|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 14, 2015 1:52:02 GMT
Kirk,
I always got a,story! Lol. When I purchased Ms Fermoy she was bred to a Red Fern bull. Fergus I think but that name might be on my mind because the bull you mentioned a bit ago was named PRM Fergis. I have his photo somewhere. Always reminds me of the Esso tiger. Oh back to the story
When Ms Fermoy calved it was a beautiful little red bull calf, Lucifer descendent. And then. . . . . . . .
Some months later he too began to look like the Esso tiger. He had very dark brindling. Curiosity kicked in so I called The breeder of the sire to inquire about the brindling. He was a former officer in ADCA. He told me that if I had an animal that was brindled it had nothing to do with his herd and that there had been some hanky panky going on somewhere! He was adamant.
There was another PRM bull that sired a brindle that I found out about ( Fergus) and there was yet a third PRM bull I had heard threw brindle. I tries to get samples from all three but this was way back during the war and the owners all ended up leaving the breed and I never got tail hairs and the bulls every single one went to sale barns.
The rest of the story. An owner who used to go around visiting farms dropped by the Martz farm. (PRM). He took photos of the few Dexters remaining as Martz had also dropped out of the breed. I was given the photos and had a good laugh. There in the barn was a colorful brindled Dexter. Hanky panky source. Lol
could we assume the war casualties were a good thing because it culled undesirables or was the thirst for power that started the war irreversible damage to the breed?
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 14, 2015 5:36:20 GMT
Concerning photo's posted above by LakePortFarms
First photo is too small to see (it's just a thumbnail).. maybe you can fix it to put in a larger view
In the second picture, I think we're just seeing a red "e" type (or possibly E+ with an agouti-gene suppressing any black). I think the winter coat is just going this direction and that direction and making it look more varied than it actually is. I don't see brindle.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 14, 2015 6:01:34 GMT
Kirk, I always got a,story! Lol. When I purchased Ms Fermoy she was bred to a Red Fern bull. Fergus I think but that name might be on my mind because the bull you mentioned a bit ago was named PRM Fergis. I have his photo somewhere. Always reminds me of the Esso tiger. Oh back to the story Judy I've been around many, many animal breeders for more than half a century. Most people don't understand genetics very well, if at all. I've had many smart friends that are brilliant, yet they stumble over simple genetics. I think most people have a good bit of trouble with it. If someone was "adamant" that their herd couldn't have a hidden brindling gene, they were one of those people lacking an understanding of genetics. Polygenetic traits like brindling are a little tricky and can hide very well. I'd guess that most larger herds have the gene somewhere, but it might be hidden in their blacks, or in their e/e reds, or even hidden in their E+ reds that have certain agouti genes that suppress the black pigment. |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 14, 2015 11:25:50 GMT
Concerning photo's posted above by LakePortFarms First photo is too small to see (it's just a thumbnail).. maybe you can fix it to put in a larger view In the second picture, I think we're just seeing a red "e" type (or possibly E+ with an agouti-gene suppressing any black). I think the winter coat is just going this direction and that direction and making it look more varied than it actually is. I don't see brindle. Oops sorry about that! I made a mistake and posted those two photos in the wrong forum. I meant to post it in the redanguscattleworld.com forum instead, because that's what they are....Registered Red Angus. I suppose they could have "traits listed in the Dexter breed description" though couldn't they? I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that a keen and experienced eye (which I'll grudgingly admit that you have Kirk), that is perceptive enough to pick up subtle color types or changes, completely misses the fact that the examples are not even Dexters, but registered Red Angus! I don't blame you for that, because I couldn't tell the difference between the two myself either if that photo was put in front of me. And therein lies the problem in my mind. There SHOULD be a difference between the breeds. As keen of an eye as you have, it's blinded by the "red and polled" light of a fad that has been hot in the Dexter breed for a number of years, to the point of obscuring nearly ALL of the "traits listed in the Dexter cattle breed description". Those are just an afterthought now. Height...yeah, we're working on it. Horns? People don't want them. Chondrodysplasia Dwarfism? Oooh, that's bad.... lethal in fact! Gentle