|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jan 30, 2015 16:40:29 GMT
The Sheppy article with specific comments relating to genetics in the US herd was published on this board on Dec 22, about the time it was arriving in mailboxes around the world. It was also placed on the other proboards sites not long after. I've seen no positive comments. There was both opinion and actual information available at both locations that there were problems with the conclusions in this article.
On January 16th I learned that ADCA had requested permission of the author, Andrew Sheppy, to reprint the article. *I* immediately sent an email to each Officer and Director of the Board of ADCA that there were problems with the information in this article, and gave them the facts. I will reiterate below after I ask this question: WHY is ADCA publishing this article which, in effect, declares every animal in the US herd to be a produce of modern errors of breeding? WHY would ADCA publish an article that is so detrimental to our breed bloodlines? WHY? ? ? WHY would a breed association do something so detrimental? In England, in the UK Bulletin, it is my understanding that members may submit and publish articles of their chosing. That is NOT true of the ADCA Bulletin. They CENSOR submissions. So, I ask yet again. . . . WHY are they publishing an article which they have been ADVISED and given DOCUMENTATION has suppositions based on data that is in question! ! This is, yet again. . . . . . another dreadful decision by an unprofessional leadership. AND NOTE! This is not only an article that is detrimental to the traditional bloodlines . . . is hammers the polled bloodlines with yet MORE introgressions. I am sitting here shaking my head. . . what kind of "leadership" is this? The Bulletin, in essence. . . . is now a TABLOID.
More specifics coming.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by Blessings Farms on Jan 30, 2015 23:18:44 GMT
Ok I am lost who is this Sheppy and what is his involvement in Dexters?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jan 31, 2015 14:57:42 GMT
Hello,
Andrew Sheppy is a breeder of long, long, duration in the UK Dexter herd. He likely has the most comprehensive library of Dexter records of any individual in the world of Dexters. He has always been a preservationist and I believe was involved in early effort of breed preservation in the UK, has served on the council of the Dexter Cattle Society in England multiple times and I believe held government consulting positions as well. He was a contributing consultant in the Cardiff Dexter research project and lives and breeds Dexter cattle. he has numerous articles published on the breed and he edited the book on the World Dexter Congress held in England. He is not without legitimate credentials.
The problem I have with this article which he wrote and was published in December is that it focused on supposition based on English records and English gossip and out of three animals mentioned in the article, there is error based on American records of these bloodlines.
ADCA has been given data that shows without any ability to doubt, a considerable difference of 6 & 8 digits in the DNA genotype marker TGLA227 for Parndon Bullfinch ( the major focus of the analysis in the Sheppy article) which reflects error and analysis based on error is flawed analysis. ADCA has also been given data which is solid research showing that dun cattle in the US descended from Grinstead Ambassador, a different bloodline within the Grinstead herd from Grinstead Plover, and since these two bulls do not share an immediate ancestor or even grand or great grandparents, there is yet to be discovered, should one exist, the single source of dun in the Dexter breed.
ADCA was given data which brings into question TWO of the THREE bloodlines discussed in the Sheppy article, and the third bloodline analysis is based primarily on gossip and supposed science of color which was not detailed in any manner. ADCA was given this conflicting US data with sufficient time to make a decision not to reprint this controversial article, ( worldwide - for I have heard from Australia, England, and Ireland) and ADCA has consistently voiced an intent to publish.
So, I again have to inquire as to WHY? Why would a breed association, especially after being given data which supports error in the article, wish to publish flawed material? Do they not realize they could be subject to class legal action for this decision? It is not only the traditional bloodlines that are being brought into question by this article, but it also adds additional instances of outcrossing in the polled lines. This article affects ALL breeders and ALL Dexters in the US! What on earth are they thinking? Why does the ADCA leadership consistently NOT lead by making studied, non-political, non-partisan, professional decisions?
