(chickens and possibly ducks most particularly but I'm open to all feedback)

on the new land we will have a enough room for chickens and as they won't be commercial I was thinking a dual purpose rare or heritage breed might make sense

thanks

I have plenty of comments on rare breeds. They're not in line with most popular thinking today.

First, I love rare breeds. I like the unusual, I like the idea that we're saving a part of our agricultural history. I like the different traits that many older breeds have which modern commercial strains do not, and that includes things like color and ornamentation which have little practical value. I love the role in history that the breeds which were developed in my local area have played, some becoming world renowned.

I dislike the exagerated hype that accompanies the term "heritage breed" today. When it comes right down to it, all of the poultry breeds are technically "heritage breeds", with only a handful of recent creations as exceptions. When it was originally coined, the term was meant to signify a breed which was both rare and old. Something from the past which deserved to be saved, possessing some supposedly old time superior trait that some people think that we need today. Some are gullible enough to believe that common breeds like Orpingtons or Plymouth Rocks are somehow more valuable today, when they are termed "heritage", than they were in the 70's when the movement began. There is no shortage of charlitans looking to cash in on the unsuspecting. Somehow the words rare and minor have lost favor, but the trend to use heritage has caused considerable misunderstanding.

When it comes right down to it, "dual purpose" breeds are another farce that people want to believe, because it sounds so right, so efficient, especially for use on the small farm. Like so many home remedies that people love to dredge up from the past, they usually just do not work well. That is why they lost favor in the first place, for if they were so great, everyone would still have them. Sure, you can get a bit more meat from a Rhode Island Red rooster that you butcher at 9 months than you would from a Leghorn, but how much grain have you fed that bird in that time? To get a better idea of exactly how "dual purpose" that breed is, you'd need to butcher at 12 or 16 weeks, like you would for a strictly meat breed, and see if it was worth it to feed all that grain for the amount of meat that you get in return. Same thing in cattle. If Devons were so great at being dual purpose, then why did the breed drift apart into two distinct varieties? What dairy farmer hasn't kept a Holstein steer to put into the freezer, because it's what he had, and it will produce some beef, but no one considers them to be a beef producing breed, by any means.

The closest you'll get to finding a dual purpose animal is probably the medium ducks; Cayugas, Cresteds, Buffs and Blue Swedes. They lay fairly well, and the extra males dress out at a decent size, rather quickly also, so you're not feeding them for months and months like so-called dual purpose chickens. Still, if you kept track of how much it costs you to produce both meat and eggs out of them, you're probably not getting any bargain. You'd be better off getting a flock of Runners or Campbells for eggs, and Pekins for meat.

so far chickens are tougher for me - Light Sussex maybe or Buckeye if I can find any of them :)

thanks for your comments- they echo my concerns and reasons for interest too

I like how you think. Now we have Semmitalls crossed with Black Angus, and let me tell ya, the Semmi is a dule bread that I do love. they are built like a tank...and they put out the milk.  Not like a Holstine, but they bag right up.  crossed with the Black A...they are a protective mother to Boot. Call me a lier all day if ya want...but I saw with my own eyes, our heard run off a black bear in defence of the little ones.

the hype is just over the top in agg today..

You'll be hard pressed to find any Sussex that approach anything near dual purpose today. I mentioned in another post, most of which was inexplicably deleted and the rest severely edited, that Don Schrider of ALBC has been making some great improvements in Buckeyes by intensive selective breeding for meat producing characteristics, which, interestingly enough, is also improving their type for the show hall, as the standard for the breed was meant to describe basically a meat producing type of bird. I don't know how well Don's birds lay, but remember, a meat producing body type is very different from a laying type, and the two are pretty much mutually exclusive of each other. Hense the reason why "dual purpose" in chickens at least, is an unattainable goal that has taken 75 years for people to start to realize. The commercial people learned it by the end of WWII.

 My example of ducks could be used in chickens too. If you want both layers and meat birds, start a flock of Leghorns, Sexlinks or a dozen other breeds, and buy commercial CornishX hybrid chicks a couple times a year to stock your freezer. If it has to be a rare breed, there are plenty of Leghorn varieties which you never see anymore, which could use someone to work on, like Buff, Black, Silver, Red, BT Red and Columbian (which would look similar in color to your Light Sussex).

If you have layers, you won't be getting much meat from them, or is it not enough meat to justify the feed? I'd like to have layers, but butcher the excess birds. Would I get enough meat for a small family, or really none at all?

I've never raised birds for human consumption - just raptors and chicks to feed the raptors. So new territory for me.

Karen
www.southpawpetsupply.com

South Paw Pet Supply
Ka'Roo Silky Terriers and Dobermans

Regarding Holsteins for meat, a Holstein steer can more than fill the average freezer and I'm told it's good-tasting, quality beef. I know lots of people who buy Holstein feeder steers specifically for that reason.

I realize this is the age of specialization but John and I tend to take the middle road because absolute, blazing efficiency isn't our prime objective. We keep breeds that we enjoy interacting with and that we feel are beautiful and worthwhile.

I just submitted a Hobby Farm article about Florida Cracker and Pineywoods cattle (it will appear in the November-December issue). The primarily difference between the two is the location in which they evolved from Spanish cattle brought to the Southeast during the 1500's: Florida Cracker cattle in Florida and Pineywoods cattle in Mississippi, Alabama, and southernmost Georgia.

Of all the cattle breeds I've written about, these interest me the most. These extremely hardy, small cattle supplied folks in the Deep South with draft power, hides for leather, milk, and beef for hundreds of years on little (if any) supplemental feed--and their gorgeous colors and handsome horns are a feast for the eyes. If transportation wasn't so dear right now, I'd be looking for a Florida Cracker calf to raise as a single ox. They impress me just that much.

It all boils down to whether a person prefers high production in one specific area or a little of everything wrapped up in a single package. I prefer the latter and that's often where heritage breeds shine.

Sue

BTW, I like the term "heritage breed". It doesn't necessarily mean a breed is endangered, only that it has a long history of service to humankind. Consider Cormo vs. Scottish Blackface sheep. They're both valuable breeds and Cormos most definitely produce the most and the finest wool. However, being a history buff, I prefer the heritage (which is not to say rare) Scottish Blackface--whose wool, meat, and horns have been utilized by humans for hundreds of years. :o)