I want so I decided that she ( despite not winning much) was the ideal candidate.

I seldom use a champion or very popular dogs and in the last couple of years or so, Ive used two virtually unshown dogs, owned by their breeders who have their extended family, many of whom I greatly admire.

Its a good start to get the opinion of experts in the breed (and allrounders who keep balance in any breed)  - usually by competeing.

But in the long run it pays to actually get to know each and every dog in your potential breeding dogs pedigree.
Year books, online searches, conversations with those in a breed who remember the actual dog and can describe them or 'dish the dirt' so to speak and watch and listen.

For many 'breeders' a pedigree is just a list of words with little or no meaning...to others its a history book, a reference work and a series of pictures.
That is perhaps why, many people on here must groan collectively when they read posts stating they have a bitch with an 'excellent pedigree', 20 champions, fits well with my bitch, ideal pedigree with no names in common and other such terms.

Thank you Toolz - very interesting :)

The virtually unshown one has just had a litter and it was probably the best Ive ever bred. Her mother, father and half sister are all of the type and good health I want so I decided that she ( despite not winning much) was the ideal candidate.

I have the same situation. I have one bitch who is very nice looking and has an RCC, but I would never dream of breeding from her for various reasons. I have another who I haven't shown much because she has a minor fault -but a minor fault which is very obvious and so it puts most judges off as soon as they see her. She's had a couple of BOBs at open show level and a few RBB at championship shows, but she'll never do much more than that, so I no longer show her. She was from a litter of 6, both parents Champions (although neither was a Champion when the mating took place). Her litter sister has 3 RCCs (one at Crufts this year), the ShCM, an all breed open show BIS, several group wins at open shows. One litter brother competes in agility grade 6, another is a SAR dog, another has one CC and the last one is basically just a pet but is starting in working trials. So everything is THERE in the background. Oh and she has been character tested and passed, has 5/4 hips and is eye tested clear annually.

In the first litter from this bitch, only two pups have been shown and both have won  RCCs. Two dogs work as security/sniffer dogs, the rest are pets. In the second litter which is just 8 months old only two have been shown so far and only 3 times in total (one once, one twice) -even so one has just won an RCC. Two others are in training to HOPEFULLY become police dogs. So this bitch (who most likely will not have any more pups now, as I have got from her second litter exactly what I wanted) is clearly throwing both looks and working ability.

This is of course why it matters so much to know more than just the names in a pedigree.

> Its a good start to get the opinion of experts in the breed (and allrounders who keep balance in any breed) - usually by competeing.

The uninformed breeder, or even a careful pet owner, might just find their eye drawn over and over again to some particular features of their favourite breed and not necessarily know how this is achieved (or lost) through breeding, OR they concentrate on that feature to the detriment of other points.  I don't breed but as mentioned before I have an academic interest and it's fascinating to hear 'experts' talking about the history and development of their breeds and to watch what is happening over several generations of breeding.

On that note I have a really good book about The Labrador Retriever by Lorna, Countess Howe and Geoffrey Waring.  Not my breed, but as someone with an interest in gundogs I've found it very informative.  It was published in 1957 and even then they were concerned about the "dogs masquerading under the name of Labradors which appeared after the 1939 war"

I bought my copy for a £1 from my Library but had I known how good it was going to be I'd have paid full price!

> Most pet owners don't know the type they want.....they just want a puppy that looks like the breed they like.

Yes, so they do know what they want :) They will want it to look and act like the breed they have chosen.

> I think they need to be educated where is the best place to buy a puppy and the "best place" is a breeder who does the best for the puppies and the bitch probably working to the ABS and staying true to type.

What indication have they got that a litter will stay true to type if the breeder does not demonstrate that they are breeding to type by showing or equivalent?

>The virtually unshown one has just had a litter and it was probably the best Ive ever bred. Her mother, father and half sister are all of the type and good health I want so I decided that she ( despite not winning much) was the ideal candidate. <br /><br />I seldom use a champion or very popular dogs and in the last couple of years or so, Ive used two virtually unshown dogs, owned by their breeders who have their extended family, many of whom I greatly admire.<br />

Isn't this going against what was said earlier in the thread? Only good examples that are proven good examples by showing/working and winning should be used for breeding? or have I misunderstood?

> Isn't this going against what was said earlier in the thread? Only good examples that are proven good examples by showing/working and winning should be used for breeding? or have I misunderstood?

