designer pups...???

[yorkieisme]

Originally Posted by Chrissy0277

Well it seems to me the only ones who agree with the mixing of dogs are the ones who own them (bought them) or are the ones who breed them.

They are indeed mutts and like others said no thats not a BAD word.
If it walks like a duck......

Actually I do not own them or breed them. And to be honest I feel that there are two sides to everything. I might sound like I agree or I might sound like I don't. I believe everyone has good points on this subject matter, it does give people like me food for thought. I also will say if I did buy one (mix) then it would have to be yorkinese, they are awesome. This doesn't mean I will run out and buy one today, tomorrow or next year. This thread has enlighen me a great deal, but really the UK program that aired open the doors even more.

BTW I have never in my life owned a mix breed animal, this includes cats, persians and himalayan all of the time. But they were also mixed at some point before they became purebred. The same goes for the yorkie.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by durtymydawg

So with that said then there is ways to make some $$ in breeding pups

LOL...how did you interpret that from what I posted?

Yes, of course there are ways to make $$ from breeding pups. But the breeders who manage to do that are not normally the ethical 'type' you want to deal with.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by cesar49

maltese are prone to eye infections
but on the bright side, they are very very soft

So because a dog has a 'very very soft' coat that makes up for any risk of increased health issues?

Originally Posted by cesar49

all dogs are prone to getting old
on the bright side..a good diet can help any dog
even yorkies are prone to collapsed tracheas
but all small dogs should be in a vest harness
no neck collars should be used on the small dogs..
reverse sneezing is common in little dogs too.

True. But how are these issues 'postive' aspects related to mixed breeding...or any breeding?

Originally Posted by cesar49

mixing is how they got the biewers in germany
maltese and yorkies got together somewhere

Is this a personal theory? Because it certainly isn't a proven fact stated in the history of the breed....

Originally Posted by cesar49

i can predict that my yorkipoos will be very cute and colorful

Predicting that a puppy will be 'cute' is a given. What puppy isn't cute? But that is not the same as breeding to get a predictable, goal physical result. Generally speaking, one can't claim they are mixing breeds to produce a specific desired "look" because there IS no defined "look." There are a wide variety of "looks" possible from this type of breeding.

[LittlePaws]

By selecting color, is there a certain color combo you are trying to achieve? Is there a certain "look" you are trying to achieve and how to you determine it? It seems as if it would be impossible to predict.
How will your efforts exceed only this particular generation? What is the long term or does it start and stop with this generation?

How do you ensure that the breed specific issue of one breed will not be carried over to the next? Or that an undesired trait will not 'double up' in the offspring.
I.e, I *think* that Maltese are prone to eye infections and specific disorders. Would crossing one with a breed with a more protruding eye not increase this risk? Also, both breeds are prone to age progressive disorders...would combining the two create more or less risk of that?
Also, as Shih-Tzus are a brachiocephalic breed, their respiratory systems work on a slower pace. How can you ensure that you do not end up with offspring that aquire the brachio traits, but without the compromised respiratory system?"

Black and white in color. And yes for a certain look, like all dogs. Take a yorkie, they range a good deal in size and color, you have blue and gold, black and tan, gold, etc ect ect.
My ideal is black and white 6-8 lbs.

Like breeding any litter. The way not get breed specific issues is not to breed dogs with those issues. Can a litter still have a breed specific problem? Yes. Most of the time they do not. They have fewer issues.
The Maltese is not prone to eye problems. They have small well set eyes. The Shih-Tzu is prone to eye problems. They have what is called a brachiocephalic skull. Very short noses and shallow orbits to the eye.
In breeding a purebred Shih-Tzu, you WILL pass this down. It is part of the breed.
Can you pass this to a crossbred litter? You could in theory but that has not proved true for my puppies, They have had the smaller eyes of the Maltese 1 had larger but not protruding eyes. The same hold true for the extreme short nose. It has not been present in puppies I have bred. The noses are shorter than that of a Maltese but longer than a shih-tzu.
The life expectancy of a Maltese is 13-16 years. The Shih-Tzu 13-14 years

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by LittlePaws

Black and white in color. And yes for a certain look, like all dogs. Take a yorkie, they range a good deal in size and color, you have blue and gold, black and tan, gold, etc ect ect.
My ideal is black and white 6-8 lbs.

