I'm a bit timorous about starting this thread, and apologise if its been fully covered before, but I've been bothered by the almost universal claim that good breeders don't make a profit for a while now. I don't think that many people believe breeders when they claim that they make enormous losses on breeding, and so I suspect making such claims is, if anything, counterproductive. I also worry that such calculations may lead to puppy price inflation that is not always to the good of the breed in question.

I was having a look back over some old posts, and found a link to a series of financial sheets made out by sierra. I don't want to pick up specific points regarding another member's work, but I used the 'bred by breeder' sheet as a template to make out my own estimates. Admittedly I used different assumptions about what should be counted, have a breed with few health problems that usually whelps easily and has large litters, and didn't make allowances for disasters, but, except for a first litter, by my reckoning the breeder should usually get a puppy free and clear and make a small profit as well. Of course the profit is not anything like enough to live on, and doesn't cover the breeder's work, but then this is a hobby not a business!

Now tear me apart folks :D

I have a bitch who I have raised for 3 years and spent plenty raising her. On her first litter she had to have an emergency c-section on a Sunday afternoon. The bill was £550. Plus stud dog fees of £250 + scan at 5 weeks, price £45. Plus extra food for her, food for the pups, calcium supplements etc etc etc etc.
She will never be bred from again and will live to be at least 12+ ( i hope).
She had 4 pups that will sell for £400 each.

Now lets add that up!

ON SECOND THOUGHTS LETS NOT BOTHER I MIGHT DIE OF SHOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm definately out of pocket, but the bundles in the whelping box more than make up for it. And my bitch is alive and well.

Hi Nicolla,

Glad that your bitch and pups are OK :-) As I said my estimate doesn't make allowance for things going wrong. I simply don't know how to work that it in, because it depends on so many factors - the breed, how often the breeder has litters, even veterinary prices in different parts of the country. Maybe the only way would be to work out an average percentage of sections for all UK bitches, and then add that percentage of the average UK fee for performing a section to the estimate. But I wouldn't have a clue about where to look for the figures.

I do think factoring in the cost of acquiring and maintaining the dam creates some very shaky ground for the ethical breeder. Obviously I'm not talking about you, but I think our hypothetical breeder has to ask themself why they have the bitch. Primarily as a friend and companion? Then apart from some extra food and a few extra vet visits, she will cost the same whether she ever has a litter or not. To my mind it only becomes legitimate to add her costs to the estimate if (a) she would be kept in different - and cheaper - condition and conditions were she not used for breeding, or (b) the main reason to have her is as a producer of puppies. Both of which, of course, open nasty cans of worms.

Scanning is usually done for the convenience of the breeder, not for the good of the bitch or puppies, so I have doubts about adding that cost Adding stud fees is fair, but I've never seen a breeding estimate that subtracted the income from the breeder's own stud dogs. OK, not every breeder has a stud dog, but some do and I'm looking for a fair average, not a worst case.

I'm not trying to say that keeping dogs is cheap. It isn't, but then what hobby is? What I'm trying to reconcile in my own head are the basic principles we all talk about, and the sort of things that people usually add to their estimate of costs when they say that breeders make a loss on breeding.

You may make money on a breed that has large litters (although you have larger food bills etc than I have), but in my breed with the size of litters we have it is more or less impossible. I won't count my current litter (7 weeks old) as I haven't yet decided what I may keep etc, but up till now I have had 3 litters.

The first litter was a caesarian, I had 3 puppies of which I kept 1, gave 1 to my best friend and sold 1 for about the cost of the Caesar. It may seem strange to give 1 puppy away but this friend had done so much for me in helping me to keep my dogs including having the mother from 6 in the morning to 7 at night for 7 days a month when she was a puppy and moving in to my house for the week before the puppies were born to allow me to work up until the last day. If we worked that out in monetary terms I owed her far more than the cost of a puppy.

The second litter was a problem in that I had to get the vet out twice during the night for the first two puppies, and then ended up with a Caesar for the third puppy. This puppy died about 12 hours later. One of the other two puppies became ill at just under 4 weeks necessitating a night time visit to the vet again, and then had to be put to sleep in the morning. I was left with 1 puppy which I kept and vet bills for 3 night calls and 1 caesar!

The third litter was a large one for my breed, 5 dogs, born normally, and the only vet charges at this stage were for 1 visit by the vet to the house after the puppies were born to check mother and puppies over. However, I had taken my bitch to Belgium to mate her, so I would have to include pet passport costs, stud fees which were a lot more than I would have paid in the UK, kennelling for some of my other dogs whilst I was away and travel costs including a hotel in Belgium for 5 days. Because of how important this litter was to me I kept 2 puppies and once again gave 1 puppy to my friend. I sold 2 puppies from this litter.

All the puppies have had their innoculations etc before leaving. I am not attempting to include the cost of keeping the bitch etc because I would do that anyway whether she had puppies or not but I would say that having the puppies has cost me a great deal, at least as much as, if not more, than buying 4 puppies from another breeder. They are worth every penny though!

Joan
Take the rough with the smooth

HI, I think making a profit depends largely on a breed with a big litter size and lack of veterinary intervention. In my breed litters are usually 3-5, very occaisionally 6 or 7. They are not all easy whelpers and sometimes c scetions are needed. Last year I spent nearly £1000 on travelling to and using 3 stud dogs, £600 at the vets for 3 different operations ( two minor and one C-section),£200 on scanning and ovulation testing, let alone all the normal expenses one expects with having puppies and keeping 7 dogs which must come to at least £1500 for the year. We had two litters of one puppy in each - I kept them - and a litter of 5 which were all sold. I made quite a loss in fact overall. I made a profit one year when we had 3 litters all containing 6 or 7 puppies and easy whelpings with no problems. Needless to say I spent almost all of it on "them" by building a much more comfortable kennels for them. I dont breed/keep dogs with the intention of making any profit anyway, so I am happy with the situation. I expect those who breed easy whelping large dogs who have large litters perhaps do make a profit more often than with a breed like mine. But larger dogs also have so many expensive tests and X rays to be done and you have to waitt maybe 3 years with some breeds before you have puppies to sell anyway, and they eat buckets full of food!! Do any posters out there who breed fairly regularly even cover their costs let alone make a profit?

