# which breed or breeds?



## kountryboy (Jan 29, 2010)

I have boer goats but was wondering if theirs a goat that is produces milk but also is for meat?


----------



## Roll farms (Jan 29, 2010)

Old style Nubians were considered "dual purpose"...meat and milk.

They are far removed from the streamlined dairy Nubs of today, though...although there are still some out there.

Personally, I like to cross Nubs and Boers, both b/c you keep the ear length, improve udders, and usually end up w/ a taller, yet meaty...goat.

And the crosses seem hardier than purebreds of either strain.  We milk many of our Boer x Nubs.


----------



## currycomb (Jan 29, 2010)

i agree with roll, cross a nubian buck on boer does, get cleaner udders and good milkers.


----------



## lupinfarm (Jan 29, 2010)

Very common here is to cross and Boer and Nubian. Lots of farms sell on the babies to hobbiest out here and they're fairly popular.


----------



## cmjust0 (Jan 29, 2010)

currycomb said:
			
		

> i agree with roll, cross a nubian buck on boer does, get cleaner udders and good milkers.


I love me some boer/nubi crosses.


----------



## no nonsense (Jan 29, 2010)

I don't agree at all. By crossing, you're getting a combination of both traits, but neither will be as efficient milk or meat producers as the purebred parents. If you must have both meat and milk animals in your herd, why not just keep the pure Boers, and add a few pure Nubian does for milk? Or even better, get a more stable tempered dairy breed. You would breed the dairy does to your Boer buck every year to freshen, and have their mediocre kids to finish as suitable albeit not substantial meat animals. You do not get the best of both worlds by crossing breeds, you get a dilution of the best traits, in this case, because meat type and dairy type are at two different ends of the spectrum. You can't have it all in one animal, and do it well. You can produce animals which may be used for both purposes, if you have plenty of pasture, feed and time to spend in growing them to slaughter weight, or if you like feeding and caring for more milkers than you need to, in order to get the same amount of milk which you would get from less animals.


----------



## cmjust0 (Jan 29, 2010)

no nonsense said:
			
		

> I don't agree at all. By crossing, you're getting a combination of both traits, but neither will be as efficient milk or meat producers as the purebred parents.


I've got a couple of boer/nubi cross does that I gaurandamntee would dress out better than a registered boer doe I have the misfortune of still owning.



			
				nn said:
			
		

> If you must have both meat and milk animals in your herd, why not just keep the pure Boers, and add a few pure Nubian does for milk? Or even better, get a more stable tempered dairy breed. You would breed the dairy does to your Boer buck every year to freshen, and have their mediocre kids to finish as suitable albeit not substantial meat animals.


You seem to have had different experiences with boer/nubi crossing than most of us..  



			
				nn said:
			
		

> You do not get the best of both worlds by crossing breeds, you get a dilution of the best traits, in this case, because meat type and dairy type are at two different ends of the spectrum. You can't have it all in one animal, and do it well.


You're provably wrong there, and I'm speaking in regard to genetics..  If there's a flaw in your boer's genetics and a flaw in your nubian's genetics, you may see that flaw come out in their offspring if they're mated to another purebred.

If, however, you crossbreed the two, you get something very well known and documented in the livestock world....hybrid vigor.

BTW...I'd love to see you make this argument to someone crossing, say, hereford cows to a black angus bull.  Those offspring are called "black baldies" and they're like GOLD at the market.



			
				nn said:
			
		

> You can produce animals which may be used for both purposes, if you have plenty of pasture, feed and time to spend in growing them to slaughter weight, or if you like feeding and caring for more milkers than you need to, in order to get the same amount of milk which you would get from less animals.


Do you have any experience at all with intentional crossbreeding, or are you just speculating?


----------



## no nonsense (Jan 29, 2010)

cmjust0 said:
			
		

> no nonsense said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, since you've demonstrated that you'll argue with just about anything that I post, simply for the sake of taunting an argument, I'll respond with that well in mind.