Yes, unfortunately, there are a wide range of Yorkies. Fewer and fewer actually look like a Yorkie *should.* It is good to know that you do have a goal physical appearance you are striving for, not just "whatever you get." Are you seeing your goal met consistantly with the litters you have produced?

Originally Posted by LittlePaws

The way not get breed specific issues is not to breed dogs with those issues.

Of course breeding in certain health issues should be eliminated from a program. But that can only be achieved with genetic issues, not with issues that are customed to the breed, like physical attributes that are part of the standard.

Originally Posted by LittlePaws

The Maltese is not prone to eye problems. The Shih-Tzu is prone to eye problems.

Actually, I was thinking of retinal atrophy, which Maltese's ARE genetically prone to (which I would guess could be selectively avoided) and Shih-Tzus are prone to as a brachiocephalic breed--a 'structural issue' rather than a genetic one. (I had a Peke that suffered from this.)

Originally Posted by LittlePaws

Can you pass this to a crossbred litter? You could in theory but that has not proved true for my puppies, They have had the smaller eyes of the Maltese 1 had larger but not protruding eyes. The same hold true for the extreme short nose. It has not been present in puppies I have bred. The noses are shorter than that of a Maltese but longer than a shih-tzu.

It is relieving to see the attention to detail you are giving your program and your attention to the results. That is not something that you run accross very often. Are you planning on breeding a second generation using the dogs you produce that best match the 'goal' type you are trying to achieve.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by durtymydawg

Tami, I wasn't attacking anyone...I was simply asking just like everyone else, some people would like to see what a breeder thinks or actually is the cost of producing a litter is...?? The simple answer is that no one is willing to give that answer being it would show that they make $$$. They will use the excuse that there is to many variables, then just give us one scenario...please its not that hard. NO OFFENSE LYNN....

Ummm, I did explain the costs and income of my breeding program, which happens to be papillons but the issues are the same (small litters, high risk of sections).

I don't think it provides very good information to break it down litter by litter simply because there ARE so many variables-- I have a litter of 6 one week olds presently that were delivered naturally, I own the stud dog so no fee, but the breeding is a co-breeding (I don't own the bitch) so I am getting 1/2 the litter. So there will be some income to me from this litter that is not offset by major expenses for this particular litter, but it will need to be applied to the costs of other breedings, past or future. Compare this to breeding the bitch we paid $4000 for to a dog whose stud fee is $2500 (thanks to my mentor it was not a cost I actually paid) who had an emergency section for $950 and had ZERO live puppies to keep or sell. My other recent litter was another co-breeding where I do not own the bitch, I paid a stud fee of $1500 and another emergency section for $950, I will be keeping 2 of the puppies for the time being and the other goes to the bitches owner. So I will have the value of those puppies, and although they look great right now they could fall apart and I could sell them as pets for $1200 and $1000, although maybe not that because they will be older when I make a final decision about keeping or selling. So that litter would be break even.

I think that adding up my expenses versus my income, over the course of 5 breedings and 4 litters I am right around $5000 in the hole. This does not include show expenses (between $750 to $1200 a month) or the regular costs of keeping the dogs as my companions and performance partners, like vet care, food, crating, ex pens, fenced yard, special dog room for crating and grooming and training etc.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by wildcard

Ummm, I did explain the costs and income of my breeding program.

With all due respect, the rundown that you gave was noted by durtymydog:
a huge show breeder as illustrated in another post (which I thankyou for sharing and sounds like you really enjoy your hobby/business/passion),
(At least, I took it to be YOU that was noted)

I think that durty was just saying that your situation is not the 'norm' and therefor not the desired feedback, although appreciated? (At least, that was how I interpreted it, which could be all wrong.)

I think that if anyone is looking for a clear cut, universal cost analysis for the 'average breeding program' they are going to be sorely disappointed because it doesn't exist.
There being too many 'variables' that influence the outcome is not an excuse, it's just the truth of the matter. And there is so much that is left up to interpretation--what one person feels is a neccessary aspect of a program, the next may not and therefor deem those costs as irrelevant.