Hi Joan and westie,

Thanks for the replies. Not sure what breed Joan has, but I'll probably have to back-pedal on the more numerous breeds. But maybe in less numerous breeds, supply and demand has more to do with puppy prices than the actual cost of breeding? This subject was recently brought back to mind when I was told the going price for a puppy in one toy breed, and blessed if I can see the justification for the very high price mentioned in this particular breed. That’s also true of a number of other breeds, where I can’t for the life of me work out a correlation between the price of puppies and the expenses/problems of producing them. What worries me is thinking back, I know of two relatively uncommon breeds where puppy prices doubled over a very short period and imo it didn't do either a whole lot of good. The trouble is that if a supply deficit is addressed by increasing the price, there will soon be plenty of volunteers to increase the supply. So I think that instead of automatically retreating behind the 'ethical breeders make a loss' mantra, breeders - maybe only in some breeds - should give thought to the reasons for pitching puppy prices at the level they do, and the possible ramifications of that price.

I have Griffon Bruxellois and the prices for puppies are not particularly high, despite the very high demand for puppies. We had only 141 puppies registered in the year 2001.

Joan
Take the rough with the smooth

Hi Sharon in the breed i am in there were 93 pups registered in 2001 none of them mine We had a litter over christmas with 4 surviving puppies we kept one as we only breed when we want something ourselves to show
the others were sold at £400 a piece I'll do the maths for you that makes £1,200 Take off the expencess and what you have left is not a prophit not if you care for your puppies and wish them to have the best start in life.
I could have sold the 3 pups 10 times over, passing on the enquires to other breeders who have puppies is how we do it.
but the price for puppies stays the same year in and out when i bought my last dog in it cost me £300 and that was 4 years ago

I feel the only way to make a profit breeding is to become a comercial puppy breeder, who takes short cuts. Otherwise you are generally lucky to break even. I put much work, time and expense in raising a litter, the joy comes from seeing the puppies nursing healthily and heartily on their mom, and the most joy is when the puppies go to homes that have turned someones sadness or loss into happiness again.

Fraid I disagree on your views on scanning. It is definately not for my convenience, but to firstly diagnose pregnancy earlier than I can tell so I can arrange a feeding/management programme for her well being. also if there is a particularly small litter expected I can be sure to not over feed and hopefully reduce the incidence of difficult whelping. Also if the expected litter is large I can adjust feeding with confidence. From the convenience "side" of your reasoning - yes I can then know whether I can show the bitch or not - as I never show pregnant bitches, make sure she is not kennelled with a bitch dominant to her, exersise her on her own, etc etc, and these reasons are all primarily for the bitches well being and health and happiness. I can then plan my other dogs show entries/family events around whelping dates. Its up to each breeder to decide on what they think is a fair price, and if you are involved in the world of showing /breeding top class dogs - or trying to - you will be frowned upon by your peers ( judges/breed club committee members) if you are seen to breed too ofen, sell too cheap or to unsuitable homes ( i.e. some third world countries) which in turn will not do you any good in the ring or for ones general reputation. If you want a rare breed, the best bloodlines or one that is difficult to bred/whelp/ rear then you have to pay what the breeder wants for it. Something rare costs more in all walks of life, not just dogs. It is a very different matter owning one pet bitch and having a litter, if you are very fortunate then you may make a profit on this one litter, if it is alrdge and easily prduced one. But not when you have, like me, several other dogs to keep as well and no stud dog ( by choice) to make stud fees from. Top class puppies are seldom bred by a "one bitch owner", but after years of careful breeding from a line of dogs, which nececiates ( sorry sp) keeping numbers of dogs and caring for the oldies too. If you dont think that producing or rearing a litter is an expensive undertaking, either you haven't done it, have not done it properly or have been extremely fortunate.

Hello westie, I scan too and for much the same reasons. The earlier pregnancy is confirmed, the easier it is to make arrangements. But I would not say that someone who does not scan is being remiss in any way. Old methods like palpation, nipple changes etc still give a vet or experienced breeder a pretty good idea of what is going on in most cases. It may be different in a small breed, but scans provide only the roughest of rough guides to puppy numbers in large deep chested breeds, and unlike scans on a pregnant woman, give no useful information that I'm aware of about problems in utero. If a scan indicated the number of puppies reliably (and as I said, it may in your breed), or provided information about developmental problems or problems with the pregnancy, then I would consider it to be of benefit to the bitch and puppies.

I'm well aware that breeding too ofen, selling "too cheap" or placing pups in unsuitable homes is frowned on by the powers that be. I think that frowning on the first and third is absolutely valid, and wish that breed club committee members would do something a bit more energetic than frown, whisper and gossip about those. The second - selling too cheap - bothers me. Who, after all, decides what is "too cheap"? And what are their reasons for doing so? That goes to the heart of what I'm pondering about.

I agree that keeping numbers of dogs, especially including several oldies is an expensive business. Most hobbies are. But many people do keep multiple dogs that are never bred from. What I am questioning is whether producing and rearing a litter is quite as expensive as we sometimes like to suggest. In saying that I'm partly thinking back to a couple of "grand old ladies" of dogdom who freely admitted that they made a small supplement to their income from breeding.