One poor quality example of a purebred animal compared to several good quality crossbreds does not exactly make for a generalization which will hold true for all other members of the breed. I once had a Nubian which was a terrible milker, yet I've seen several of you extoll the virtues of the dairy qualities of the breed. By following your example, using that one doe, I should be able to conclude that all Nubians are terrible milkers, but NubianXSaanens are great. Also by your example, if I crossed my doe with a great milkiing Saanen, by the wonder of hybrid vigor, I should get some grades which are better milkers than any pure Saanens. Absurd.

I'm also speaking in regard to genetics. Yes, breeding two purebred animals of the same breed, both of which have a recessive fault, may show the trait in their offspring. If they both have superior traits, those too may also come out. A knowledgeable breeder understands how to select for the good, concentrate it, and cull for the bad. You seem to ignore the possibility that crossing two unrelated breeds may also bring out undesireable traits, if both parents are carrying it. The only difference is that it is less likely, because the parents are obviously less closely related, BUT, the superior traits of each side are also less likely to be expressed. Genetics isn't about combining what we want because we like a trait found in each parent, and expecting only what we want, to pop up in the offspring, but not what we don't, no matter how much we LOVE the traits of the parent breeds, and how strongly we wish for it.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between hybrid vigor and production traits as determined by body type. Your example also shows that you don't understand the difference in type that a dairy animal must have in order to be an efficient milker, vs that of a meat animal to become also a good producer. A dairy animal's body type is lean and angular, with good capacity to eat and drink well, while not wasting those resources in putting on flesh in areas of it's body that it doesn't need them. A meat or beef animal on the other hand has a very different body type, square or rectangular, designed to add flesh where it can do the most good to produce meat. This is really just cattle science 101, but the same applies to goats, as far as body type and production goes. Your example of the hereford X angus shows your lack of familiarity with this concept. Yes,  hybrid vigor does take affect here, but the difference between that and the BoerXNubian example is that BOTH cattle breeds you mentioned are beef breeds, and so already have a similar type which is conducive to beef production. Add hybrid vigor to the equation, and, yes, of course you get a superior animal. A more accurate comparison would have been to cross a hereford with a black DAIRY breed, let's say a Kerry, for lack of any other purebred dairy breeds which are normally all black. (OK, maybe a Canadienne, if you can find one, or know what they are.) Color genetics being mainly the same within species, the color pattern of that cross should also be a baldie, yet I defy anyone to make it, and see if the market still clamors for your animals. To put it another way, if you cross a greyhound with a collie, you don't get a race winner that will still herd for you. You'll get an intermediate mix, lean dogs, some of which may have some herding instinct, some which may just want to run off, but neither as good as the parents at their original purpose. All will probably be robust, due to to the lessening of the inbreeding coefficient.


----------



## Roll farms (Jan 29, 2010)

I don't really want to join the peeing contest you fellas have going, but if crossing Boers and Nubs, or Boers and Kikos, or Boers and....wasn't a good idea, there wouldn't be a place in ABGA or USBGA or IBGA for percentage does.

Having big, meaty does who I can milk if needed, and who make me big fat (10-14#) kids, and who don't need wormed as often, or babied during kidding....isn't wrong.

The trick is breeding the right doe to the right buck, regardless of breed...to get the trait(s) the breeder is after.  You may not agree, and that's your right.  

The OP asked if there's a dual purpose breed....I stressed the OLD STYLE Nubians.  Not the skinny, higher-maintenance DAIRY Nubian.

I have a doe who's an American Nubian who, when bred to a Boer buck,  makes market wethers who win their class every year.  
She would never win in a dairy class, she's not just not 'dairy'.
Yet she produces 8-10# of milk per day out of an ugly, but capacious udder.  
I will never breed her "pure" Nubian, as I do not want a 'dairy' goat w/ an ugly udder...or her big legs...and those are traits I'm afraid she'd throw.

