My argument for consideration of options other than Culling

So I don't stomp on any toes, I'm not saying you shouldn't cull. I'm also not asking someone with a cull mentality to change their ways, however I am suggesting, why not consider other options, even if just for a short time.

Something I've noticed, more-so now than when I first joined (maybe because 'tis the season of hatching and youngins), is the common response by many in regards to an illness or disability of a bird or other farm animal: cull. Cully cull cull-cull-cull. That's fine and dandy for diseased birds that have no fight, those that tend to not recover and so on.

However it occurred to me that not only do I want immunity and vigour in my breeding program, I also want survivability, tolerance and recovery. Perhaps you will say: "They are not human," however, consider much of what we say to cull for as though it were people. It is born blind: cull it. Has a cold? Cull it. Doesn't walk right? Cull it. Sneezes frequently? Cull it. I know of plenty of blind people who live lovely lives, seeing the world in their own way. In the wild may they be picked off by a bear? Sure, but the city has provided a safe haven as we have to our animals. Have a cold or limp? Sneeze? Welcome to allergy season and a stubbed toe. If we culled humans for these symptoms, we'd all be dead. Some people make it through terrible colds and flus, other's die despite the advances in medical and naturopathic care. That's survivability and immunity at its best.

Moose's bird with the chest rattle from the auction has gotten better, though has never lost the rattle completely and likely never will; that doesn't make him a bad bird (though he isn't smart). He has, however, survived and, possibly, built up an immunity to some kind of respiratory trauma. Sure he sounds horrendous, but he is bright (not smart bright, but vibrant bright), and happily spends his day clucking, crowing, scratching and rattling. There is one bird that has died of natural (or unnatural considering the conditions it came from) causes on this property, who had merely been 'poofy' the day before. If I took into consideration that one was ill and started culling birds that looked poofy for a day, I'd be fresh out of birds. One bird had a stroke and was culled due to her inability to move, eat or drink. Had she just ended up with a droopy wing or a hobble in her walk, she would likely still be with us as long as she was producing eggs and could manage herself.

I suppose the 'harm' lies financially therein, as to whether or not you have 'time' and funds for an animal to attempt to gain some immunity when offered a little recovery time. I believe, however, that as sick animals naturally do in the wild, separating them and providing them with an extra boost of vitamins they would seek out themselves in the food they eat does no harm, and can only prove a surviving animal to be hardy and able to recover/gain immunity to whatever it was that ailed them. If they continue to deteriorate rapidly despite the extra nutrients and solitude, then culling, to me, would be the appropriate answer at that time as, in the wild, the animal would be targeted for it's deteriorating condition.

In short, in case I missed making my point, I believe survivability and recovery is just as important as immunity and is a vital part of ensuring vigour remains in a flock. Maybe its because I haven't been doing this long enough, but I doubt I'll change my mind in 10 years. It's my opinion, and I'm sure you will all have your own (which, of course, I would love to hear). I will not argue with you as to why you believe what you do or if it's wrong or right (because there isn't a right or wrong here), but I always find interested in knowing the why that goes with the how or what.

I agree that sometimes culling is easier or cheaper to do than treating the bird. But there many times where culling is the kindest thing for the animal or the safest thing for the flock.

I guess I'll start by saying this...
Next time I have an animal that is deformed, sick, wounded, etc, etc, I'll contact you and ask you to "buy" it, OK? LOL!!!
Chances are you wont want it. Correct? And why would you want it, never mind want to pay for it? Really, who in their right mind would? Same thing can be said for me wanting to keep it. I don't want sick or deformed or wounded birds that can't heal on their own. It's too much work for an animal that I consider to be "just" stock. Argue it if you want, but at the end of the day they are "only" animals.
Now I'm not saying that because they are only animals that they shouldn't be cared for properly in the first place!! I think all animals should be housed properly and cared for correctly so as to minimize any chances of them getting sick or injured (and that includes frost bite) or reproducing other prone to illness offspring! Preventative measures is where you should spend your time right off the hop! Otherwise, you will be just like a dog chasing your tail.
As for your comparisons to sick people vs. sick animals, I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the differences, so I'm not going to go in to a discussion with you about it. I will say this though, there is no way I can hold an animals life to the same regard as a humans.
Bottom line is, if it is extra work (money) for me to care for an animal that can't return the costs, it just doesn't make sense financially to keep them around! If these birds are considered family pets to you and you don't mind having to take extra time each day to care for the invalid, then have at er if that's what you want to do.