Hi Sharon, I agree the old methods ie palpation can be very reliable if the person doing it is experienced. To be honest - I do not scan every pregnancy. In my breed, if they are clearly pregnant, by "tummy size" by 5 weeks then I know that I have a reasonable size litter - say at least 4 - and will know how to manage them, and that is soon enough for me to know as I dont manage my pregnant bitches much differently from the others until 5-6 weeks, except to make sure they are kennelled with a good friend or on their own. I usually only scan if by 6 1/2 weeks, I am still not sure from other outward signs or they have hardly expanded. I used to be quite anti-scanning as when I first started breeding, I had the first two pregancies scanned and confirmed and both bitches re-absorbed their puppies I assume, as none were born. Very disappointing, and too much of a co-incidence for me to ignore. For years afterwards I didn't scan, but took the bitches to be palpated, which I was happy with, less trauma for the bitch and less expensive for me! Then, last year I had a bitch mated, had a negative palpateand was not scanned, she went over her dates and I assumed she had missed. On day 70 after mating ( she was only mated once) she produced one puppy, amazingly alive and healthy. She had been returned to the kennel after barking non-stop from day 58 to day 66 in the whelping room, desperate to get back to her mates. I was very fortunate that she was kennelled on her own, she presumably whelped easily and that the puppy survived, as I went down to let the dogs out on the morning as usual, and found this puppy with her in an unheated kennel, though it was May thank goodness and toasty warm. This taught me quite a lesson I can tell you, I felt very guilty!! She had absolutely NO signs of pregnancy at all and had gobbled up her dinner the night before as usual. I now wait til 61/2 weeks, just to be certain that scanning will not result in re-absorbtion. I agree that not scanning is not a sign that the owner is doing anything amiss. I am more interested in how few puppies there are, rather than to rub my hands together in anticpation of a large litter! If it is a large litter, I will know soon enough by outward signs.

As far as price is concerned, I think it is quite justified to ask the "going rate" for the quality puppies of the breed, especially as I , at any rate, have only made a profit twice in 14 years. This makes me think that my puppies are actually under-priced at £400-£450 even though they are by no means a rare breed!! I cant really speak for other breeds, but in those breeds, if the normal price is very much higher than this from a reptuable breeder of quality stock, then I would view a much cheaper priced litter with suspision!! I see "where you are coming from" but you "pays yer money and takes yer chance". When I bred my first litters, I asked advice from the stud dog owners as to how much to charge for them, which was then £250-£350 for a promising puppy, and I have increased the price in line with other breeders of simaliar quality stock. I also rang the breed clubs and asked their advice too and they said the same as the stud dog owners. I sold my first litter for £250 each, in 1988, and one went on to be Best Puppy at the breed club Ch show, ( like most novices-I sold the wrong one!!) so the next litter was priced at £350, which I thought fair for a puppy of simaliar breeding and quality that would also do well - and they did! The top kennel in my breed, as far as I am aware, sells puppies for approx £600-£700, and if I were to ever buy a puppy in, would pay up without a whimper, glad and grateful to get a puppy from that kennel/bloodline. Here is what the average (4 puppies)litter costs me; Last year I had 3 litters -7 puppies and sold 5 puppies

2 New vet bed, spare heat bulb £ 40
Health exam and swab at start of season to discount any infection £ 20
Booster if due £ 25
Ovulation test - often two at £20 each £ 40
Stud fee+ travelling expenses, often includes carhire, overnight stay in B&B av: £500
Palpate + petrol £22
Health check for bitch post whelping - home visit £ 35
Scan +petrol £ 32
EXtra food for mum and puppies say for litter of 4 £ 60
Registration £ 48
Stronghold drop on at 7 weeks £ 32
Worming £ 12
Extra electricity for heat lamp up to 10 weeks £ 60
Eye testing at 6 weeks + petrol £ 35
Puppy pack ( comb, collar and lead, shampoo, toy, rask bone) £7 each £ 21
Vaccination of the puppy I keep from the litter £ 40
Health certificates for 3 puppies + petrol £ 26
phone calls to clients £ 20
_____
£1068
So to sell 3 puppies for £400 each gives me -on paper- £131 for 8 -10 weeks hard work! But in reality all of it would be taken up with things I haven't listed like 2 pots of Whelpi, shampoo, chalk, calcium/vitamin supplements, puppy sitter for the 4 or 5 daytimes (£20 a day) that I have to go out all day, paper and cartridge for the printer, as I do reams of info/instructions/photos for the owners to take home, meals for puppy buyers who come a long distance etc etc. As I have said previously I do not mind the cost, I'm not doing it to make a profit, but it would be nice occasionally! :-)

and that is with absolutely no probs, no C section or unexpected veterinary treatments.
Anyway I had better stop blethering!! What breed do you have Sharon?

just to be certain that scanning will not result in re-absorbtion Can this really happen? Does anyone know why? I always assumed that ultrasound would be safe in dogs, as it's so widely used in humans. I had 15 scans when I was carrying Isabelle, starting at 4wks gone and ending at 37wks gone and it's widely accepted that they don't cause problems with young human foetuses.

It's amazing what you learn on the 'net!!

Fiona

Hi issymum, my vet said that the scanning had nothing to do with the re-absorbtions that happened in my two bitches, and he may well be right. I have had about 5 bitches scanned since, 2 before 42 days and none have re-absorbed. It just seemed that it was a huge co-incidence that BOTH bitches re-absorbed their litters. They both went on to have litters the next time they were mated, and were not scanned. I didn't intend to put anyone off scanning, it just put me off scanning before 42 days - which is suposed to be the optimum latest date for re-absorbtion. the re-absorbtions could easily have been due to other factors.

Regarding scanning in humans - USS (ultrasound scanning) was originally used to detect potential problems in high risk pregnancies and was never intended to be universally used. As it caught on it became used more routinely until today, when almost 100% of women are scanned for dating purposes as well as anomalies. It has never been researched properly and now it is so routine, there could be no research as we could not get a control group. There are many studies done to see if there are any effects but with no particular outcome. There is an excellent book called "Ultrasound - Unsound?" written by Beverley Beech of the Maternity Alliance. One outcome so far measured is an increase in left-handedness which is in itself not important but there is some feeling that these babies brains are confused and they should really be right handed (please don't ask me to explain the physics of this) :) I write this with my midwives hat on, but I chose NOT to scan by bitch when I bred her as the skill mainly lies in the operator and not the machinery and I question the amount of practice a vet gets in scanning.
Lorna

Sounds like another goofy study to me, next week they'll claim there are more right handed babies because of it!
All three of my daughters had been ultrasound done while in utro. None of them are left handed. I had about 5 with the last one. She is healthy and smart as a whip!