Since she makes some awesome cross kids, that's what I use her for. 

The fact of the matter is, Boer x kids sell VERY well to kids for 4-H, and as market kids...
MANY big show dairies use boer bucks on their dairy doe first fresheners so that they can get "more marketable" kids while they evaluate their udders.  
MANY big boer breeders, both show and market producers, add dairy does to their herds, as grafting mothers / milkers to feed orphans, and to improve udders.

I have plenty of purebreds of many breeds, and I breed plenty of purebreds every year...but the fact remains that every year I get some cross kids that are better than their purebred counterparts.

Would I cross an Oberhasli to a Boer?  No...there's just too much conflict there for it to make sense.  But the Nubs?  Maybe the occasional big Togg doe?  Yes, I will.


----------



## no nonsense (Jan 30, 2010)

Roll farms said:
			
		

> I don't really want to join the peeing contest you fellas have going, but if crossing Boers and Nubs, or Boers and Kikos, or Boers and....wasn't a good idea, there wouldn't be a place in ABGA or USBGA or IBGA for percentage does. *Well, there's always going to be some people who are satisfied with less than the best, those who don't understand the details and concepts behind stock improvement, and, yes, those with legitimate, well thought out upgrading or crossing programs. The registries aren't stupid. They receive income from issuing those pieces of paper. Might as well allow as many sources as possible.*
> Having big, meaty does who I can milk if needed, and who make me big fat (10-14#) kids, and who don't need wormed as often, or babied during kidding....isn't wrong. *Not at all, as long as you understand that you're settling for the middle of the road. You could have a much higher dress out percentage, and a higher milk yield, if you kept pure animals of breeds which are designed for each purpose.*
> The trick is breeding the right doe to the right buck, regardless of breed...to get the trait(s) the breeder is after.  You may not agree, and that's your right.  *Agreed. Most people don't understand that. They think that by crossing milk with meat, you get the best of both worlds. Doesn't work that way.*.
> 
> ...


I hesitate to bring it up for fear of causing even more confusion, but for those of you who must favor crossbreeding, the idea of terminal crosses, such as the baldies, and some other examples in cattle, or as in broiler chickens or turkeys, does take advantage of the concept of hybrid vigor. We're now also getting away from the concept of breeds altogether, and are talking more about strains, especially in hogs and poultry. It's a good example though, because the offspring are not designed to be kept as breeders, because the producers understand that from there on in, the benefits, especially of feed conversion efficiency will be diluted out. Sex-link chickens are another example. The offspring are used as terminal layers, not kept further for breeding. To produce more, the breeders go back to the original breeds to cross, always taking advantage of the hybrid vigor in the one generation, knowing that it will be lost further down the line.

To put it another way, look back on livestock breed history. Why do you think all of these so-called dual purpose breeds have faded away over the years? It's because they just are not sustainable for those multiple purposes. Simply because something can used for something, doesn't mean that it is good at it. Jack of all trades, master of none. Either pure bred animals bred for a single purpose, or intentional terminal hybrids are what most serious producers are doing. We see it in cattle, hogs, poultry, sheep, because that's what works in the long run. This is just basic livestock production science.


----------



## Roll farms (Jan 30, 2010)

And...I still say my 96%, 88% and 75% does outweigh, outproduce, and outmilk their fullblood parents...theoretically speaking, b/c you can't milk a buck.

One example:  Bre (75% Boer, the rest Nub) weighs in at 260#, has trips and twins yearly, and when she's weaned her kids gives 6-8# of milk per day for a few months.  Bre is an 'easy keeper'...she gets the same ration as everyone else, just uses it better.

Her FB Boer grandma, produces singles and twins, dries up sooner, and weighs around 200#.  She eats the same as Bre.

Her PB Nub grandma gives more milk, but fewer kids...and eats a 'dairy' ration, which costs more than the boer feed I mix.