and friendly? Well, I can take an Angus heifer calf from birth and make her very friendly. I know because I have when we first got started with cattle. I know because I see 4-H kids with club calves that handle them like a dog. I've also seen Dexters that won't get within 30 feet of their owners. So many people now are so vested in their red polled that it would be devastating to them financially if they were suddenly cast out like orphans without a breed. I get that, and don't want to see it happen. But so many beautiful, much more Dexter like Dexters are being overlooked now, by beginners not aware that there is a "different" type, a more "true to breed" type of Dexter out there. Is growth and interest in the Dexter breed a good thing? Frankly I don't really think it is, at least in the direction it is taking. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 15, 2015 2:52:01 GMT
And therein lies the problem in my mind. There SHOULD be a difference between the breeds. I agree and that's why I've been trying to nail down a list of traits that make dexters, "DEXTERS" (I can't think of any other breed that meets this description) . 1. Bulls MUST be VERY friendly and VERY manageable, with lots of personality. 2. Cows MUST be sweet and let us work with their newborn calves (tagging/weighing, etc), and should have lots of personality. 3. Dexters must be COMPACT (not too large, not too small) Bulls between 38" - 44" at 3 years. 4. Dexters must be Black, Dun, or Red... no white other than near udders up to navel (white hairs in tail switch are ok) 5. Dexters must be Healthy and Hardy - can thrive and easily calve robust calves WITHOUT much shelter (other than trees/shade). Can thrive without a lot of chemicals, without a lot of vet work, without a lot of shots. Dexters should have naturally STRONG immune systems. 6. Dexters must be Thrifty - can thrive on forage and minerals alone WITHOUT grain supplements. 7. Dexters must be Dual (or triple) purpose and productive... Beefy, and milky enough, but not so milky that they MUST be milked. Could be used to do work as oxen if necessary 8. Dexters should have Lots of good general cattle conformation (sound udders, sound feet, strong backs, correct legs, good tracking, masculine bulls, etc.) 9. Dexters should be long-lived... Cows should make it to 18+ healthy productive years with no early arthritis, Bulls should make it to 13+ healthy years (if you don't eat them first). 10. While horns look terrific, some folks have been dehorning dexters for eons.... so both horned dexters, and dexters without horns are traditional. If you're going to de-horn, you should consider using the polled gene that humanely removes horns. Any dexter that doesn't fully meet this description, needs some correction |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 15, 2015 8:24:58 GMT
Does anybody wonder why RED and polled seem to be the preferred choice of many in the Dexter breed that desire polled Dexters? After all, red Angus don't have nearly the popularity or command the same prices that black Angus do! If you follow the same type of reasoning, one would think that BLACK polled Dexters would be a favorite don't you think?
I have a theory why...black polled Dexters are not distinctive enough from their black Angus counterparts. If you stand back 100 feet from a group of black polled Dexters and black angus, you'd be hard pressed to tell which ones were which breed. There may be some size difference, but it could be attributed to a slight difference in age and that's it. A predominately red herd however, does at some level make for some distinction from what people might otherwise assume is a herd of slightly younger Angus cows and a bull. People unfamiliar with cattle are more likely to ask "what kind of cows are those?", and the red polled people can then say "Dexters, small cattle, blah blah blah...." and lay claim to all the traits that Kirk lists above. I'm surprised that there are not more dun polled Dexters though, but that is probably on its way.
However, there is usually no mistaking a herd of horned Dexters, in a traditional type phenotype, from their Angus counterparts when viewed from hundreds of feet away. Even most de-horned black Dexters have a more distinctive look to them and can be picked out of a group of Angus, regardless of age.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 15, 2015 16:35:18 GMT
I have often thought about this too Hans. My theory (just theory, still learning) is about rarity and finances more than anything else.
Red was in the herd in this country but it was far less common. Being rare and "special" they were more expensive. And still are, at least in this area. "Polled" well that was brand new. It did not exist in this country in the "Registered Dexter Herd". Bring the two together; you have something very unique (at the time) and very expensive. An opportunity to make a great deal of money was created, and a lot of money was made.