Isn't that strange, Issy is right handed and I had 15 scans yet Eloise is left handed and I only had 1scan with her. I just hope that this latest query over their safety doesn't discourage pg women from having scans. I nearly didn't go for my 20wk scan with my second child but my mum insisted and it was discovered the child was anencephalic :(

With regards to re-absorbtion in puppies, I'd never heard of this happening until I started using this site. That sounds really awful. Does the bitch show signs of pg before this happens?

Fiona

In my experience yes, the bitches certainly appeared to be pregnant from external factors- raised nipples, frothy bile brought up for a couple of days at about 21 days post mating, changes in temperament/appetite/ taking more care of themselves generally and were scanned with a postive pregnancy result at around 28-32 days. In these first two Westie bitches that were scanned postitive, the vet didn't like to say how many, and explained that quite often they either cannot see them all or some are re-absorbed and some continue to form. It could be of course that the operator is not that experienced, but he said that he didn't like to say how many puppies because people get disappointed if he sees several pupies on the scan and fewer are born! This is partly why, now, if I am going to scan I do it later partly because at that time - 6 1/2 weeks that the vet WILL be able to confirm how many, and also a very little chance by that stage of a normal pregnancy of the pregnancy failing. I believe it is not at all uncommon for a bitch to re-absorb some feotus's and continue the pregnancy with others. It is not my intention at all to put people off scanning bitches, its just what happened to me, and the re-absorbtion in those two bitches could have been due to many other factors. It was not til this happened that I knew about re-absorbtion and since then have made adjustments to my bitch mamgement to ensure as little stress as possible during pregnancy. As I understand it the bitch's body in the wild can "decide" whether to continue with a pregnancy. If environmental factors were not good, i.e, being bullied by the Alpha female, threat from predators, lack of food or safe shelter, the bitch would re-absorb the puppies so that they would not be brought into a hostile environment. If the pregnancy continued in a hostile environment and puppies were born the chances are she would dispose of them herself at or soon after birth. If bitches are stressed in any way around the 5-6 week of pregnancy then they can re-absorb, which IMO is why pregnant bitches should be kept safe at home and not shown, travelled unecesarily or introduced to strange dogs or worrying situations. I shall ask my vet next time I see him what in his opinion is the physiological "episode" that triggers re-absorbtion - or does anyone else know?

Westielover, inquiring further into the cause or reason for reabsorbed puppies will not give you any better answers than you have just stated in your post. My vets have given me pretty much the same explanation. It's "natures-way" and really no different than with mis-carriages in humans. And like in humans, environmental factors and 'stress' can be the cause.
My concern is with the increased occurrence over the past six years, as well as, the increase in phantom pregnancies. There seems to be some sort of correlation, and not merely coincidence.
In my particular case, I can rule out scanning, because mine were never scanned.

My vet told me that feotuses are reabsorbed if they are unviable, ie not going to produce properly formed puppies, though stress etc can also cause it. Maybe the incresed number of absorbtion (this accounts for rising number of phantoms) is due to a reducing gene-pool??????

I would tend to say that the profit is eaten up by the running expenses of the kennel. Any business would take into account the cost of investment in plant and running costs, wages etc. Also showing is part of this expense! Any profit on the actual litter is soon taken up by the cost of the kennel. If it wasn't for the hobby, the breedr would keep one or two dogs for company rather than possibly half a dozen or more of the generations of their breeding line. In my breed which can live to 16 (average 13), even with spacing them out sensibly I could well end up with 6 just to keep a line going.

At best one offsets some of the cost of ones hobby, like the allotment keeper who sells off his surplus produce, has probably spent more in growing them. As the cost of equipment, manure etc has to be reckoned for not just seed and fertilizer.

There seems to be a sugestion that the 'small number breeds' should be breed more in order to bring down the price. If only it were that easy, in my breed the same as Brainless, every time someone wishes to breed their bitch they have long search for a suitable stud, in small number breeds the number of suitable males is very small and then if you find one that is suitable for your bitch you have to hope that the owner is prepared to let you use him. Stud owners are not being difficult when they say no, not this year, because if they allowed all those who wished, to use him, most of the puppies being born would have the same sire, then what would the next generation of breeding bitches do, most the available males would be related. Not the way to keep the breed healthy and true to breed type. Jackie H

that is why breeders then have to take the expensive step of bringing in new blood, which can cost many thousands of pounds. at the moment three friends and I have brought in a male puppy as an outcross to our bitches. It will have cost us over £3000 to bring him through to quarantine release date. 3 of us are likely to use him twice ourselves, and one of the others only has one bitch. we will be paying Stud fees as normal, as he is jointly owned, and this will offset his keep. He may or may not turn out well in the show ring and attract other breeders to use him.

A well used Stud dog who has produced 2 Crufts group winners, and is now 10 years old (also an Import) sired a toatl of 20 litters in the 9 years he was being used! this may just about have covered the cost of bringing him in to the country, and perhaps helped pay some of his show expense.

Why did his now deceased importer do it, as an invewstment in the quality of the breed!

The sort of person who makes money at breeding dogs small scale is someone who owns a couple of bitches of a popular breed, and a male of their own, and regardless of their suitability to produce above average specimins of their breed, mates the two bitches to the dog each year, and sells the pups at the going rate with papers. theymay even be well reared and cared for, but often the breed knowledge oif the breeder is limited, health checks non existent, and good results largely luck. They have no expenses showing, no expenses training and working the dogs, and will often let nature take its course regarding puppy care, if its strong it will live.

On two litters a year they would still probavbly nett less than the law allows as the Income Tax threshold!

The ones who make money big time out of pedigree dogs are those who keep large numbers and spend as little as possible to maximise profit, these we call puppy farmers, who are largely kept in business, by the must have now, get rid later impulse puppy buyer, and are often sold through very nice clean looking Pet Retail Outlets such as dogs R Us. None of them care about what happens to the dogs when the novelty wears off! After all there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there who will try and find them homes. Some of these nice people even think pedigree dog breeders should stop breeding, as there are all these homeless dogs! why are there all these homeless dogs, because the owners and secondly the breeders do not take responsibility.