Bre's fullblood sisters weigh less, eat the same, but produce the same or fewer kids and no extra milk.

She would dress out _more_ (and it ain't fat, that chick is SOLID) than her FB sisters (w/ pedigrees for miles...Tarzan, EGGS, etc...but you can't eat or milk a pedigree...), she produces _more_ big kids that sell well, AND she gives me milk...not as much as a dairy animal, but she's already MASTERED 2 points, I'll accept "good" on the other.

My spreadsheet says, between kids sold, milk produced, and feed put in, that of the group mentioned, Bre is the best doe I have...based on her feed efficiency and production output.

I guess my point is, I breed for best output for my input.  Bre does that.

The point on 4-H kids wasn't that they're the best judges of what goats to buy, but that as long as there are kids out there who need good market kids to show, I will keep producing them.  
Let the rich kids buy a big $$ fullblood and get it fat...I'll sell our goat kids for less to the kids who WANT to show for the fun of it...but can't afford to pay top dollar.  

I usually only keep about 2-3 kids per year...out of up to 50....the best out of proven parents, again, REGARDLESS of their ancestry, based on their potenial and their parents proven results.

Last year I kept 2 pb Nubs and 1 pb Togg.   For milk.
This year, it's been a all % Boer doelings b/c I think they will make better, bigger kids than their fb counterparts.  For meat.
If I wanted beauty and the ability to win shows (you can't eat ribbons) I'll keep some FB's next time.

My "Bre Math" makes sense to me, and IS stock improvement, IMHO.

Another point to keep in mind, both Boer and Nubians share a lot of common ancestry in the Middle Eastern goats that were originally part of their foundation.  
Maybe the joining of the 'old genes' is what works...

You come across as a bit of a 'purebreds only' snob, who won't even accept the concept that *maybe* a crossbred animal could produce as well as their pb parents...I say again, you cannot milk or eat a pedigree or a ribbon.

I'd just as soon agree to disagree at this point.


----------



## no nonsense (Jan 30, 2010)

What you don't seem to understand is that we really are agreeing, for the most part. Many of your remarks about your percentage Boers actually prove my points. As you get further and further away from 50/50 crosses, you are improving meat type, reaping the benefits of hybrid vigor, increasing your milk production over the pure Boers, yet reducing it from the pure Nubians, etc. I think where you got lost is that you're confusing crosses with  high percentage, well selected animals. If you look back on the original posts, most of the responses said or insinuated a 50/50 cross. There's a big difference. You say yourself that your percentage doe's milk production is not that of a more dairy type Nubian, and that it dries up earlier than a normal lactating dairy doe. You're OK with that, and that's fine, but that IMO is not the type of animal to recommend to someone who wants both milk and meat. I still say that if he wants the ideal, he should work with some pure Boers, I'll even soften a bit to allow some high percentage such as yours, but if he wants milk he would be better off with a few pure or high percentage dairy animals too. Now we could tell him to go ahead and work with 50/50's. He'll get both some meat and some milk, with more animals, feed, work, time and money than he would with better stock.

BTW, I am generally a purebreds only "snob", and proud of it. As I posted earlier, some intentional hybrids do have their place, especially terminal crosses in commercial agriculture. I'm not a hog breeder, so most of my feeders have generally been just that, but by and large, if I'm going to feed, house and look at it all day, I want the beauty, consistency, predictability, monetary value and above all the pride in ownership which comes with a purebred, pedigreed animal, vs some feral scrub mutt or some happy go lucky mix that someone thought would look "neat", just for kicks. They cost the same to keep. People can deride the fact that you can't eat or milk papers all they want, but purebred animals in the hands of a skilled breeder generally outproduce most unintentional mutts. Tell any Holstein dairy farmer that they don't. There's also the entire other issue of breed preservation, a noble persuit too. It wasn't very many years ago that the Boers were first brought into this country, and if it weren't for purebred snobs like me, none of you would even now have these crosses to toy with.


