MMC Farmstead

08/30/2026

So much on Facebook today ....

08/28/2026

Build the Barn Before You Paint It

One of the easiest traps in breeding color and fur breeds is becoming so focused on what is on the outside that the rabbit underneath it gets forgotten.

A beautiful coat cannot compensate for poor structure.

In breeds where color, markings, wool, or fur quality carry a large portion of the Standard of Perfection, breeders can become intensely focused on improving those traits while type quietly deteriorates generation after generation. Eventually there are beautifully colored rabbits sitting on weak frames: less bone, reduced size and muscle mass, low or dipping shoulders, weak feet and pasterns, pinched hindquarters, hollow loins, narrow bodies, and poor overall balance.
That is backwards.

Build the barn before painting it.

Correct structure has to come first. Breeding stock should have adequate bone, strong straight legs, sound feet, proper width, good depth, a well-filled loin, strong hindquarters, appropriate muscling, and the balance expected for the breed. Once that foundation exists, then refine color, markings, wool, fur texture, density, or whatever specialized trait makes that breed distinctive.

This is particularly important in breeds where breeders have enormous pressure to chase appearance. Harlequins can have gorgeous markings and still be poorly built. Angoras can carry spectacular wool and still lack the body underneath it. Champagne and other color-focused breeds can have beautiful surface color while losing the substance and commercial structure that should support it.

A rabbit does not become quality simply because the difficult color genetics finally lined up.
Breed standards are not permission to disregard everything that received fewer points. Points determine placement in the showroom. They should not become a breeding philosophy where one highly visible characteristic is improved at the expense of soundness.

Breeders also need to be willing to make difficult selections. A spectacularly marked rabbit with poor feet, weak shoulders, pinched hips, a hollow loin, insufficient bone, or seriously deficient type should not automatically become breeding stock simply because the color is valuable.

Cull for structure.

That means removing structurally poor animals from the breeding program, even when the coat is beautiful and even when the genetics are tempting to keep.

Color can be recovered. Markings can be improved. Fur can be refined.
Rebuilding a breed after generations of lost bone, width, muscle, sound feet, and functional type is considerably harder.
Build a good rabbit first.
Then paint it.

08/23/2026

Rabbit Slaughter Methods: What the Research Actually Shows

Rabbit slaughter is one of those subjects where people often argue from emotion instead of understanding the actual physiology.

A humane slaughter method should do three things well: produce unconsciousness rapidly, keep the rabbit insensible until death, and have a low enough failure rate that mistakes are uncommon and immediately recognizable.

The 2024 AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals include a rabbit-specific section reviewing the available research.

For on-farm rabbits, the strongest evidence supports mechanical cervical dislocation and appropriately sized nonpenetrating captive bolt systems. In one comparative study, a rabbit-sized nonpenetrating captive bolt produced immediate insensibility in 63 of 63 rabbits tested, while mechanical cervical dislocation was 97.5% effective in growers and adults.

That same study is why I personally do not favor the traditional “bop and bleed” blunt-force method. Blunt-force trauma failed on the first attempt in 22% of rabbits overall and 43% of adults, and the AVMA currently does not recommend it for on-farm rabbit slaughter.

CO₂ is another method I personally do not favor. Controlled-atmosphere CO₂ can render rabbits unconscious and kill them, but the 2024 AVMA guidelines state that a concentration reliably providing adequate stunning without evidence of distress or pain has not yet been established, so it is currently not recommended for rabbit slaughter.

And no, cervical dislocation is not strangulation. Proper cervical dislocation rapidly disrupts the connection between the brain and spinal cord. Postmortem kicking or paddling can still occur because spinal reflex circuits continue functioning after consciousness has been lost. Movement by itself does not mean the rabbit is conscious.

Electrical stunning is also well studied in commercial rabbit processing, but it is normally a reversible stun and must be followed very quickly by bleeding before consciousness can return.

The important question is not “Does slaughter look unpleasant?” Slaughter is never going to look pleasant.

The useful questions are: How rapidly does the animal lose consciousness? How reliable is the method? How do we recognize a failed stun? And what does the rabbit-specific research actually show?

I put together a much more detailed article for Skool Premium covering cervical dislocation, captive bolt, electrical stunning, blunt-force trauma, CO₂, decapitation, exsanguination, postmortem reflexes, signs of consciousness, failure rates, and the peer-reviewed rabbit studies behind the recommendations.

If you want the physiology, effectiveness numbers, citations and DOI links rather than just the internet arguments, the full article is available in Skool Premium.

Deeper dive article on SKool Premium .
https://www.skool.com/mmcbunclub-6215/about?ref=6ba4f4aff8ff456daf42f68a8a1efb4e

08/20/2026

Can Only large operations get USDA inspection?

Informational post only, based on publicly available USDA/FSIS, CFR, and state-inspection resources, plus my past experience as a rabbit producer looking into inspected processing options. This is not legal or regulatory advice. If you are seriously considering this, contact your state inspection office, FSIS, and the processor directly because rules, availability, cost, and eligibility vary by state and facility.