Sweetened, wow, dip your toe in the shark filled waters or what? This is one of those hot topics where it's hard not to step on toes.

Since you are new to this, and DWD is perhaps jaded or just plain mean, I will explain my own choice, which lies somewhere in the middle. I agree with DWD that there comes a point where special needs animals take up too much time, resources or space to be practical. At some point prolonging a life that is obviously not going to make it crosses the line into sadistic. I believe that good husbandry is knowing when enough is enough and not waffling and wringing your hands when it's time to kill an animal.

However, for me there is a certain amount of time and energy I am willing to put into an animal to give it every opportunity to pull through. I do not cull for every little sniffle nor do I treat! Using homeopathic remedies I will treat for injuries (predator attack or run of the mill barnyard accidents), I will give a bird private quarters and give it time and room to heal. I will do crop surgery because that is a physical problem from eating stupid things, not a genetic problem (although stupidity CAN be genetic). But I do NOT run to the vet and bring home antibiotics. If some gooped on honey and Polysporin doesn't do the trick...then when it is obvious the bird is not recovering, I stop the suffering.

Injured or sick birds are given all the help that I am reasonably willing to give them, separate accomdations if needed, but they are on the clock. Progress in small steps buys them more time. I would keep a blind or crippled bird, if it was able to adapt and find its way in my flock. I would not if I had to hand feed it twice a day forever. I don't pull the plug as soon as DWD or others would, but I do agree with DWD's view that at some point, this is a financial and energy drain.

Ugly birds, mis-coloured birds, unpopular birds with acne are welcome in my flock. If a bird is sick and recovers, it can stay. Injured and recovers, it can stay. Handicapped yet adapts, it can stay. But when all a bird's life is going to be is misery and suffering, nope, over.

Dark Wing Duck wrote:I guess I'll start by saying this...
Next time I have an animal that is deformed, sick, wounded, etc, etc, I'll contact you and ask you to "buy" it, OK? LOL!!!

Argue it if you want, but at the end of the day they are "only" animals.

I will say this though, there is no way I can hold an animals life to the same regard as a humans.

Bottom line is, if it is extra work (money) for me to care for an animal that can't return the costs, it just doesn't make sense financially to keep them around!

On your points above, in the order listed:
Please do contact me, if you're willing to ship, depending on the issues, you'd be surprised what I'd pay for.

I've already said. I'm not here to argue, nor to judge, nor was I trying to judge. Like I said, it's your way and it's not right or wrong, I just felt (because it has come up) that I also had the right to make my own point on the matter.

I hold most animals lives higher than most humans, though I regard the majority of society with my own bitter taste, I suppose. Such is the life of an antisocial person.

Lastly, The only thing a bird given the chance costs is food -- I'm not talking about doping them up and filling them full of meds, I'm talking a few days in solitary with vitamin solution I already have around the house with food they'd be eating anyway if they weren't ill.

uno wrote:At some point prolonging a life that is obviously not going to make it crosses the line into sadistic. I believe that good husbandry is knowing when enough is enough and not waffling and wringing your hands when it's time to kill an animal.

If a bird is sick and recovers, it can stay. Injured and recovers, it can stay. Handicapped yet adapts, it can stay. But when all a bird's life is going to be is misery and suffering, nope, over.

And to your points, dear Uno. I think we are on the same page. Perhaps I came across as otherwise: nurse it until it keels over in a ton of pain; that was not my intention. I like sharks, so why not go swimming where they may be You, I believe, would know the urge to do so above many.

When it comes to doing what needs to be done, I'm willing. With the bird with the stroke, Moose and I did the kind thing (I must say though, had she been my first kill, I would have gotten out of the killing business... some don't die as easy I suppose). We had a cat here I had adored, the only friendly cat on the property that wasn't my house cat. He disappeared for a week and came back skin and bones. I don't know if he got into poison or what, but after a few days inside turned to no eating/drinking and after not recovering after 2 days of electrolyte water, I asked the landlord to come over with his gun when I was told by the vets they couldn't get him in for over a week and the other city vets were charging 300 to put him down, still with wait times.