I think when people have demonstrated again and again that they are producing quality dogs you can allow them some judgement of their own.  Surely that is reasonable?
If you "Google" their kennel name and many placings come up you can reasonably say that their dogs as a whole have quality and this has been demonstrated in a way that pet buyers can feel some assurance on. 

> Isn't this going against what was said earlier in the thread?

I think you also allow a little latitude if the breeder regularly shows, and who might decide to use a lightly shown dog or bitch in their plans.  These type of breeders can demonstrate in many ways that they are working to advance the health of their lines or for the benefit of the breed and would willingly explain to a potential puppy buyer just what they are aiming for.

These are the type of breeders who may be working to long term plans or following patterns laid down by their mentors many years ago to improve health or maintain old lines or introduce carefully considered imports to improve their breed. I think many of us can name a few breeds where studs have been used so much that there are few dogs in the ring that do not have him in their pedigree!

In truth these type of breeders might not be all that common any more and aren't perhaps the best examples for new people to attempt to follow as it takes a certain amount of expertise and experience to be able to do it successfully BUT if you read your history books this is how many of the famous old kennels became established.  ...and it's really interesting stuff :)

> Isn't this going against what was said earlier in the thread?

You would have to factor in the fact that I can assess the quality of the dogs fairly well by now, I know what they are likely to throw and I did say virtually unshown. The bitch in question did win a class of 28 at a breed show on her first outing and I rated her highly - but she wasnt my usual 'showy' type, more lazy and drab in temperament. An ideal temperament for a companion and so easy to live with but not as flamboyant as Id like. Add to this the fact I had another bitch only 6months older who 'took off' and became a champion. Showing another bitch of about the same age can be counter productive.
The unshown dogs have a champion ( or exceptional ) mother (a big plus for me) several very beautiful children and despite small cosmetic faults, excellent in structure and type and great health results...In other words ..proven quality.

The other thing which I don't think has yet been mentioned is that I would have a lot more confidence in buying a puppy from someone who had bred the litter with the intention of keeping something for themselves than from someone who only produced the puppies with the sole intention of selling every one.

It is virtually always forgotton by detractors, but people who compete in any field (show/agility/obedience etc) mostly breed dogs in the expected hope that there will be something in the litter that will stay and live with them for many years. Breeders have therefore a significant vested interest in producing healthy, longlived dogs of good temprement. Even breeders who perhaps do not class their dogs as 'pets' would not benefit in producing a stunning example of the breed that was dead at a very young age or too ill to breed on from. Breeders who have had to endure watching a dog they have bred and love suffering from some inherited problem are pretty likely to take steps to ensure as far as possible that this dosn't happen again.

On the other hand, someone who breeds only with the intention of selling puppies as pets to others is unlikely to want to keep a puppy from the litter, unless they want to replace a breeding animal, so the liklihood is that far less time and effort will go into planning the mating. After all, if the intention is simply to produce pups of breed A which look like a fair approximation of what they ought to and have more or less the temprement that is expected, does anything else really matter?

If you are actively involved in your chosen sphere of competition or work then you will be reguarly meeting or in touch with others and will therefore be keeping abreast of new developements. You will see that the dog who on paper looked perfect dosn't acatually in real life come up to the mark. Peer pressure will be brought to bear if you are not seen to be carrying out required health testing and the support is there from others if something unexpected happens or you need some advice. People will notice if your standards are visibly slipping and may be reluctant to let you use their stud dogs or recommend people to you.
This is not something which is applicable to breeders who breed only for a pet market .

The other point that was touched on earlier and I just want to follow up is that if only show/competition/working people bred litters then there wouldn't be enough puppies to go around and prices would go up.
Anyone looking at the crisis in rescue at the moment cannot fail to agree that there are more than enough dogs to go around so at the moment suppy is overwhelming demand. Another poster made a very good point that it is no bad thing if buyers have to wait for a puppy and it would permit a longer period of contemplation rather than rushing in and dealing with the regrets later.
There is also the issue that just because someone wants a dog dosn't mean they should necessarily have one. Responsible breeders who have invested money, time, effort and love on their puppies are going to be very careful about where they end up. They would rather hang on to a puppy indefinitely rather than sell it to someone who they didn't feel would give it a good home. But anyone trying to turn a profit is not going to want a growing puppy needing more food, vaccinations training etc around for longer than necessary, especially if every week that passes it starts to lose its puppy charm. Selling the dog becomes more important than who it is sold to.