People on this board are careful to only breed as often as necesary to satisfy the aims of bettering the breeds, and these rotters take up the slack. I had a person who had had a puppy from one of these puppy supermarkets ask me why did us good breeders not breed more so that he wouldn't have to go to a pet shop!!!!

Anything but Jackie. I wrote my rant last night, and posted it unchanged, although Joan and Kichigai's comments made a nonsense of some of it. My problem is that if prices in a breed escalate, there is a tendency for people to come along and produce more puppies. I'm not saying that all of those people are puppy farmers. I think that most of them are genuinely interested in the breed, but that the rustle of useful green paper is maybe somewhere in the back of some heads too. What I'd really like to see is breeders making a determined effort to keep puppy prices in their breed below a commercial level, so that rapid price increases will not be followed by a sudden proportionate increase in registrations. Again, the last thing I want to do is to offend anyone or cast aspersion on any breed. This is just something that I've been thinking about for a while, and I'm finding the responses very interesting.

Sorry Sharon, it is probable me but I still can't understand what it is you think would improve if breeder sold their pups for less when to do so would mean cutting corners. We are always pleading that breeders produce the best possible stock, surely we can not ask them to do that and also produce more and cheaper pups at the same time. Jackie H

Hi Jackie, I'm not suggesting that breeders reduce prices by cutting corners. I'm throwing some thoughts out for discussion.

First that in some cases the differential in price between pups in different breeds makes little logical sense. That suggests to me that something other than the costs involved in raising a litter affects puppy prices.

Second, dog keeping, never mind dog breeding on a small scale is a hobby, and like any other hobby, it is expensive. But I question whether dog breeding (as opposed to dog keeping) is - or needs to be - quite as expensive as we often make out.

Third I'm wondering if setting puppy prices in some breeds at a level that can be undercut, sometimes by a large margin, by people who are breeding commercially, and who are cutting corners, is an altogether wise thing to do.

And finally, if it isn't a wise thing to do, I'm wondering if automatically retreating behind a plea of 'all ethical breeders lose money on breeding puppies' is a valid response.

Think you have answered your own question, it is possible to produce cheaper pups if you are only interested in the price of the finished artical. No health checks, no home visits, no follow up care, no space or care for the returning pup/dog, no extensive search for a suitible stud, use the nearest or your own wont matter if it is not the best stud, no need to prove your bitch any female will do. You remark on the difference in breeds, yes well my breed is Elkhound and the stud fee would be between 300 & 400 hundred, my sisters breed is Newfoundland, the stud fee, anything up to a £1000. Why, well for a start although there are far more Newfoundlands around than Elkhounds it is far more difficult to produce a good quality, healthy, sound Newfoundland stud than it is with the Elkhound. The very process of mating is very difficult with the Newfi, the stud owner having to get far more involved in the process than most of you would wish, where as to the most part Elkhounds just get on with it. I could go on and on and I guess those with a good knowledge of breeding other breeds could give details of the difficulty of breeding in their breeds. Generaly the larger or smaller or more exagerated the breed the more difficult it is to produce sound puppies hence the cost of these breeds compared with the medium size/weight breeds. Ill stop before I bore you all to sleep. Jackie H.

I must have expressed myself badly Jackie. Sorry! I don't mean to suggest that anyone should cut corners to save costs. But look at the things you have listed as making the difference between cutting corners and not cutting corners. Health checks, yes, those may well be expensive in some breeds, and I have no problem with passing the cost of checks for puppies (eg PSS, eye testing) on to puppy buyers, although I'd argue that many of those checks should be done on the sire and dam as a matter of course by owners who breed, and not because the dog is to be used as breeding stock. I don't just want to know about the dam and sire's health problems, I want to know about their relatives too, even if those relatives are not bred from. But how much does an extensive search for a stud cost, especially for someone who goes to shows many weekends? You visit all potential homes, even if they are at the far end of the country, but surely that isn't really the norm? Perhaps friends who lives near John O'Groats or Lands' End could do the home checks for reciprocal favours? I don't see how good follow up care becomes expensive. Certainly a good breeder should be prepared to have a puppy back if there is a problem, but as several people have pointed out, most hobby breeders have multiple dogs already. One or two more that come back either permenently or prior to re-homing are not going to add much to the costs. I definitely don't think that any old dog or bitch will do (although I don't subscribe to the notion that all unshown dogs are of lesser quality to shown ones), but showing or working dogs is a hobby, and I don't see why anyone should expect to have their hobby subsidised.

It is difficult to rear a good quality, healthy, sound dog, whether for stud or not in any breed, especially the giants, and giants do require (or at least get) more intervention at mating than many. But when hardy comes to hardy, how long does it take to get a mating? You may say, "ah but how about all the work and expense that went into making this dog fit for stud work?" - and I'd reply, " I'd hope that he would be in equally good condition if he was neutered!". Once the stud fee was the price of a puppy, but that also seems to have changed in some cases - yet another thing that puzzles me somewhat.

I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, just trying to make sense of a number of things that do not - to me anyway - always add up.

sharon I may have missed this earlier but please indulge me,which breed do you own?
How many litters have your bred?, what Health tests did you do?, If you have had a litter how much did you sell the pups for?

I have a giant breed, and the first one I bought was in 1981, at the cost of £350. Nowdays, the going price is £650-£700 a pup, and to the best of my knowledge most stud fees are the same as the price of a puppy.
Im not too well up on the comparable prices between 1981 and 2002
but I would imagine a Wolfhound cost more then than it does now.
Im twenty years I have had 8 litters of Wolfhounds, ranging in size from 2-15 pups. I would think taking everything into account (except paying myself a wage) things have worked out about even profit wise.
Small litters with a c section, bitches with whelping difficulties(often) poorly pups, all go to making a loss, large litters with no problems tend to make a profit. I only breed a litter when I want a pup to keep myself, so if I make a profit, I dont feel I have done anything wrong, I never have bred just to make money and never will do. If I breed a litter to get a pup for myself and that litter makes a finacial loss,thats life boy!!
I agree with Sharon that breeders seem to feel that they must shake their heads wisely and remark, whilst sucking their bottom lip "Oh no, I never make a profit" I dont think its anything to be ashamed of, as long as money making wasnt the reason that he litter was bred in the first place.