I don't know if it was a bad shot, but I gave him time to have the nerves settle and they didn't -- he wasn't gone. It took everything I had to muster it up, but I covered his head and used an old fence pole and I finished the job. You do what you must, but he deserved the fight I gave him, he chose to be done, as we do when we get down or old. I've been raised around death enough (my mom was an extended care worker for 14 years) to know when you're done, you just stop. So did he, and so do they, but I believe the should have the opportunity to show you they're not willing or able to fight. *Shrug*

as seemingly harsh as culling may sound, it has proven to be the most effective way to influence a population for the better.
to compare breeding animals to people makes no sense. of course it is unethical to cull people based on a weakness, hereditary or not. but we are not breeding people with the intention of bettering the species.
those with yards of animals they are breeding, are. when the betterment of the breed, line or species is the goal, culling hard the ones who don't exhibit better qualities than the base stock ensures a steady move forward.
in dogs it was very common to dispatch sub-par puppies at birth (in some places it still is). kind or not, it was an effective means to an end. most breeders now use spay and neuter contracts to ensure sub-par dogs do not enter the gene pool.
for those willing to house and keep sub-par animals for their own pleasure, great. but most breeders of any species are focused on the improvement and thank goodness they are. it is the breeders who cull hard and regularly who deserve a big thank-you and our gratitude for the breeds we have today of any domestic species.

So far I keep them all ,some for keeping ,some for the pot or BBQ ,those that don't survive don't ! I spend time and give what I feel is needed in case they get sick ( lost a lot of turkey chicks this year ! )but I allow nature to run it's course as well .I don't beleive in culling because it isn't correct in some way according to standards or show quality ,after all they all taste like ............CHICKEN

As to culling people, the Ab gov. did just that by ordering mentally ill and deformed persons to be sterilized. They called it a Eugenics program. Bet they still wish they had plausible deniability on that one. And where would we be had Einstein or Hawkings been put down for their shortcomings. Should we humans be running around breeding freely like wild animals? How many would tolerate that in their livestock breeding programs? How do we know we are not being bred by greater powers, maybe
using financial, religious and educational institutions as the breeding controls instead of chicken wire. When will the decision be made that unhealthy humans can no longer procreate cause it costs too much for health care...genetic research is leading us to face these and even more uncomfortable questions. I believe we are just as much animal in nature as the livestock we raise, I believe the basic priciples of breeding are universal, applying equally to humans..its ok I accept the inner need to deny this and feel repulsed or over confident in smug self importance. Sorry, I dont have answers, only uncomfortable questions. Cure? Or cull? Address the symptom, or solve the problem? Easy way or hard way? Will it live, survive, replicate? This is real, live, life drama unfolding before us all. What will you do? What can you do?...???

I suppose much of it depends on what your goals and purpose are. If your birds are your pets and you keep them in enclosed pens, go ahead and keep and care for all our birds. Just please don't breed from them. Even a sick bird that recovers has less of a vigorous immune system than a bird that never got sick during an outbreak to begin with (unless it's the only survivor I suppose)

And a blind duckling may be endearing and may be happy, but would get picked off in an instant on range. Again, different story if it's your pet.

My approach to culling is that if a bird is suffering and not likely to recover, it is most humane to kill it, and least humane to allow it to "die naturally". If it has poor breeding quality but is healthy, it is not culled, but will be butchered in the fall.

I think we are more responsible for the health of the flock than the health of the individual bird. Eugenics is not even related to ethical responsibility to our livestock.

Dark Wing Duck wrote:I guess I'll start by saying this...
Next time I have an animal that is deformed, sick, wounded, etc, etc, I'll contact you and ask you to "buy" it, OK? LOL!!!
Chances are you wont want it. Correct?

DWD, you have just hit upon the most lucrative of animal sales. It is called rescue. Put an ad in Kijiji for an animal like that and say you have RESCUED it and people will beat a path to your door to purchase it and thus obtain the bragging rights to prove what a good and selfless person they are.

To all you legit rescue people out there, my apologies., but I'll bet you have encountered this phenomenon yourselves.

Yes, I agree that one's culling program is dependent on the purpose of the particular flock. I certainly would NOT be breeding with a rooster that has a permanent chest rattle. If he is just a lawn ornament, then I guess chest rattles dont matter. I would be worried that this winter will find more of your birds with the same affliction, and at that point I would be regretting having him around in the first place.

As with the people debate.... People are animals if you ask me. Way back before advanced medicines, people died of all sorts of now trivial ailments; strep throat, pheumonia etc. Especially children, so very sad. The survivors were tough; good breeding stock, really! Thanks to modern advancements we get to keep all our relatives a lot longer (thank goodness) BUT, the human genepool is becoming more and more "freckled" with hereditary ailments and susceptibilities that would naturally have been weeded out if not for Medicine. What is right? In our current direction, we are now stuck in the snow-ball effect where the worse the genes are allowed to get, the more medicines will be needed, which in turn weakens the genetics further and so even more medicines will be required just to maintain the image of health. At the same time, LOVE, morals and ethics are the primary reason for this situation, and rightfully so.