Add to it, the fact that NOW a whole new group of people are considering the breed. People who would never have considered a horned breed prior to this, liked this new "type of dexter". Large market / financial gain. Excellent marketing was done in labeling red polled as the "premier" dexter (still in use today by many breeders), and with the "less than truthful" manner in explaining the origins of "polled gene" it really took off. Much of the original herd has been absorbed and replaced by the newcomer.
Let me say here, I am not trying to put down red polled or trying to offend any fellow breeders. I have seen some truly beautiful animals out there but unfortunately some pretty poor ones too. They have a very strong following. And most importantly their owners are very dedicated and have a great deal of money and energy invested in them.
In the big picture though, you make a very good point about "black" being preferred in the beef industry today. I know at least around here "black" brings far more per pound at the livestock sales than any other. Hornless blacks would have more value than hornless reds or duns. Not that it is advisable or ideal to sell dexters at the sales. Most registered dexters are sold in private sales either for breeding stock or as beef. But as they become so common, I wonder how long they will be able to hold onto their inflated cost, especially with no "added value" in their actual value as beef.
My guess is as long as the market for breeding stock holds out they will continue to bring the high prices. But this requires a great deal of new people wanting to get into the breed and the continued trading amongst the established breeders. But as everything is quickly becoming homozygous and A2, the supply will eventually be greater than the demand. With such a large gap between the costs and the actual value of the animals (beef, milk etc) the market will correct itself. The gap will be closed and it will be difficult for everyone, especially those newest to the breed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 15, 2015 17:57:30 GMT
Hans,
A few months ago I was flipping through an ag magazine and in one of the advertisements the background was a herd of red cattle seemingly small in stature. I assumed them to be red Angus. Now I am not so sure. I think they may actually have been Red Poll. It looked strikingly similar to some herd photos I had seen of Dexter breeders of the red polled so I did an internet search and . . . .indeed. . . it was similar in many ways. I should have taken a photo of the photo and posted it!
The changes to the breed are drastic. As you say. . . . . . Dexter cattle "were" a very distinctive phenotype and when placed in a filed with every other possible breed one you find you would always be able to pick out the Dexter. Now . . you look through photos and that unique phenotype is difficult to find.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 16, 2015 15:39:20 GMT
Yes, unfortunately I believe that we (the Dexter Breed) are in the final stages of trading a very unique little breed of cattle (I use little in both ways; in size and in number)for something much more common place that can appeal to a much larger group of people. The ADCA has certainly benefited from this through its membership growth and the expanded (expanding) income that has been and is being generated as a result.
Let's face it, unique is not for everyone. Mainstream is what is in: polled, uniformity, larger sizes etc. Our little old-line dexters do not fit into this mold. Add to it the fact that when polled entered the breed a whole new group of breeders entered that never would have even considered dexters before. These new breeders, Many with their background in the smallish beef breeds (ex. angus), have brought their "eye" into their herds. It amazes me the reactions so many of our current members have when they see the older photos, even of just a few decades ago; let alone the historic photos like the Grinsteads. Many absolutely do not care for them at all, and yet continue to insist that "their dexters" are exactly the same and just as "traditional" as those of the past. There is no logic there. Amazing
I've seen it argued that the Dexter Breed as a whole has benefited immensely from the surge we have been experiencing lately. The numbers of animals are up and we are off the endangered list. There is a resurgence and new interest in the breed. - - - - - While this is true, and yes it looks great on paper, you only have to stop for a moment and look around a bit for the real truth that is glaring at us. These are not the same animals nor are they the same thing, they are amazingly different. Everyone knows it, some just choose to dismiss it as unimportant. The rare breed known as Dexters are now probably even rarer than before. They have been outcrossed and replaced, for many generations now, and bare little resemblance to what they once were. The name remains but unfortunately little else.
I often wonder what would happen if any of the great founding breeders that we all love to talk about and interestingly enough quote, ever were to wake and just show up at one of our ADCA shows. My guess is that after wandering around for a bit, they would be tugging on somebody's jacket for a moment asking "Where can we find all the Dexters??