I don't think it is acatually wrong for someone to incidentally make a 'profit' on a litter. The trouble starts when this is the intention from the start. If your motivation for breeding is to finance a new conservatory, then the whole focus alters away from doing the very best by the breed, bitch, puppies and future owners and settles on how to trim expenditure here and there.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule of course but it's probably accurate to say the above is correct in the majority of cases.

Well written piece, thank you TCL. :-)

> And no one makes any profit from breeding a litter they do it for the good of the breed.

I wouldn't say that because to say that no one ever makes a profit would be a lie.  It shouldn't be done for profit, and those who are able to make a decent profit would be few and far between (lucky enough to have a large litter with little outlay in a breed that sells for a larger amount).

I don't think there should be any shame in making a bit of a profit, but most won't, and what little of it there is is usually plowed back into the dogs.

If you are £1 in the black when you look at incoming/outgoings then you have made a profit.  The whole point is that if done properly there is not 'business type profit' to be made.

And most people's experience will be little or no profit and likely loss.

>I wouldn't say that because to say that no one ever makes a profit would be a lie.

>I don't think there should be any shame in making a bit of a profit

>If you are £1 in the black when you look at incoming/outgoings then you have made a profit.

I feel quite refreshed that there are other posters on here that will admit there is a profit in some litters :)

No one ever said they made a living from it, went on holiday or got a new car! Just that they considered after their incomings and outgoings they had made a profit. It's abundantly clear there is huge variation what some include in outgoings, which obviously affects what they consider to be a profit.

> and those who are able to make a decent profit would be few and far between

that should read those who are occasionally able to make a decent profit...

> I feel quite refreshed that there are other posters on here that will admit there is a profit in some litters :-)

I would say 'can be' rather than 'is' and the operative word being 'some'.  A profit of any kind is certainly not going to happen for me at any point.

> I feel quite refreshed that there are other posters on here that will admit there is a profit in some litters

CB I'm not sure it's ever been a big secret, or conspiracy of silence, more that as it's only possible for some breeders, with certain breeds, in some litters, and even possibly at some times of year (!) it's safer to assume that you'll break even, at best.

I also don't think it wise to give people the impression that there is easy money to be made.  I'm amazed at how even the most intelligent of people start thinking of £'s if they find out the cost of puppies in my breed.  I've had a few people ask me about breeding/stud dogs etc as they just assume it's the done thing!  Also on an open forum like this you've often no real idea who you are talking to, particularly when they're new members, and I'd hate to be part of a forum that allowed puppies to be considered a cash crop.  I much prefer to hear the doom and gloom crowd who confess that breeding often costs much more than one would expect :)

Its hardly rocket science to roughly work out, that breeds which routinely have 12+ pups are more likely, in the first instance, to make a profit - than ones which often only have 2-4.

Finding suitable homes however, can be the main limiting factor in such breeds.

Swings and roundabouts. :-)

I'd be afraid to breed if I was in a breed that routinely had 8+ puppies in a litter (especially as these are often large breeds physically), much happier with my 4 - 7, and prefer the smaller litters, you get more pleasure with a smaller litter.

My largest litters have been 8 and 9, and I admit to a sense of relief once the first half of them had gone to their new homes, as was their mother and older relatives ;)

I was very happy with several litters over several years in a row that were just four pups.

Four is perfect!

Cant imagine breeding Newfs and facing the risk of 15 *eeek*.

I've had more than one litter of 9 and 10 and yes, it takes away a lot of the enjoyment and it makes it harder to find the right homes. The best Malinois litter I ever had consisted of 6 pups -nice and easy. I have 4 Papillon pups at the moment (all sold before they were born  I must add), you hardly notice them compared to the bigger pups -apart from when it comes to starting to lead train etc which I have to do before they go to their new homes, due to the tinies staying longer. But the poo and puddles is minimal in comparison that's for sure, and it's so easy to tell everyone apart! (Of course, markings help a lot as well here.) I wish I always could have litters of 4 in both breeds -perfect number. Not much chance of that though LOL.