Hi Phillippa,

As you might guess, IWs are one of the reasons I started this thread :-). You could argue that a rise of £350 to £700+ (Lewis would have been £750 if not for his problem) is reasonable over 20 years, but would you agree that 'the going rate' for an IW pup first rose sharply and then fell a little over the period? I think I paid £900 for one in 1989 (can't remember exactly, but the price was in that region). I wanted that pup from that breeder regardless of price, but it was not unusually high at the time. I know you agree that Lewis' breeders and the breeder of the 1989 pup are responsible people who have contributed to the breed, and are not motivated by profit. It would be absurd to think of them as unethical, ignorant or inexperienced, much less to suggest that they cut corners. But that being so, £350 in 1981, to £900 in 1989 to £750 in 2002 is not logical, and I think you could argue that the period when IW pup prices rose sharply was not a good one for the breed. Joel Samaha certainly talks about this in his book, looking at both the US and UK, but I'd heard the same thing from IW breeders long before Samaha published.

Hi Sharon, most importantly please give Lewis a kiss from Auntie Phil :)
As we are almost at opposite ends of the country it would appear that things vary in certain regions. I havnt ever been aware of a sharp rise and then fall in prices of IW pups in this part of the world, just the sharp rise bit!! I can remember a few years ago ( maybe 8 or 9) a certain breeder in the Yorkshire area suddenly upped her prices to about £800, just because her dog had done well at Crufts. How this raised the price of the pups is quite beyond me. I feel like you, that only various outlays should be taken into account when working out how much a litter has cost to rear. If you followed her train of thought, then if at the following years Crufts her dog did not get placed, did she then halve her stud fee? I think not!!!!
I agree with you totally about Lewis breeders, really nice dedicated people who have worked very hard for the good of the breed, and Im sure will continue to do so. I think all the help that was offered when Lewis first had his problem is proof of that, I know of breeders who would have taken the attitude.."well hes your dog now, get on with it"
I still think that the average asking price of a IW pup is still too high. My last litter, five years ago were £600 each, then the average price. They are now £750 on average, so thats £ 150 rise in five years. Makes your hair stand on end to think that dog food has gone up that much lol
Hows Flea, hope there hasnt been anymore problems.give her a hug for me too. By the way, not going in that chat room anymore, having been told that crossbreeds are inferior and that all IW die before they are three
I think I shall probably open my own!! Speak to you soon, byeeeeee

Hi Phil, Lewis is in disgrace! He is clearly learing from Teelin, and made a good job of eating a mattress today. But as a special request from Auntie Phil, he shall get his cuddle :-)

Didn't know about the post-Crufts price hike, though I imagine I'm not too far off with the breeder :-) I think this is usually how prices do rise sharply. For whatever reason (or none?), one well known breeder who breeds a fair bit will put their price up, and everyone else follows. If there is even a grain of truth in that, I don't see how it fits with the 'good breeders always make a loss' theory.

Wee Flea is not in disgrace :-) In fact she managed to seduce the people who visited on Sunday so well that they were playing with the idea of having her instead of the puppy they've provisionally booked elsewhere. They live quite close, and are clearly experienced with, and caring of, dogs - just what I'm looking for in fact - so I had to struggle with myself for a minute before saying that while Flea is a lovely dog with no vices, I honestly think they should have a pup, so that they get the fun of raising it themselves, and can bring it up to fit with their own ways.

I'm sorry I have tried to understand your argument but I have failed. I re-read tomorrow. Jackie H.

I have always paid Puppy price for stud Fees, but it seems to be a lot less in some breeds, maybe those who get a lot more regular Stud work?

My Champion bitches sire was the top dog in our breed, and is nearly 7, and has sired only 7 litters, and my bitch was from his fourth, two years ago, the others have only recently been born.

Brainless, I don't know the stud fees in enough breeds to say, but do know of some where the stud fee is now about half puppy price, although there isn't a vast amount of work for studs. Your mentioning the sire you used tempts me into a story on another of my hobby horses. Some people will say that only dogs showed successfully should be bred, a few that only Champions should be used. (And never mind the popular sire syndrome :-).) Years ago I used a dog because of his working ability. He was worked but never entered for a show because of a minor puppy injury. He mated 10 bitches in total, only had what his owner considered to be one disappointing litter from a conformation pov, was incredibly prepotent (you can still pick out dogs with him in the pedigree) and was top stud either three years in a row, or in three out of four successive years (can't remember which.) He produced good workers too :D

In my breed unknown dogs are rarely used,not because they are inferior, but becausethey are unavailable! If I breed a nice dog, I can't use it myself on its sisters or Mum, but if no-one else sees it they won't know what a nice dog it is! Also of the males I have bred about 3/4 have been neutered, as that is the done thing these days!

In Australia where are breed is in even smaller numbers, good pet dogs are used, but the pet owners who have bothered to purchase such an unusual breed are often happy for this to happen to help the breed.

We haven't reached that situation in our breed over here yet as there is always the importation route, but maybe the time will come. There are a few dogs used that have been shown and retired to pet homes with Stud Access, but sometimes this doesn't work out! The owners are going away, get the dog fat or what have you.

The one commercial outlet that sells our breed used to charge more than good breeders, and I think it is now the same price! Unfortunately there have been cases of purchasers from this place that thought they could get £250 for adog lovers registered bitch of 16 months. breeders who have run on puppies never get anything like this price, and returnees go free to carefully chosen homes, usually already in the breed.