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 16, 2015 16:54:55 GMT
Well said Karrie. That's my issue too...the Dexter breed has become more popular, but at what price? And is it really entirely due to the polled and red wave that swept over the breed, especially gaining momentum a decade or less ago, or is it due to just an overall increased awareness of what goes into the food you'll typically find in the grocery store? After all, Whole Foods wasn't much of a factor for the first 20 years or so of its existence either, but has grown substantially in the past 10 years.
There is nothing at all unique about many of what you see today. One only has to look at the post I made a couple of days ago, with the Red Angus calves and Kirk's experienced eye missing the fact that I was posting "Imposter Dexters" for him to comment on. And as Judy mentioned, Red Poll also bear a striking resemblance to half of the Dexters you see today. No mistaking our little dwarf bull Shadwell for another breed, or even our long legged traditional girls like Matilda, Lady, or Chautauqua Joyce for another breed.
Friendly??? What makes the Dexter so friendly? Is it in their genetics, or is is something imparted into them by owners who treat them as something a bit more than regular livestock? I tend to think it's the treatment of them that makes them friendly above all else.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 17, 2015 5:17:59 GMT
speaking of black horned cattle.... what do you think of this cow?  ![]() |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 13:35:47 GMT
that is a fine looking cow. of course I assume this is some sort of trap.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 17, 2015 14:11:29 GMT
I'm afraid I started the tactic Mike...lol So Kirk feels it's payback time.
I think she's pretty too, a little on the tall side. Although I'm partial to the shorties as you all know so everything looks tall to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 17, 2015 16:08:33 GMT
I just try to examine facts and seek to educate myself and others.  This cow is a White Park cow. The White Park breeders have a controversy about these solid black animals because many of those breeders don't understand genetics and don't understand that most British breeds of cattle share 99.999% of the same genetics. "The White Park breed occasionally throws entirely black cattle that have a very sleek coat. These cattle were previously culled as a matter of course. Curiously, effort is now being made by some to save these black specimens to establish a black variant. Whether they are indicative of ancient black cattle being bred into the original white cattle of Great Britain or indicative of some other more recent impurity is uncertain" It makes me laugh when people think that ANY breed has been absolutely "purified" when there is ZERO evidence of any effort to absolutely purify these breeds. Some purification takes place, but only with visible features, NOT with hidden genetics. If you understand the genetics of the White-Park or other breeds, you know that it would have been nearly IMPOSSIBLE to completely purify them without DNA tests, which are only available recently and only for a few traits. Since this British breed was already swimming in LOTS of genes from other breeds, and was never purified, then it's silly to debate whether this variant is due to a "recent" upgrade. When I see people claiming "This solid black indicates a recent upgrade, or recent ingression" I just hear them saying "I don't understand genetics" (which most people don't understand, even some VERY smart people struggle with genetics). My point is that breeds of cattle are a continuum... especially British breeds. They aren't in nice neat little clean and separate containers of distinct genetics. Does a black horned White-Park cow look like some black-horned Dexter cows? You bet they look alike because they have a LOT in common. Does a red polled angus look a little like some red polled dexters? You bet. But do black horned dexters or red polled dexters look like a Simmental cow? Not so much, because simmentals are farther away on the continuum. Where do we go from here? We need to have a detailed breed description and we need to be breeding toward that breed description. I don't know any other breeds (other than Dexters) that match this description: 1. Bulls MUST be VERY friendly and VERY manageable, with lots of personality. 2. Cows MUST be sweet and let us work with their newborn calves (tagging/weighing, etc), and should have lots of personality. 3. Dexters must be COMPACT (not too large, not too small) Bulls between 38" - 44" at 3 years, should NOT be too leggy. 4. Dexters must be Black, Dun, or Red... no white other than near udders up to navel (white hairs in tail switch are ok) 5. Dexters must be Healthy and Hardy - can thrive and easily calve robust calves WITHOUT much shelter (other than trees/shade). Can thrive without a lot of chemicals, without a lot of vet work, without a lot of shots. Dexters should have naturally STRONG immune systems. 6. Dexters must be Thrifty - can thrive on forage and minerals alone WITHOUT grain supplements. 7. Dexters must be Dual (or triple) purpose and productive... Beefy, and milky enough, but not so milky that they MUST be milked. Could be used to do work as oxen if necessary 8. Dexters should have Lots of good general cattle conformation (sound udders, sound feet, strong backs, correct legs, good tracking, masculine bulls, etc.) 9. Dexters should be long-lived... Cows should make it to 18+ healthy productive years with no early arthritis, Bulls should make it to 13+ healthy years (if you don't eat them first). 10. While horns look terrific, some folks have been dehorning dexters for eons.... so both horned dexters, and dexters without horns are traditional. If you're going to de-horn, you should consider using the polled gene that humanely removes horns. Any dexter that doesn't fully meet this description, needs some correction ps. The Chondro dwarfing gene does NOT correct long leggy legs.... It just masks them and only 50% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Mar 17, 2015 17:09:37 GMT
I was going to guess a plump Corriente! But I'm not an expert! No black tips.