The biggest litter Ive had was 11 boxers... :-(

I think 4 - 6 pups is ideal, either 2 dogs and 2 bitches or 2 dogs and 4 bitches (I only keep girls so that allows me a choice, though even when there is a choice in the sex you want, sometimes the quality is in the opposite..

Daisy was one of 11, and her mum's previous litter was 15, I think. My largest was 10. I think 6 is ideal for the bitch.

>I also don't think it wise to give people the impression that there is easy money to be made.  I'm amazed at how even the most intelligent of people start thinking of £'s if they find out the cost of puppies in my breed.  I've had a few people ask me about breeding/stud dogs etc as they just assume it's the done thing!  Also on an open forum like this you've often no real idea who you are talking to, particularly when they're new members, and I'd hate to be part of a forum that allowed puppies to be considered a cash crop.

I never thought of it like this and agree totally that people shouldn't be encouraged to think it's easy money.....it isnt!

I realise now why people were reluctant to agree it was possible.:)

we're having to drive to the shops to BUY newspapers for the sole purpose of using inside the puppy pen at night!

We have become paper connoisseurs over time and I recommend the Telegraph as a balance between reading and value on the floor :)

we're having to drive to the shops to BUY newspapers for the sole purpose of using inside the puppy pen at night!


I've had to resort to doing that on occassion....I like The Times and The Independent....! :)

You can buy bales of shredded paper,a and in the USA the lady whose dog I used uses the pelleted paper as litter.

I shred and keep all paper items and put the shreddings into an old bean bag outer, ans then use with pups. 

Main advantage is that it keeps pups clean and dry and easy to remove the soiled areas without having to drag sheets, and no sliding sheets when pups first start walking.

I also sit and shred newspaper by hand (obviously the shreds are larger), and use that too, especially once they are bigger. 

I find it reduces the smells when puppies poo, and it gets covered in paper before them manage to tread in it.  Makes the morning clean up far more pleasant when your not getting pooey feet in your hair and face while picking up.

Main disadvantage is that the shredded paper does travel around the house a bit, but I now use a piece of skirting board against the outside of the puppy pen side, which helps.

Invest in a paper shredder - we used to have a pony on paper and had all the neighbours collecting paper for us.  The shredder stood up amazingly well considering how much it was used.
 

ive had springer spaniel pups in the past which have been massive litter size of 10 :( but only had small size litters with my big dogs and have loved every min of it! (apart from the last litter when we nearly lost mum :( and thats why i dont breed now!) but small litters are the best!! forget profit yes its nice to break even but to be able to spend so much time in training them playing with them takeing them out in the car from 4weeks old its just a plesure to watch them grow and to go so well blanced im not saying a larger dont go being the same its just so bloody much hard work but it has to be done! id go for small litter anyday then profit :)
only reason i posted on your brainless is because the paper shredding is a very good idea :)

Because the paper shredder doesn't cope with newspaper tearing it by hand is a handy thing to occupy time during first stage labour.

I find newspaper seems to have a tearing grain.  I tear the whole paper along the fold and then tear into strips down the short length.

> Invest in a paper shredder

I have, have already killed one second hand one, plus a cheap new one, now on the third. 

It won't do newspaper though, other paper and thin card it does well.

I agree newspaper shreds better one way than the other, I've been using a shredder for newspapers to do paper logs for the fire for several years now and still have my original one.  Have also bought a newer one which takes a dozen sheets at a time.

What kind of shredder do you have that copes with newspaper then, as none I have had does, it gets all clogged, but then I have never bought one for more than £30 ;).

Its a Fellowes P700-2 and I probably didn't pay much more than £30 for it.  My old one is from Stationary Box and works for short periods and still shreds newspapers fine.

I do tear paper into approx A4 size prior to shredding.

I see it's a strip shredder, the ones I have had have been cross cut, and that is probably why they get snarled up with newspaper with the paper being so soft.

Will have to get this type next time.

I have to admit I wouldn't want paper to be shredded. It goes everywhere and poo falls through it so you don't see it straight away like on flat newspaper.

> It goes everywhere and poo falls through it

The first is the disadvantage, but I largely get over that with the piece of skirting board in front of the puppy pen.

The latter for me is the main ADVANTAGE as pups don't tread/roll in it.  I have no trouble finding the poo, as it's like finding it in cat litter, and of course my nose will find it.

I find it easy to find/remove the 'heavy bits' with gloved hands, and the wet bits clump so easy too.