Does that make sense?

I will say this, I know alot of breeders who say that their only goal is to try as best as they can to have a program that ONCE ESTABLISHED is self supporting. And I gotta tell you, I honestly don't see how they do it.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

With all due respect, the rundown that you gave was noted by durtymydog:
a huge show breeder as illustrated in another post (which I thankyou for sharing and sounds like you really enjoy your hobby/business/passion),
(At least, I took it to be YOU that was noted)

Oh my, I read that post and didn't even think the poster was referring to me, since I certainly don't consider myself to be a huge show breeder and it certainly is not a business (I have a real job during the days that subsidizes my dog madness). I have been breeding over the course of almost three years now (since January 2006), that is one litter per year until this summer where I decided to unhinge myself and do two litters, and that was only because the spring litter was my disaster no live puppy litter, if that puppy had lived I would have not done a third litter this year. I had 3 puppies in the first, 2 in the second, 3 in the third and then this very unexpected 6 puppy litter. Even with the big litter that is 14 puppies in three years, I don't consider that to be very many but maybe I am wrong. There won't be another litter for well over a year even if then...

Things can go bad in any breeding program. My mentor had bred two bitches this year, one had her 2 puppies early and they did not survive, the other had one large stillborn puppy. She is co-breeder on my two current litters so she will not be "puppyless" but if she had been counting on the income from her own litters (she was not because that is not the point of breeding dogs for her, but if she was a commercial breeder and actually was) she would be in trouble.

[durtymydawg]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Well, if you really want to know: It comes down to simple math. Eventually, every breeder will make $$$ on dogs. Kennel supplies are basically the same for most breeders. The biggest variables are the vet bills, how reputable/dedicated a breeder you are and what the "market" will bare. Example: if you need a c-section you will not make as much as if you dont. If my vet is cheaper than yours, then you will not make as much $$ as me. If you raise a breed that is not in high demand, you will not make as much money as the breeder that is breeding the "hot" dog of the day. If you have a big dog that eats you out of house and home, you will not make as much as the smaller dog that produces just as many puppies. In a drepressed market, like today, you will not make as much $$ as you did in a great economy. I have known breeders that pay house payments or other bills and the only reason they breed is for the extra income. I know a person that makes around 50,000 per year cranking out English Bulldogs, and this is after expenses(vet bills, etc) I also know breeders that have outstanding breeding practices and every extra penny earned is put back into the dogs only. Do you see what I mean by variables?Lets say I may make 1500 on a litter of pups. But the next litter requires a c-section. Well, there goes that 1500, right back into the dogs. Did I really make any money?
I hope I answered your question.

Lynn, I wasn't just asking you and I also wasn't the only Poster asking!!! Yes, I think this helps the Posters that had ??'s and to realize that sometimes you can profit and at other times you may not or as much. It does have alot to do with VARIABLES especially when your dealing with an animal that can produce 1 pup to 6 or 7....so that itself is hard to determine whether your going to actually come out ahead. Plus, I do understand completely on C-sections...been there...done it. Fortunate, my vet being I have vet'd with him nearly 30years (with mostly horses). Since I was about 12 my family has used him as a vet, and therefore he gives us a great deal when I have anything done. My C-Section would of cost a few hundred more but thankfully he only charged me $300. So I really do understand, but I was trying to help the few or many others that don't or that have not yet experienced it for themselves. This is why people charge the prices they do!!! Truthfully when I see an ad that is a Yorkie for only a few hundred, like 300-400 then I ask myself...all the ??'s of why?

As for the guy raising English Bulldogs...kudos to him and I'm sure he's doing it as a business...not a hobby. Sorry if I offended you and wasn't meant thay way. This is why I usually don't like replying to thread or emails is because so much is interpreted and usually the wrong WAY. I do enjoy reading what others write....

[durtymydawg]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

LOL...how did you interpret that from what I posted?

Yes, of course there are ways to make $$ from breeding pups. But the breeders who manage to do that are not normally the ethical 'type' you want to deal with.