Seeing as we are at the top of the food chain, we can at least control the hereditary health of our utility flocks/herds without weeding through TRUE love, morals, or ethics.

KatuskiFarms wrote:Way back before advanced medicines, people died of all sorts of now trivial ailments; strep throat, pheumonia etc. Especially children, so very sad. The survivors were tough; good breeding stock, really!

This is the exact reason I believe the way I do. Like I said, I'm not willing to dope up a bird or give antibiotics, heck, I'm not willing to do that to myself for that matter. However, if they can naturally fight it off then they are strong. Survival of the fittest doesn't always mean that those who survive were 100% fit at all times.




Interesting replies from everyone -- I appreciate a look into what drives your beliefs. Though it has not changed my opinion of anyone, I can see mine has changed some people's opinions of me. To be expected, I suppose.

I have a similar view on culling here. If I have an injured bird and it heals it can stay, if they have the sniffles and get better they can stay. If they hatch deformed znd can survive without issue, they can stay, as long as their life is not miserable. They won't have a long life as those would eventually be "culled" to freezer camp. Those that are for breeding that don't make the standards will either be sold as pets or again freezer camp for them. I right now am trying to decide what to do with my lavender ameracauna roo. He is not perfect has tan bleeding in his hackles, but still pretty. Something happened to him this spring and he ended up with a sore leg. I left him to see if he would heal, can't fond any sore spots or issues but he is still limping. Do I cull? I'm not sure he will do his job, and he is in with Tommy (royal palm Tom) and his girlfriend so does not need a new pen just for him but his usefulness is in question and that us where my troubles come in on my end for culling

smokyriver wrote:I have a similar view on culling here. If I have an injured bird and it heals it can stay, if they have the sniffles and get better they can stay. If they hatch deformed znd can survive without issue, they can stay, as long as their life is not miserable. They won't have a long life as those would eventually be "culled" to freezer camp. Those that are for breeding that don't make the standards will either be sold as pets or again freezer camp for them. I right now am trying to decide what to do with my lavender ameracauna roo. He is not perfect has tan bleeding in his hackles, but still pretty. Something happened to him this spring and he ended up with a sore leg. I left him to see if he would heal, can't fond any sore spots or issues but he is still limping. Do I cull? I'm not sure he will do his job, and he is in with Tommy (royal palm Tom) and his girlfriend so does not need a new pen just for him but his usefulness is in question and that us where my troubles come in on my end for culling

LOL! I love how you term it “Freezer Camp.” That just made me laugh so hard with delight, I love it. Perhaps I may use the term on occasion as well?

In the instance of your roo, if he’s a butcherable weight, on my farm, I would consider sending him to the so named Freezer Camp, unless I thought he was ill? I know how hard that decision is, and I’m not looking forward to following through on that decision early next spring with my first batch of hand-reared mutts. But our farm is a circle. I suppose if he had no use or place on the farm, then his place and use would then, indeed, be sustenance for the family.

I agree, even the oddest or out of standard birds can be eaten and eaten well. Ill birds are given to the farm cats, usually whole after being put down. I’m not keen on wasting the life completely.

KatuskiFarms wrote:Yes, I agree that one's culling program is dependent on the purpose of the particular flock. I certainly would NOT be breeding with a rooster that has a permanent chest rattle. If he is just a lawn ornament, then I guess chest rattles dont matter. I would be worried that this winter will find more of your birds with the same affliction, and at that point I would be regretting having him around in the first place.

As with the people debate.... People are animals if you ask me. Way back before advanced medicines, people died of all sorts of now trivial ailments; strep throat, pheumonia etc. Especially children, so very sad. The survivors were tough; good breeding stock, really! Thanks to modern advancements we get to keep all our relatives a lot longer (thank goodness) BUT, the human genepool is becoming more and more "freckled" with hereditary ailments and susceptibilities that would naturally have been weeded out if not for Medicine. What is right? In our current direction, we are now stuck in the snow-ball effect where the worse the genes are allowed to get, the more medicines will be needed, which in turn weakens the genetics further and so even more medicines will be required just to maintain the image of health. At the same time, LOVE, morals and ethics are the primary reason for this situation, and rightfully so.

Seeing as we are at the top of the food chain, we can at least control the hereditary health of our utility flocks/herds without weeding through TRUE love, morals, or ethics.

Katuski, this is very well stated. Agreed.