by Patricia Stewart

Created on: April 16, 2009

Let's see. Looking at breeds that have proven themselves resilient and useful over time. Do you look at the high maintenance ones that produce a lot of product, but require a lot of food, medicine and support? Or do you look at the ones that have proven themselves hardy and strong, able to sustain themselves in the hard times and still survive? To me, the answer is a "no brainer," but then I am a fan of heritage breeds.

Until the onset of "industrial agriculture," the animal that could provide the most amount of food/fiber with the least amount of work was the one most valued by the family farmer. The phrase "use everything but the squeal," of a pig describes very well, the value that farmers put on utility and efficiency. Industrial farms, which no longer run on the principal of utility, but on production for a single item, look at a different set of parameters. Many farms no longer raise a cow with its "replacement", but hire out from another "breeder farm," that service, only buying bred heifers for their farms. They sell the calves almost immediately, either back to the "breeder farm," or to a meat facility. Dairy farmers rarely deal with all phases of cow production anymore. It is part of what keeps the dairy industry afloat, parceling out the process.

But in doing so, that practice of looking at the overall cost of production is difficult to assess. As a goat farmer I need to look at what lines of my herd produce good milk, and healthy kids, with minimal difficulties in birthing, milk production and staying healthy. Those lines that have difficulty in any of three areas, need to leave here, or be bred to another line to try and do away with those problems in future generations. That is how I keep my costs down, and my prices.

Heritage, or rare breeds, are usually multi-purpose, providing enough meat and milk for a family, or meat and eggs, etc. Nothing is wasted on these animals, and they have been developed with that goal in mind. Consequently they require less veterinary care, less food, and provide more products for their "gift of life," than their more common "industrial cousins."

These animals are also usually easier on the land where they live. They convert feed to meat/milk with less intensive management. They eat scrub, rather than high end alfalfa. They are smaller, so they compact the soil less, and produce less manure. That which they do produce is usually lower in acid, and contributes less to soil infertility, water pollution and greenhouse gas emission.

Finally, these heritage breeds have long been bred with consideration to easy handling. If they needed "kid glove" handling, they would not have proven themselves worth the trouble. So, the less you have to "fuss with," an animal, the more efficient is to keep, and the lower the cost of maintaining it. That does not mean that every heritage breed is necessarily a "cuddle bug," but they have defined personalities that are more independent, and therefore farmers can choose which traits they wish to deal with. Giving thought to the personality and herd mentality of a breed is rarely considered where industrial agriculture is concerned. The cost of veterinary and doctor bills rise when it's dangerous to work with animal, or where that an imal is a danger to other livestock because of its personality. But in the world of "industrial ag," where the decision-makers are rarely the caretakers, and the product is more important than the individual, these less desirable traits are not considered.

So, keeping smaller, hardier livestock that yield ample food with less work will indeed produce lower costs for the food buyer. It does matter to the consumer, and buyers should take that into account when making their food choices.

Learn more about this author, Patricia Stewart.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.