I don't agree with that and again your sterotyping that its bad to make a dime off of what your doing....calling them un-ethical. Sorry just the way I feel.

[durtymydawg]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

With all due respect, the rundown that you gave was noted by durtymydog:
a huge show breeder as illustrated in another post (which I thankyou for sharing and sounds like you really enjoy your hobby/business/passion),
(At least, I took it to be YOU that was noted)

I think that durty was just saying that your situation is not the 'norm' and therefor not the desired feedback, although appreciated? (At least, that was how I interpreted it, which could be all wrong.)

I think that if anyone is looking for a clear cut, universal cost analysis for the 'average breeding program' they are going to be sorely disappointed because it doesn't exist.
There being too many 'variables' that influence the outcome is not an excuse, it's just the truth of the matter. And there is so much that is left up to interpretation--what one person feels is a neccessary aspect of a program, the next may not and therefor deem those costs as irrelevant.

Does that make sense?

I will say this, I know alot of breeders who say that their only goal is to try as best as they can to have a program that ONCE ESTABLISHED is self supporting. And I gotta tell you, I honestly don't see how they do it.

thankyou...

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by durtymydawg

I don't agree with that and again your sterotyping that its bad to make a dime off of what your doing....calling them un-ethical. Sorry just the way I feel.

No, not 'sterotyping' that it's bad to make a dime. And 'making $$$' depends on what you interpret as profit.
I was referring to those breeding with profit as their primary goal. To me, using a dog as a source of income, as many do, is unethical. JMHO.

[LittlePaws]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Yes, unfortunately, there are a wide range of Yorkies. Fewer and fewer actually look like a Yorkie *should.* It is good to know that you do have a goal physical appearance you are striving for, not just "whatever you get." Are you seeing your goal met consistantly with the litters you have produced?


Of course breeding in certain health issues should be eliminated from a program. But that can only be achieved with genetic issues, not with issues that are customed to the breed, like physical attributes that are part of the standard.



Actually, I was thinking of retinal atrophy, which Maltese's ARE genetically prone to (which I would guess could be selectively avoided) and Shih-Tzus are prone to as a brachiocephalic breed--a 'structural issue' rather than a genetic one. (I had a Peke that suffered from this.)



It is relieving to see the attention to detail you are giving your program and your attention to the results. That is not something that you run accross very often. Are you planning on breeding a second generation using the dogs you produce that best match the 'goal' type you are trying to achieve.

Yes, I have had consistent results. I have had some that do not match as closely of course. Such as, some have a very thin white blaze and I like it wider.


I stand corrected I misunderstood you, It would be possible for a crossbreed to get a double whammy and get 2 health problems, each from a different parent. The Maltese do sometimes have issues. Not nearly as common as in other breeds. This should lessen any issues. However, developed with the assistance Of humans, (like all breeds) They are not totally free of genetic issues luxating patella, progressive retinal atrophy, distichiasis, hypothyroidism,deafness, and seizures are all issues to be had.


I have a very small number of dogs. I did a lot of research and studying of pedigrees. I would like to have a second generation. I admit that I have a lot more work to do before that happens.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by LittlePaws

I stand corrected I misunderstood you, It would be possible for a crossbreed to get a double whammy and get 2 health problems, each from a different parent.

Generally speaking, this is what concerns me most. The 'what ifs' that have not been tested. And worse, the 'what ifs' not even being looked at as a factor by people experimenting with the crossing of breeds. When breeding breed to breed, there is a long standing predictibility the common issue have been identified, there is a means to control or prevent them them.
But when you take it beyond that, who knows?

YOU seem to be taking a very cautious and educated approach to what you are doing...looking to extend your efforts, not just breeding one generation of puppies to make a quick buck, supply what is in demand and then move on to the next best thing.

Thanks for your answers.

[durtymydawg]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

No, not 'sterotyping' that it's bad to make a dime. And 'making $$$' depends on what you interpret as profit.
I was referring to those breeding with profit as their primary goal. To me, using a dog as a source of income, as many do, is unethical. JMHO.

okay, I can agree with that!