This came up after a conversation where USDA inspection was framed like something only giant producers can access. That is not quite accurate. Is it practical for every small rabbitry? No. But there are options available for very small farmers, small processors, co-ops, and producers who can coordinate enough volume.

Rabbit is different from beef, pork, lamb, goat, or poultry because federal rabbit inspection is voluntary, not mandatory. FSIS does offer voluntary rabbit inspection under 9 CFR Part 354. Under that program, rabbits and internal organs are inspected for condition and wholesomeness, and the product may qualify for the USDA “Inspected for Wholesomeness” mark.

FSIS rabbit information:

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/meat-fish/rabbit-farm-table

Federal rabbit inspection regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-III/subchapter-A/part-354

One possible option is an FSIS-inspected mobile slaughter unit. These are not “government vans for hire” in the casual sense. They are mobile slaughter units that operate under inspection and must meet regulatory standards like a fixed inspected facility. For producers far from an inspected plant, or for several farms working together on one processing day, this can sometimes make inspected processing more accessible.

USDA mobile slaughter unit overview: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/introduction-mobile-slaughter-units

Another option, depending on your state, is state inspection. I have personally taken rabbits to be state inspected in Indiana. The way it worked there was that the processor scheduled a rabbit day with the state and tried to coordinate several rabbit customers at once. That helped get enough rabbits on the schedule to offset the cost, making it more practical than one tiny batch by itself.

The trade-off is that state-inspected meat is generally limited to sale within that state unless a qualifying program, such as the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program, applies. So state inspection may be useful for local customers, local markets, or in-state restaurant sales, while federal inspection may matter more if your goal is interstate sales.

USDA Cooperative Interstate Shipment program:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative-interstate-shipping-program

There is also the very small inspected plant route. FSIS defines a very small establishment as one with fewer than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales. FSIS has public resources for small and very small processors, including guidance on inspection, HACCP, sanitation, labeling, and compliance.

Small and very small plant guidance:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-guidance/small-very-small-plant-guidance

Small Plant Help Desk:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/compliance-guidance/small-very-small-plant-guidance/small-plant-help-desk

There are also USDA grant and financial-assistance resources, though every program has its own rules and not every grant will fit rabbit processing specifically. Still, if someone is considering scaling up, it is worth reading what is publicly available before assuming inspected processing is impossible.

FSIS grants and financial options:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/apply-grant-inspection/grants-financial-options

The short version: inspected rabbit meat is possible for smaller producers, but the math matters. It may not make sense for every backyard or hobby-scale rabbitry. It may make sense for a larger rabbitry, a breeder co-op, a farm with steady local buyers, or a processor willing to coordinate rabbit days. The important part is knowing the options exist, doing the numbers honestly, and checking the current rules directly with the proper agency or processor.

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

08/17/2026

I said what I said.

breeding “for pleasure” does not remove responsibility. If someone is intentionally multiplying livestock, they still need to select for sound structure, fertility, mothering ability, correct hips, correct shoulders, and overall health. “Snakes need to eat” is not an excuse to breed rabbits with poor type, pinched hindquarters, deformities, bad production, or animals prone to stuck kits and complications.
That is exactly why standards exist. Even if someone is not showing, breeding toward correct commercial type helps produce rabbits that can reproduce, kindle, move, and grow properly. Breeding random rabbits just because someone owns two of them is not responsible animal husbandry. It is still livestock breeding, and poor breeding choices still create real animal welfare problems.

08/16/2026

Happy Sunday!!!

08/15/2026

Gotta love comments like these.

Yes, all 96 animals in that video are rabbits.

I raise rabbits in this order: show-quality stock, brood stock, meat, and fur. That is livestock. People saying “aww, poor bunnies” doesn’t really faze me anymore. Rabbit has been on the menu for thousands of years, and it is still one of the best small-holder livestock options for putting clean, efficient meat in the freezer.

You don’t have to eat rabbit. You don’t have to raise rabbits. But acting shocked that livestock has a purpose is not the moral mic drop some people think it is.

07/27/2026

I'll be pulling her out for a trim soon... but damn look how dark those nails are.

07/25/2026

Check out MMC Bun Club's LIVE streams on TikTok! Watch, follow, and discover the latest content from MMC Bun Club.

07/24/2026

About the only time you’ll see ARBA breeders and HRS people agree: putting an entire litter into water for entertainment is abusive.
Rabbits are physically capable of swimming, but that does not mean they should be forced to do it. They are terrestrial animals, and being dropped into deep water can cause severe panic, exhaustion, hypothermia and aspiration of water into the lungs, with pneumonia developing afterward. Young rabbits are especially vulnerable because they lose body heat quickly. Remaining wet also increases the risk of skin irritation and infection.
This is not enrichment, exercise or “cute content.” It is frightening animals and creating preventable medical risks for views.

Molly Hill(screen shot) was speaking out against this too, and I’ve seen posts from Liberty Tree and several other breeders condemning it.
If you see someone “swimming” rabbits for content, do not take husbandry advice from them. Far too many self-proclaimed homesteaders are doing reckless things for views, then doubling down when people don't praise them. Being popular does not make the practice safe, humane, or informed.