Really though, we can all recite your list in our sleep. There already exists a Breed Description.
Where we go from here is that the registries keep on changing the rules, and the Traditional Dexters remain traditional, independent of the whims of some board and it's agenda 'du jour'.
They're not changing, hopefully, not going anywhere but up in numbers as people do their homework and carefully control who breeds to whom. They are still rare and will continue to be so. They are still valued and will continue to be treasured by those who DO see a difference.
Bill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 17:31:14 GMT
this cow does not look like a white park to me it looks more kerry to me. As an ancient irish breed I am sure they probably are somewhat closely related to Kerry. This cow looks more like a dexter than many that I see people posting pictures of.
Kirk you keep posting that the only thing that makes a dexter is selection of traits. If you truly believed that you would be breeding towards cows that look like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donlin Stud on Mar 17, 2015 22:29:06 GMT
With reference to genes and where they come from I thought this may be of some interest  In 2009, a team of researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of agriculture announced that they had successfully mapped the bovine genome. The results? Cattle have about 22,000 genes, and a whopping 80% of those are shared with humans. (Another 10% are shared with dogs and rodents.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stan Courtney on Mar 17, 2015 22:40:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 18, 2015 0:14:12 GMT
My point is that breeds of cattle are a continuum... especially British breeds. They aren't in nice neat little clean and separate containers of distinct genetics. Does a black horned White-Park cow look like some black-horned Dexter cows? You bet they look alike because they have a LOT in common. Does a red polled angus look a little like some red polled dexters? You bet. But do black horned dexters or red polled dexters look like a Simmental cow? Not so much, because simmentals are farther away on the continuum. Wait, aren't you the one that says the polled gene in Dexters is independent and doesn't include the other genes that were part of the equation through upgrading that introduced it? We've been saying this all along Kirk. As an example, the tendency of some polled bulls to throw some extremely high calving weights...does that sound familiar? It's not a problem I've had with any of our Dexters, other than the heifer we purchased bred, sired by the polled bull that was bred back to her father (by her prior owner). Not to mention the other c-sections that I know have been performed on non-polled lines Dexter cows that were bred by a homozygous polled bull. These instances ARE from recent introgression. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 18, 2015 3:30:59 GMT
Wait, aren't you the one that says the polled gene in Dexters is independent and doesn't include the other genes that were part of the equation through upgrading that introduced it? We've been saying this all along Kirk. As an example, the tendency of some polled bulls to throw some extremely high calving weights...does that sound familiar? It's not a problem I've had with any of our Dexters, other than the heifer we purchased bred, sired by the polled bull that was bred back to her father (by her prior owner). Not to mention the other c-sections that I know have been performed on non-polled lines Dexter cows that were bred by a homozygous polled bull. These instances ARE from recent introgression. There is no evidence that upgrading was involved in introducing the polled gene. It almost certainly was a mutation. Polled mutations have been proven to occur regularly in cattle. Here's Saltaire Platinum's pedigree. I don't see any non-dexters in the first 5 or 6 generations. He looks just as pure as many "traditional" dexters that I've seen. dextercattle.org/pedigreedb/ponyweb.cgi?horse=6504We've bred over 120 polled calves and not had calving problems due to large calves. The heifer you purchased was deformed by her lethal gene (she is a chondro-dwarf, isn't she?) That shrunk her skeleton. And she was under-age, not even 2 years old when she gave birth. AND she carried LARGE genetics from her own too-large sire Here's what you said on the real Dexter Board: " Debbie is a chondro carrier and Dr. Kaiser was aware of this. We believed that she was going to calve shortly before 2 years, that is why Sheril and I discussed giving her a lute shot and finding a smaller bull to breed her to. However, the breeding date was earlier than what we were told. Debbie was due to calve in mid-late March, supposedly. Part of the problem we had with determining the chondro status was the VERY lengthy time it took to receive the results back from TAMU on both Debbie and Louise. It took 6 weeks if I recall correctly. We waited quite a long time for genotyping on a couple of bulls then too. Apparently the lab was shorthanded or something at the time. We only had Mike and so we would have risked a bulldog had we bred her to him.
