Culling Male Chicks

Jocelyn, I think you meant to start a new thread, but you changed the title of the original post. I am going to start a thread for us about butchering roosters. At least I think that is what you did. My pardon, if I misunderstood your intentions. Have a beautiful day, CynthiaM. Watch for the new thread, smiling.

Thanks, yes, new topic, how to use roos.

Sweetened wrote:Sorry to sound like an idiot as I'm still new to this whole thing, but why would roos not be good for butchering... do they taste different? My plans, when I got my flock going, was to butcher the roos for meat -- I thought that was what everyone did and that that was the point of roos! Hrm, some books are misleading!

I know I have to sound like the biggest fool.

Sweetened, you should never hesitate to ask questions or feel foolish asking...that is how we all learn. And this topic is a very good one for discussion. There is no simple answer, and depending on who you talk to you will get many different opinions!

I thought I should expand a bit on the comment I posted earlier in this thread stating that some breeds are not suitable for butchering. I was not referring to the large heritage breeds that are considered dual purpose. I was thinking more of those breeds such as the small fancy bantams or the exceptionally slow growing Cochins. Although I admit I have not tried them myself it seems to me that they would not be my choice of bird to spend the time processing. But again, I should be careful what I say as I have heard that some small breeds (silkies for example) make a gourmet meal.
But my own preference is for a bigger bird, and this is why I have chosen to raise some of the biggest, meatiest of heritage breeds. I do want to utilize all of the chicks I hatch by keeping hens for eggs, selling both sexes for breeding and butchering the extra roosters. I have found this works well for me. Honestly, our family prefers a slow cooked, well done chicken and the roosters I raise become meals that are thoroughly enjoyed.

happychicks wrote:I would be happy to sell them at a discount or even give them away when small if I knew someone who would take good care of them. The issue I have with that around here is that there are several people who are quick to want a bargain but they don't keep and raise and kill them (even if they say they are going to). There are several local folk who treat chickens like yardsale goods and sell them around and around the community - and some of those folk don't take very good care of their birds. So that leaves me with having to be very selective about who I even tell that I will have extra chicks. I'm planning to cull this time (though I've never done it before)rather than let them go to that circus! I shudder to think where some of my birds have ended up in the past. The only way I know to get around that is to put high enough prices on my chicks to (hopefully) prevent people from just picking up chicks because they see a "bargain" that they can make money off of by reselling.

Well, I ended up giving mine away (and a few extra crossbreed pullets) to a neighbor who will raise them and treat them well. I do feel better about this option.

Hi I feed raw to my dogs and any left over parts of the chickens after processing for me will feed them. Any culls will go into the freezer for the dogs to eat. You could all be selling your culls and parts you normally throw away (spines etc)to raw feeders and then those extra roos won't seem like they are useless.You could google a raw feeding list in your area and let them know you have chicken for dog food and you'll get someone willing to buy it. I am going to try to freeze some silkies for me to try this fall. I saw a tag in the oriental market for them but they were sold out so didn't see the birds. If roosters are food for something they are not wasted.
Geri

Dual purpose Heritage Breeds do need work on becoming truly dual purpose again. Most breeds have been just kept as pretty layers so they have lost some many of the original meat qualities that they were noted for in history.

I think to truly overcome this issue we need to eat the birds we raise. How can someone breed the bird back to its original standard and glory if they aren't utilizing the breed for what it is bred for. That would be like keeping leghorns and not like eat eggs. Overtime the strain that you keep will eventually have less of a laying ability as it isn't a true importance for your flock. And would anyone want to keep a leghorn flock that wouldn't lay eggs..?

Yes they do take up lots of room and aren't a short term from hatch to butch, they are a result from our breedings and around here they will be utilized as they were in the good old days.

I am happy with the heritage birds carcasses that I butchered. I did see areas I would like to improve on and that was only once the feathers were all off. My Buff Chantecler cockerels had nice large meaty carcasses, some other breeds need improvements. As I work on improving my bird to true dual purpose birds I think I will be more likely to buy breeding stock from someone who eats their cockerels over someone who doesn't.

This whole idea of raising birds as per the "standard" is all good if you want to show your birds. But, as already stated, the true meaning of "dual purpose" isn't the same as it used to be! Just like raising dogs for show, most are not any good for what their original purpose was! The same can be said for chickens too. Chickens have been kept and raised by fanciers in hopes a judge will like how the bird looks! This in it's self, shouldn't be the only standard to which we judge our birds!!! Meat and egg quality have really suffered as a result in some breeds!!!

I'm sure there are some breeders out there that are trying to keep the birds as they were once breed for but, unfortunately in most cases, their looks take precedence over their actual intended design! There are many fancy birds out there that win ribbons at shows, but could you breed a show champ Rooster and a show champ Hen and get all show quality chicks (with looks as the intension)? No, of course not! Therefore, with this in mind, people cull (kill) their chicks heavily! To me, this brings to mind the phrase "If looks could kill"!

k.r.l., I'll have to disagree with you but I think it's a case of wording and not a case of meaning.

Not eating eggs or not eating the chickens themselves has absolutely zero effect on the chicken. A good layer will continue to be a good layer whether you eat those eggs or hurl them into the bush. It makes no matter to the bird.

I think what you're saying (if I may be so bold) is that when eating the birds we discover, hmm, this guy is kind of thin, tough and stringy...and then keepers start making a concentrated effort to produce birds that ARE more edible. Or if you find your hens produce fewer eggs for you to hurl into the bush you might think...hmm, these birds are not producing projectiles the way I would like, better improve their performance.