Here in the US Pet stores sell there puppies more than reputable breeders.Sometimes double. I sell my pups for $500-$600 and the local pet stores sell the same breed for $899. My first litter went at $350 after that I decided I was crazy selling them for so little. I called up breeder friends of mine and we all raised our pup prices to $500-600. This includes so much more than the pet stores offer, like health guarantees, and most importantly being there when questions arise. I don't understand why anyone would pay so much at a pet store, and they have no idea where that puppy is coming from. I think it has to be credit cards and easy payments.

Hi Bee, yes its crazy isn't it. I suppose us dog breeders/breed enthusiasts are much better informed than the average person and we know what the "proper" price for a puppy is, and the sort of breeder to buy from and places to avoid. Your average person who wants a puppy doesn't even know its the wrong place to buy one, the risk they are taking re: poor health/tempeament, or the way these puppies have been reared and how much stress,abuse and misery they have been subjected to. Its such a shame, I think about 10% ( correct me please if anyone knows exactly) of homes in the UK contain a pedigree dog and I should think very few of those owners knew how to go about buying a well reared healthy one. So sad.

Credit card purchases and easy payments for petstore puppies account for a fair share of the decisions made by puppy buyers; especially those "spur of the moment" decisions made easier with a credit card.
But, another factor in our "materialistic" society that is far more troublesome, is that many puppy buyers think, the more they pay, the better the puppy must be. It's no fault of their own really - it is just the society we live in.
Stop for a moment and detach yourself from the knowledge you have because of your interest and invlovement with dogs and breeding, and put yourself in the place of the
uninformed and uninvolved typical John Q. public puppy buyer; Now that you're in their
shoes, you have decided to get a purebred
puppy and you may or may not do any "homework", the price of the puppy becomes part of the decision process. It's really just sort of "human-nature" in our society-----if you pay 800-1000 pounds or dollars for a puppy it certainly must be twice as good as the puppy for 400-500--no matter who has it for sale or where it came from. Especially if it has "Papers". In the public's mind that equates to "Quality" no matter whether the papers are akc, ckc, ikc, ukc, kc,
or mic-key--mou-se. The public only knows they are "papers" and that is the same "stamp" of quality, be it a puppy-farm puppy at the pet store, a puppy-farm puppy in the newspaper, or a puppy from a breeder in a breed club. So, alot of John Q public's decisions are made by price, because we have it so ingrained in our culture---"you get what (how much) you pay for." And if the best costs 1000 dollars even though you really didn't want to spend more than 500 then the credit card and easypayments of a petstore puppy is the "deal maker".
The petstores know the public's behavior/buying habits better than any dog-breeders (champions or hobby).
It is a similar psychology, behind the marketing of puppy farm puppies imported from Ireland to the states and sold for Petstore prices with a steady stream of John Q Public buyers ----- If they were imported from Ireland......."Well they must really be quality puppies.....especially at these high prices". And ofcouse, John Q. Public can't wait to tell the first person he sees that his new purebred puppy was "IMPORTED".
Bragging rights, they don't mind paying for.
The same later on when the puppy develops some health problems or doesn't turn out to look as good as expected as an adult. It was not fault of their own. "They paid top-dollar for the puppy....and it was Imported.....must be just their poor choice in which breed they bought.

Sorry Sharon if I understood your post you claim that in the numericaly small breeds the price of a pup is inflated because of the supply and demand
as I was trying to point out there were only 93 Keeshonds registered in the UK in 2001 every breeder I know has a waiting list for their pups, but the most you would expect to pay for a Keeshond is £450, Four years ago I paid £300 for my Stud dog and this was the comparison I was making that the price has not been inflated.
What then do you see as the Commercial Level for the cost of a puppy?

Hi Kichigai, as I said a short time ago, your post has already made a nonsense of some of what I said. That's the beauty of talking about these things:-)

Now "what then do you see as the commercial level for the cost of a puppy?" is a very good question indeed, and the answer is that I haven't a clue :D. Certainly there is going to be a difference between breeds - some whelp easily and have large litters, some don't; some breeds require more space, more food and have bigger vets bills; as some people have said, in some breeds, bringing in stock from abroad is vital, in others the gene pool is already diverse - etc, etc. All I'm asking is that people question why the puppy price in their own breed is what it is. We all know that some breeds are more favoured by puppy farmers than others, and I think its reasonable to ask why, and to suggest that price may be one reason. In this ethical breeders are largely at the steering wheel, because commercial breeders really have only two things to offer - easy availability and lower prices.

I know i'm not the brightest star out there, but how can defending the fact that not all numericaly small breeds have over inflated prices of there puppies make nonsense of what you posted.

if we kept our prices below a commercial level then not only would we not make a profit-which i havent- but we'd be a LOT out of pocket, each breed has different stud fees, different availability ,also far different quality, you can find someone whos breeding from the very best they can , producing and rearing the pups well and charging a fair price for the pups--then a dodgy breeder churning pups out of the same breed but untypical pups , badly reAred etc, but charging the same price as the better reared ones, they are the ones out to make a profit, i lavish my pups with the very best, only ever had 4 litters, i dont keep a stud dog so have had that expense too, a lot depends on what effort you go to as to the end product, if breeding the best you can at all costs is your idea then theres not a profit to be made,--out of interest do you breed yourself, have you had many litters, and did you find you made a profit on these????? :)

The puppy price in our breed has been around £450 for about 3 years or so, and registrations have been slowly falling :) The supply and demand is fairly evenly balanced, and it is not unusual, and in fact to be expected that one may have pups until 3 months if two consecutive litters have a preponderance of one sex say, or a couple of bitches whelp close together. It seems to be feast or famine with us. In 2000 there were 14 litters registered (including one puppy farmed :( ). so sometines there are a couple of months with no pups at all, and others with 3 litters!