Though they had advertised Debbie for sale, we had our eye on Debbie's mom, Louise, for quite a while as she's out of the same dam as Mike. We managed to persuade them to sell us Louise along with Debbie. Louise is also a carrier, though her registration stated she was a non-carrier for chondrodysplasia (an obvious error). We had her tested for chondro, PHA, and A2 and had it corrected along with testing Debbie for the same. As I mentioned, the chondro status took a long time, because we sent it to TAMU to save the $15 difference. We knew their PHA and A2 status long before confirmation of chondro. That is why I now use UCDavis whenever I can.
Debbie's sire, Hercules, was a pretty good size bull, but we don't have any calving information on him. Obviously he throws some pretty big ones from at least this one experience. We've never had a calf above 38 lbs with Mike, and many of his are under 30 so this came as quite a shock to us. Louise was also bred by Hercules, and she had a 40 lb. heifer calf a week or so before Debbie. Like Debbie, we decided to let Louise carry her Hercules calf. I never would have expected a 60 lb. calf out of Debbie. I guess my question is that since Debbie is out of Hercules, and was bred by Hercules, are there some genetics at play here that led to such a large calf, even though Debbie is a pretty small cow. All in all, we were pretty lucky to get that calf out of her without a C-Section." dextercattle.proboards.com/thread/3000/debbie-strange-calf?ixzz3UhhHlXkM=undefined&page=4 |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 18, 2015 10:03:14 GMT
Still buying the "fresh mutation" story Kirk?....ROFLMAO And just yesterday you spoke of people who are not all that smart about genetics. You must have been conflating those you speak of with yourself by still believing that story. Do you really need Judy to tell you the REAL story again or do you prefer to just live on Fantasy Island? Oh wait, one of the main characters on the island was a dwarf, and we know you can't stand them, at least the Dexter kind.
Debbie has had two calves since then. Both of whom were 35-40 lbs. She is our largest dwarf Dexter BY FAR, and was larger at 2 years than several we have today that are 7-14 years of age. You would think she's a very nice example of a Dexter if I didn't tell you her chondro status. I frankly can't tell the difference between her and many of our other non-dwarf Dexters in the pasture other than slightly different overall appearance. Where did those large genetics come from? Her mother? No, we own her and she's 14 years old, a chondro carrier, and one of our smallest cows, about the size of Debbie when she had her first calf. It came from her sire, the polled bull. And the bull also threw a large calf when bred back to Debbie...obviously doubling up on the too large genetics to produce the 63 pound bull calf. Just like the White Park that throws the all black progeny from time to time.