----------



## Roll farms (Jan 30, 2010)

> and if it weren't for purebred snobs like me, none of you would even now have these crosses to toy with.


Well, La Ti Freakin' Da   
We surely thank you for your benevolence, sir.  
(Oh, where is the sarcasm smiley....?)


*sits on hands to avoid typing another long-winded response*

Somebody must stop the insanity....may as well be me.


----------



## no nonsense (Jan 30, 2010)

You're welcome.


----------



## kountryboy (Jan 30, 2010)

Ok thanks I'm probably going to cross boer and nubians. I have heard people having pretty good results.

In my honest opinion I wouldn't ever have a thing to do with purebred. Know way too many people with bad results family and friends. If it wasn't for some people then the boers would be hardier and same with many other breed of goats... 

I am looking something with a dual purpose so if I wanted meat I have it but if I wanted milk I also have that...

I'm not trying to ad fuel to the fire but its my choice and I was just interested in opinions and I got them. I didn't know if their was a dual purpose goat out there in the world. And I didn't mean to get anything started.

Thanks for the opinions.


----------



## ksalvagno (Jan 30, 2010)

No matter what anyone's opinion is, you have to do what is right for you. Good luck with your search and if you have any questions, don't worry about posting here again. Most of the time we just answer them.


----------



## cmjust0 (Feb 1, 2010)

no nonsense said:
			
		

> Well, since you've demonstrated that you'll argue with just about anything that I post, simply for the sake of taunting an argument, I'll respond with that well in mind.


Nobody has to "taunt" an argument with you..  You come into every thread with enough sideways comments and straw man arguments to aggravate people and -- lo and behold -- people get aggravated.

Yet, you always seem surprised.  



			
				nn said:
			
		

> One poor quality example of a purebred animal compared to several good quality crossbreds does not exactly make for a generalization which will hold true for all other members of the breed. I once had a Nubian which was a terrible milker, yet I've seen several of you extoll the virtues of the dairy qualities of the breed. By following your example, using that one doe, I should be able to conclude that all Nubians are terrible milkers, but NubianXSaanens are great. Also by your example, if I crossed my doe with a great milkiing Saanen, by the wonder of hybrid vigor, I should get some grades which are better milkers than any pure Saanens. Absurd.


You do realize that none of us actually made that argument though, right?



			
				nn said:
			
		

> I'm also speaking in regard to genetics. Yes, breeding two purebred animals of the same breed, both of which have a recessive fault, may show the trait in their offspring. If they both have superior traits, those too may also come out. A knowledgeable breeder understands how to select for the good, concentrate it, and cull for the bad. You seem to ignore the possibility that crossing two unrelated breeds may also bring out undesireable traits, if both parents are carrying it. The only difference is that it is less likely, because the parents are obviously less closely related, BUT, the superior traits of each side are also less likely to be expressed. Genetics isn't about combining what we want because we like a trait found in each parent, and expecting only what we want, to pop up in the offspring, but not what we don't, no matter how much we LOVE the traits of the parent breeds, and how strongly we wish for it.


And, again...where did anyone say that crossing a boer nubi will get a pure boer frame with a pure nubian bag?  Where did anyone say they believed crossing would ONLY bring out the best of both breeds?

Nowhere...

For your own reference....fabricating an opposing viewpoint and assigning it to your opponent just so you can knock it down is called a "straw man argument."  

Here...let's do a little homework on that topic, since your post is rife with examples.



			
				nn said:
			
		

> You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between hybrid vigor and production traits as determined by body type.


No, you just wish I'd shown that because it would make it easier to argue with me.  So, you pretend I did and then attack me over it.  Classic straw man...

And here comes another one..  



			
				nn said:
			
		

> Your example also shows that you don't understand the difference in type that a dairy animal must have in order to be an efficient milker, vs that of a meat animal to become also a good producer.