Futhermore. . . US breeders. . . . . .YOU need to stop sitting on your cushion and permitting ADCA to consistently make decisions that are bereft of sound leadership that affect OUR breed in negative ways. If YOU are not speaking out. . . . . if YOU are "going along to get along" fearing reprisal or loss of profit . . . then YOU are the problem.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jan 31, 2015 15:20:12 GMT
The three bulls discussed in this article have connections to the US herd through imported cows or semen as follows:
(1) Parndon Charley Pudding 1928 - Sire of the US bull, Parndon Bullfinch born in quarantine in America, and the first bull whose semen was collected in the US for artificial insemination.
(2) Shadwell Robert 1978 - Four times great grandsire of Cornahir Outlaw 1978 whose semen was imported for use in the US.
(3) Grinstead Plover 1696 - An ancestor most often found in US herd animals via the Woodmagic imports to Canada with offspring and descendents in the US herd.
I will begin with Parndon Bullfinch 1961, son of Parndon Charley Pudding 1928 ( Bull # 1)
With specific reference to the American bull, Parndon Bullfinch 1961, progeny of Parndon Charley Pudding whose Cardiff Project DNA markers were used in the Sheppy article to buffer observations of introgression in his sire. . . . those markers are faulty. I have in my possession the markers from the Cardiff project used and referenced by Mr. Sheppy and the markers from the ISAG accredited Veterinary Genetics Laboratory of UC Davis which were derived and reported to the ISAG scientific standard and confirmed by separate comparison to progeny. This error of markers is significant in the evaluation and observations of Mr. Sheppy.
The US offspring of Parndon Bullfinch would NOT parentage qualify with the UK markers.
Below are the DNA markers of Parndon Bullfinch 1961.
I have only listed the markers which were reported by both labs, UCD-VGL, and those derived during the research project for the Cardiff report done by Dr. Tim Bray. I do not know what lab he used. The UK markers were used by Mr. Sheppy in his observation/conclusion regarding Parndon Charley Pudding 1928, sire of Parndon Bullfinch 1961
UCD UK
BM1818 258/266 257/265 off one digit each
BM1824 178/178 180/180 off two digits
ETH10 213/219 214/220 off one digit each
ETH225 148/150 145/147 off 3 digits
SPS115 248/256 248/256 match
TGLA122 143/151 144/152 off one digit
TGLA126 115/123 118/126 off three digits
TGLA227 81/93 89/99 0ff 8 & 6 digits
Members of the ADCA Pedigree and Genetics committee should fully understand the problems surrounding an assessment of TGLA227 when there is an obvious error in those markers. ( If not, they should immediately resign from the committee). There are occasions when differences in markers appear between labs if one laboratory reports to the ISAG requirements while another does not and implements what is known as "rounding off" of markers. On these occasions a marker may differ by one or two digits. However, as one can note. . . . .the TGLA227 type, specifically referenced in the Sheppy article, is off beyond any margin of error that could possibly be found as acceptable.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 31, 2015 22:22:10 GMT
I haven't seen any REAL science in any of his stuff, but many folks on this board have been supportive of his work until it backfired.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jan 31, 2015 23:30:50 GMT
Name ONE Kirk. Of all the people I know on this board *I* am the only ONE * I* know who knows Andrew Sheppy. Your turn name another one
So. I am always up for a good back and forth so give me specifics of what work he has done personally of which I have been supportive. I need specifics Kirk rather than the drive-by innuendo.
And for the record.. . I am not unsupportive of Andrew Sheppy. He has vast years of experience beyond me... What he did not have, was a knowledge of the US herd and bloodlines which offer extended information that puts conclusions he made in this article in question.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Feb 1, 2015 11:52:21 GMT
Kirk, from my understanding Andrew Sheppy has stated that Platinum is an outcross, based on his recorded pedigree. As far as the science goes, please explain how DNA markers such as Judy posted are not "Real Science"? As Judy has shown here, there clearly are errors in the information used in his recent articles.
|
|