You could take the highest birthweight Dexter bull out there and breed him to a larger breed, and there would be no problem calving. It would be a normal size calf for the larger breed. I have no doubt that a polled bull on many Dexters out there pose no particular difficulties, however when you start producing your "true short" Dexters in a couple of decades, you better be extremely careful of the bulls you use on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 18, 2015 12:50:45 GMT
By the way, here is a photo of Debbie at 1-1/2 years old:  And here is a photo of her mother Louise at 11 years old:  Both are tested dwarf Dexters, notice any differences between them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 15:26:04 GMT
kirk "Polled mutations have been proven to occur regularly in cattle."
it has been proven to have happened twice in the history of all breeds. It has also been proven that the polled gene is from one of those 2. There is not more proof needed than that.
Hans, debbie does not look like a dwarf. Maybe in her head but I would never have guessed it buy her legs. How tall is she and has she changed as she grows to show a more dwarf characteristic. Do her calves look more dwarf then she does. Maybe I need to test some more of mine. I had tested everyone that I thought could be chondro in hopes of having a legacy chondro. none of them were. I have some others that I thought might have some characteristics but talked myself out of it because I felt they were just to tall to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 18, 2015 15:42:35 GMT
By the way, here is a photo of Debbie at 1-1/2 years old: And here is a photo of her mother Louise at 11 years old: Both are tested dwarf Dexters, notice any differences between them? This is why we need to remove that silly misleading language from the breed description... " Dexters come in two varieties, short-legged and long-legged" That language is worse than useless.... it's dangerously and purposefully misinforming, deceitful, and completely outdated in the year 2015. We should replace it with this factual and prudent text: " A small minority of dexters are inflicted with a lethal dwarfing gene that is not always visually evident. Testing is required and ALL animals should be recorded as Chondro vs. Non-Chondro in the registry at time of registration." Shorter-legged dexters can be chondro or non-chondro
Longer-legged dexters can be chondro or non-chondro
TEST, don't GUESSPS. If we took these steps, I'd probably shut up about chondro.... PPS. I don't think you mismanaged the situation, I think that allowing animals to be transferred without testing should be banned. |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 18, 2015 15:59:56 GMT
Mike, she's a dwarf about 40-42" I would say in height (we haven't absolutely measured her. Louise her mother is 36". I attribute the legs and increased height of Debbie to her father Hercules, the polled bull.
We've only had the steers, and they're long legged. It's always been my opinion that the more the Dexter exhibits the dwarfism the more likely they are to throw a dwarf themselves and vice versa. I'll be surprised if Debbie throws 50% dwarf Dexters. I'm not sure what we're going to do with any heifers that she has...I can't see them being short.
Some pedigrees tend to be easier to identify the dwarf Dexters than others.
As far as a fresh mutation:
Here is a question to ponder....Angus have hundreds of thousands of calves per year. Do we know of any incidences where purebred homozygous polled Angus have been bred together and a honest to goodness HORNED Angus has appeared? Why is it that the horned cattle can only go to polled, and not the other way around? You would think that given the vast numbers in the millions, the odds would be far greater to have a mutation where horns appear, than to have a horned breed like the Dexter that numbered in the low tens of thousands (for all time) produce a polled calf.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 18, 2015 17:47:45 GMT
FRESH MUTATION. . . . .
Godstone Esmeralda was on a farm with polled beef animals. This was confirmed to me by two seperate prominent breeders in the UK.
The polled was not accepted without a fight on the DCS council. You have to understand that the DCS members had been outcrossing to beef animals for years and years. There were probably cute little polled calves running around everywhere. Getting a polled animal into a HORNED heritage breed with long time established members on council was another matter. As it happened. . . there was a pathway. The owner of Godstone Esmeralda registered her in error as having horns, so she was in the registry. . . . .had a regular registration number. . .. and was a "perfect opportunity" waiting to happen. If the breeders who ownerd the animals that descended directly had been just little breeders of a few cows without any political influence. . . . . . I am willing to bet there would be no issue today regarding SP in the US.
Across the big pond, you had two people, one who despised horned cattle, and was on the record, in writing, with some "not in the breed standard" ideas, and you had another who wanted to make a name, had no inhibitions as to crossbreeding. Instant harmony. The ADCA board couldn't wait. . . . . . . some Directors were chomping at the bit. Canada was a hold out. They were not admitting polled. It cost them thousands and thousands and thousands and almost destroyed their association.