So 'using' these birds keeps us aware of their shortcomings and where they need improvement. But using the meat or eggs in and of itself, is not what MAKES the improvements. To know your bird needs to improve, you need to be aware of its egg laying or edibility and those who don't eat eggs or the birds might not notice. Thus these birds will never get better at anything if people are not aware they NEED to get better. I think that's what you're getting at.


DWD....BRAVO! I think there are two chicken keeping approaches. Cosmetics and utility. Breeding to look pretty in a chicken pageant is NOT breeding to perform well in eggs and on the table. No it is not. If I want a good layer or good eater I could care less what kind of hair day it's having as long as it does what I expect it to do. Lay lots of eggs or make lots of meat.

I realize there are many people who find the genetics of type and colour and leg angle very interesting and pursue this as a serious endeavour and there is nothing wrong with that! But a more pretty bird is not a more useful bird. Chickens allow us the choice of what area we want to focus on, utility or standardization. I think the secret is knowing what you want because I don't think you can have it all. Not in life and not in chickens. Just sayin.

Hmm....I think I can have it all and that is what I breed for. The birds I have are bred for a purpose. Part of how they look defines how well they will do at their purpose. Cold hardy - cushion comb and small wattles, good eating - big bodied, long backed and deep with good growth, winter layer - again cold hardy, tough and resiliant. The pretty lacing is just the icing on the cake for me.

We breed our dogs the same way. Function is important to us cause they do a job. Ours all work for a living, but we also want them to be physical representations of the breed they are. Physically they should look a certain way and that also helps them with their funtion. Confirmation, attitude, desire to work are all important components of a working dog. Not good having a good dog that breaks down from the punishing work that is stock work. They must be put together right. We also like our Kelpies to look like kelpies and the Border Collies to look like Border Collies. We want it all with our dogs too....

I completely agree that dual purpose breeds need to be eaten in order to help improve them. Otherwise your entire selection process is undermined, because how can you really, truly know your birds (literally inside and out) unless you eat them? The answer, imo, is you cannot.

But I’ll have to respectfully disagree that one cannot have both form and function in their birds. I don’t see why beautiful, tasty chickens wouldn’t be possible through careful, artful selection and the time and patience to see it through.

I haven’t been in the poultry world but a few short years and don’t pretend to know a lot, but I do have a dream of what I’d like to accomplish with my chosen breeds down the road; namely, beautiful, hardy birds that shine in the kitchen as well as outside in the sunshine. Nourishment for both the body and the soul, so to speak.

I guess I want my cake and to eat it too.

edited: sorry coopslave, I didn't choose my words very carefully there at the end. I didn't mean to imply anything other than I agree with ya.

As Uno and DWD pointed out, breeding for show vs. breeding for utility may produce two differently structured chickens.

However, I would like to add to this. You need to look at the purpose of the chicken as well. Many chickens WERE bred just for exhibition. These are the pretty show chickens like the beautiful Sebright. However, if you look into the standard of the dual purpose and the meat birds, a show winner in this category will also have the meat on it's carcass to make a delicious dinner. Where the failing of meat and dual purpose breeds comes about is not in breeding for show, but failure to breed to the standard. New breeders, hatcheries etc., may be at fault. They breed a Brahma that superficially looks like a Brahma to produce chicks without a fig of interest or understanding of the standard and the subtle body shape and musculature they are breeding for.

As a result many poor quality birds are produced, type is lost and with it, a decent carcass.

Sue

Schipperkesue wrote:As Uno and DWD pointed out, breeding for show vs. breeding for utility may produce two differently structured chickens.

However, I would like to add to this. You need to look at the purpose of the chicken as well. Many chickens WERE bred just for exhibition. These are the pretty show chickens like the beautiful Sebright. However, if you look into the standard of the dual purpose and the meat birds, a show winner in this category will also have the meat on it's carcass to make a delicious dinner. Where the failing of meat and dual purpose breeds comes about is not in breeding for show, but failure to breed to the standard. New breeders, hatcheries etc., may be at fault. They breed a Brahma that superficially looks like a Brahma to produce chicks without a fig of interest or understanding of the standard and the subtle body shape and musculature they are breeding for.

As a result many poor quality birds are produced, type is lost and with it, a decent carcass.

Sue

The same can be said for the hatchery version of the Rhode Island Red. For the most part, the birds from hatcheries lay very well, but lack the required (according to the standard) shape, size and often colour.

I believe too, we can achieve both characteristics of what the "Dual Purpose" birds once were! It just takes a bit more work! After all, it was achieved once before, why not now?

Interesting Post ! I have over twenty Roo's that are going on one year and I tried giving them away , no takers ! because the were "" Roosters "" , so now I will keep them till they are at there Fullest in weight , butcher them and try a few things with them ..eg..smoked ? , Hamburger ? and if that all fails then I guess they will become food for something four legged ( wife doesn't make soups )! This year I will be more careful with what I have as soon as they show there true gender !I just can't understand the image that has been imprinted on us that a rooster isn't good as a food sourse , myself included !! I guess maybe a bit of real hunger would prompt us to reconsider it as a sourse of food instead of a waste of food as it seems that most are being taken as ??????????

Bone and skin a rooster. Put the meat in a dutch oven with a cup of water and bake till almost tender. Grind in a meat grinder and add onion and mashed potatoes...summer savoury is nice too. Make into patties and fry till golden. Ummmmm. Nice with carrots. You can roast the meat when you are going a pork roast or something else that likes long slow cooking. The ground meat can be frozen too, for use later. If you are going to boil it before grinding, that works too, but you don't get the roasted flavour, so you might want garlic and peppers in the patties instead. Don't boil it too long or it goes to mush when you grind it. If you like it spicey, boil till it falls off the bone, spread on a cookie sheet and toss with barbeque sauce and broil till it scorches here and there. Chop finely, instead of grinding, and add to a stir fry.