Hi Brainless,

I can only speak personally, but I'd have the same number of dogs whether I bred or not. My problem is usually not being able to take a litter when I'd like to because I already have as many dogs as I can care for - including a preponderance of much loved retirees, 'failures' and 'temporary' residents that somehow never left :-)

Adding in showing costs is a bit circuitous imo. "I show/work my dogs in order to advertise/prove my stock, so that I can sell my puppies" isn't all that acceptable, but "I show/work my dogs because I enjoy it, and I pass the costs of my hobby on to the buyers of the puppies I bred because I enjoy that too and want another puppy to show or work myself" doesn't sound very convincing to me. So I'm not sure about including offsetting the cost of a hobby. My younger step-son's hobby is collecting model trains and making enormous historically accurate layouts for them. As far as I can gather from his girlfriend, it costs a fortune, involves travelling to model train events in far-flung parts of the country, and takes up a lot of time and space. But Mike doesn't expect to have occasional litters of baby engines to help fund his hobby: he spends money on it because it IS his hobby, and he enjoys it.

The allotment keeper may sell his surplus potatoes for less than he spent growing them, but at the heels of the hunt a spud is a spud, and if he tries to sell his spuds for twice the price of the ones in the greengrocer's in order to defray his expenses, then he will end up with more far spuds than he can eat. The situation is not the same with pedigree dogs, because especially in the numerically smaller breeds, a small number of people have what amounts to a monopoly, and within that group there is considerable (if usually unspoken) pressure to conform to a certain price or price range for puppies.

So you have anomalies. I don't know what an elkhound pup costs, or much about their problems or litter size, but I'll give you an example from the hound group. A little over 10 years ago you would have paid about £250, £300 tops, for a deerhound pup. Then the chances are that you would have bought it from one of the 'old' deerhound breeders, who routinely culled big litters back to 6-8 puppies. Now few people admit to culling, and litters in the teens are often raised and sold at about £500 each. When you bought the £250 deerhound, an Irish Wolfhound pup would have cost you £700 - £900. Today an IW pup is much the same price or maybe a shade less. But there is not much difference in the costs of raising a litter of deerhounds and IWs. Yet everyone says 'ethical dog breeders make a loss on breeding'.

Just to complicate matters, in the numerically small breeds you generally don't have to go very far back in a pedigree to find top class stock. If Ms A, who was top breeder in breed X last year is selling puppies at, lets say, £600 each, can we really blame the novice buyer who goes to Mr B, who has pups with plenty of red in the pedigree just a generation or two further back, but charges £300? Can you really expect the purchaser to believe that Ms A's puppies cost twice as much to rear? It may well cost Mr B a bit less than Ms A because he is cutting corners, doesn't know much about the breed and is breeding commercially, but I'd submit, not half as much - especially when he is making a profit, and Ms A says she is making a loss. It only makes things worse if Mr B is easily accessible and approachable, while Ms A is hard to find, and makes the unfortunate novice breeder feel that she is doing them an enormous favour by allowing them pay her £600. I know that only a minority of breeders are hard to locate, unapproachable or unfriendly these days, but in some breeds the novice or prospective pet owner is still expected to find their own entree to the magic circle, and it isn't always made as easy for them as it might be. Then when the puppy buyer ends up having a problem with Mr B's pup, what do we do? Well, too often we tend to look down on them as irresponsible idiots, land on them like a ton of bricks, and tell them that that they wouldn't be in this mess if they'd gone to Ms A!

There - rant mode off :D. I don't want to cause controversy, or God forbid, seem to be getting at any person or breed, but either some breeders are losing a lot more than others, or in some breeds market forces have a lot more to do with puppy prices (and profits?) than with covering some costs.

This may or may not be relevant to this thread ,but when I was a child if anyone had a pedigree dog they were reasonably well off,I dont know how much say a labrador was in the late fifties and how much that puppy was compared to the average weekly wage,but In 1982 I bred my first litter of Labradors the stud fee then was a puppy price and the stud Dog a very good well know dog,so fee was £85. and the wealth of advice I received and help from the stud dog owner was wonderful,he also put lots of people on to me for puppies,my bitch had twelve puppies,we kept two,and sold the others for £85. no Vets fees really only a check up for the bitch.we also innoculated all the pups and didnt let then go for twelve weeks which we soon realised for a long time.
over the years Ive bred about ten litters.
The Last litter I bred was 1998 the stud fee was £300. My bitch had scans to detect wether she was ready, she produced 2 pups,with a cesar,one pup died and we battled on for a week with the second who also died,the heartache was really bad for me because it was my last chance with this bitch and I dont keep many dogs,but the little pup dying in my arms made me vow never to breed again,I suppose I will breed again when I have a suitable quality bitch,who knows.
I feel that in this day and age no matter how much puppies cost people will buy them,and if you can get one from a caring selective breeder all well and good,you are paying for their hard work and knowledge and bloodlines,sadly though people who are getting a pet dog will go and spend the same amount in a puppy supermarket which are not well bred.
I'm not mathematical but I feel the price of pedigree dogs has not really altered from when I first bred in the eighties if you weigh up cost of living rises and wages etc..My breed Labradors are totally exploited in the commercial world so a less numeric breed that say charge £700 a puppy will probably be able to keep numbers down by not making them as easy to afford in the first place. I hope I've made some sense..and above all not upset anyone as I really dont set out to do but have seemed to manage recently.

Hi Mattie,

Its very relevant and you make a lot of sense to me. I also wish that my maths were up to calculating the changes in inflation, cost of living etc over the last 30 years, because it isn't easy to say what has really happened to puppy prices without being able to do that. I'd certainly agree that in the 50's most people who owned pedigree dogs were relatively well off, and that would suggest that puppy prices and dog care have actually got cheaper. On the other hand, I suspect that a higher percentage of people are relatively well off (in the sense of having enough disposable income to buy and keep a pedigree puppy), now than in the 50's.

You have put what to my mind is the big squib beneath my argument when you say that a high puppy price will actually deter people, and so keep numbers down. I don't have a really convincing answer to that one :-)

Hi again Sharon, Im not sure that a high price does keep the number of purchasers down, it maybe that the more expensive pups draw the status symbol owners rather than the genuine dog lovers? How do you feel about that?