The Accidental Smallholder Forum

Livestock => Poultry & Waterfowl => Topic started by: Connor on January 20, 2014, 10:34:35 pm

Title: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: Connor on January 20, 2014, 10:34:35 pm
My chicks are due to hatch this week end so if i get some roosters should i keep them and fatten them up and eat them??

the breeds are silkie and buff orpington bantam?
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: shygirl on January 20, 2014, 10:40:30 pm
are you good at reliably sexing them? if not keep the chicks incase you kill the females by mistake.  :o :o

iv never kept those breeds so dont know how much meat they have, but if you try it then atleast you'l know for next time.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: Hevxxx99 on January 20, 2014, 10:48:19 pm
Silkies have black skins which are not very appealling for eating, but I'm told they taste okay...
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: chrismahon on January 21, 2014, 07:22:45 am
If the Buff Orpington Bantams are the same sexing as the Large Fowl it could be 26 weeks before you know how many cockerels you have, in our experience anyway. That would be the despatch age for the cockerels anyway. Some will sex earlier.


Both your breeds are rather small and I doubt there is much meat on them, but I would fatten and eat them regardless.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: Marches Farmer on January 21, 2014, 09:22:49 am
Think of them more as a partridge and you'll have an idea of the meat content.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: MelRice on January 21, 2014, 09:23:12 am
....always make good soup cocks anyway.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: Bodger on January 21, 2014, 10:10:14 am
If you are able to sex them, I'd cull them straight away. If you want some home bred chicken to eat, you'd be much better off feeding some cockerels from a recognized meat breed. With the birds you've got, you'll hardly get any meat and what you do get, will work out very expensive. With the price of chicken food these days, you've really got to be practical about costs.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: lord flynn on January 21, 2014, 11:59:50 am
aren't silkies hard to sex?
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: Stereo on January 21, 2014, 05:25:30 pm
Yes, we had some and still weren't really sure when someone took them off us for a good price. You can sort of tell but a bit like araucanas you probably need to see it crowing before you cull. It's more about stance than anything else I think. Maybe there are some experts on here who can tell us more.
Title: Re: Roosters that aren't needed
Post by: jaykay on January 21, 2014, 06:41:09 pm
Yes, I'd keep them and eat them. They make not make the biggest birds, but they'll be tasty. I eat all my spare cockerels - usually kill them around 6 months.