See, you assign me the position of not knowing the difference between dairy and meat breeds, then follow up with an explanation as though I'm an idiot..



			
				nn said:
			
		

> A dairy animal's body type is lean and angular, with good capacity to eat and drink well, while not wasting those resources in putting on flesh in areas of it's body that it doesn't need them. A meat or beef animal on the other hand has a very different body type, square or rectangular, designed to add flesh where it can do the most good to produce meat. This is really just cattle science 101, but the same applies to goats, as far as body type and production goes.


The beauty is that if nobody catches on, you look really smart and I look really dumb.

Too bad I caught on, huh?


And again, assigning me a position of being too dumb to know my butt from a hole in the ground...



			
				nn said:
			
		

> Your example of the hereford X angus shows your lack of familiarity with this concept.


...followed by yet another phony knockdown...



			
				nn said:
			
		

> Yes,  hybrid vigor does take affect here, but the difference between that and the BoerXNubian example is that BOTH cattle breeds you mentioned are beef breeds, and so already have a similar type which is conducive to beef production. Add hybrid vigor to the equation, and, yes, of course you get a superior animal. A more accurate comparison would have been to cross a hereford with a black DAIRY breed, let's say a Kerry, for lack of any other purebred dairy breeds which are normally all black. (OK, maybe a Canadienne, if you can find one, or know what they are.) Color genetics being mainly the same within species, the color pattern of that cross should also be a baldie, yet I defy anyone to make it, and see if the market still clamors for your animals.


And again..  This is perhaps my favorite, btw, because if nobody catches on and believes that I have to have it explained to me that the product of a collie/greyhound mix wouldn't be a race-winning herd dog....WOW...I must be really stupid, huh?!?



			
				nn said:
			
		

> To put it another way, if you cross a greyhound with a collie, you don't get a race winner that will still herd for you.


...aaaaaaand knocking it down, showing everyone how smart you are and how dumb I am for believing I'd get a race winning herd dog...  



			
				nn said:
			
		

> You'll get an intermediate mix, lean dogs, some of which may have some herding instinct, some which may just want to run off, but neither as good as the parents at their original purpose. All will probably be robust, due to to the lessening of the inbreeding coefficient.


I mean...c'mon.  :rolleyes

If you're going to debate with me, you're going to have to debate the merits _of what I actually say_ -- not what you wish I'd have said, or what it would been more convenient for me to have said.

Or...you're going to have to find someone dumber to argue with..  

Me?...I'm not falling for it..  Hopefully, now that your not-so-clever tactics have been thoroughly examined, nobody else will fall for it either..


----------



## cmjust0 (Feb 1, 2010)

BTW, all...fans of crosses, especially...I was brought into someone's barn yesterday just to look at a new little doe kid...  The owner -- a very well known breeder of Boer goats -- just wanted me to see her, because he was really, really proud of her.

I thought at first he was showing me a flush kid.  She was just gorgeous...wide stance, big boned, and when she turned broadside -- WOW -- this little doeling is long as a three week payday!  Just a real darling of a goat..

Then I noticed a round dot on her back that -- in my experience -- is a tell tale sign of a crossbred boer..  Then I looked at the doe she was in with...just "some feral scrub mutt" with no papers, a straight nose, and shortish ears -- the mama had the dot, too.

Just as I started to ask "Now, is she pur.." he interrupted and pointed out that mama was actually _mama_...flesh and blood.  He'd run her with his nice (super, duper nice...big $$$) buck just to keep him company, and this doeling was half the produce.  Just, ya know, one of those "happy go lucky mix" goats.....that happened to look better than about 90% of what comes from purebred matings.

That's when I mentioned that specific marking, telling him that the ones I'd seen with that mark are almost always really nice crosses..  He said "Oooooh yeah..  Yep, I've noticed that too."


----------



## lupinfarm (Feb 1, 2010)

cmjust0, your responses make my day every time I see them lol.


----------