In scientific papers one might see reference to "fresh mutations", yet I have yet to see any of them proven with TWO generations of parentage confirmation. Make no mistake. . for there to be a determination that has accuracy. . . . there must be two generations confirmed.
Jim Lents gave me a lengthy description of exactly how polled was sneaked into Herefords way, way, back when. There was NO mutation in the Hereford breed.
Why is it that when there is a "fresh mutation" there is always an opportunity near by without horns?
It is genetic engineering and a travesty of nature. . . . . what is being done to this exceptional and unique little breed of cattle. Masterfully accomplished by those who wanted fame and fortune.
Can you imagine this lie was kept by ADCA for . . . . .TEN YEARS . .. . . AFTER it was uncovered. For TEN years the BOD of ADCA would NOT TELL THE TRUTH. Amazing. To realize how amazing it is. . . . . you have to remember that the information was available to anyone who wished to find it. Is there anyone who thinks there were not those who looked in hopes of quieting the racket? What they discovered was the truth. . . . . . and they didn't confirm it.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Mar 18, 2015 18:18:26 GMT
Judy , isn't there a statute of limitations that MANDATED that they not disclose for at least seven years? or they could still be culpable?
How did all of this deceit cost the Canada Board thousands?
And aren't the current board culpable, as they are currently continuing the farce?
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 18, 2015 18:53:14 GMT
Kirk, the proper role as an association is to NOT interject an opinion on accepted traits, with dwarfism being an accepted trait. Just the facts.
If we could have a position like the following and you'd shut up about chondro, "true-short", etc..., I'd be all for it:
"Dexters can carry a dwarfing gene otherwise known as Chondrodysplasia. Chondrodysplasia is not always visually evident, and when two Chondrodysplasia animals are bred together there is a 25% chance of an aborted fetus. Testing is required and ALL animals should be recorded as Chondro or Non-Chondro in the registry at time of registration, or transfer of existing animals."
Furthermore, especially if a chondro carrier is visually evident, there should be no limitation to recording it AS A CARRIER. Even without a test. The same ability however would not apply to a "non-chondro" classification. There must be a test to claim that status. There is no harm to recording a Dexter as a carrier, since if the information is incorrect it will not result in any complications for breeding, you'd just end up with all long legs. And if you object to that, then I'd have to insist that all polled Dexters be tested, since you can have horned Dexters out of two polled parents, dehorn the calf, and then claim polled status for the calf and sell it to an unwitting buyer (often for more money than it would fetch as a horned calf).
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 19, 2015 5:46:55 GMT
Kirk, the proper role as an association is to NOT interject an opinion on accepted traits, with dwarfism being an accepted trait. Just the facts. If we could have a position like the following and you'd shut up about chondro, "true-short", etc..., I'd be all for it: "Dexters can carry a dwarfing gene otherwise known as Chondrodysplasia. Chondrodysplasia is not always visually evident, and when two Chondrodysplasia animals are bred together there is a 25% chance of an aborted fetus. Testing is required and ALL animals should be recorded as Chondro or Non-Chondro in the registry at time of registration, or transfer of existing animals." Furthermore, especially if a chondro carrier is visually evident, there should be no limitation to recording it AS A CARRIER. Even without a test. The same ability however would not apply to a "non-chondro" classification. There must be a test to claim that status. There is no harm to recording a Dexter as a carrier, since if the information is incorrect it will not result in any complications for breeding, you'd just end up with all long legs. And if you object to that, then I'd have to insist that all polled Dexters be tested, since you can have horned Dexters out of two polled parents, dehorn the calf, and then claim polled status for the calf and sell it to an unwitting buyer (often for more money than it would fetch as a horned calf). I think I agree with most of this as long as we STOP using the terms "short-legged" and "shorty" and "long-legged" to refer to chondro status, and as long as people are educated to understand that the chondro-effect masks the true genetic height of animals. PS. This is sorta beside the point, but I've never really seen anything in the American registries that says specifically that chondrodysplasia is "accepted", anymore than PHA is "accepted", or any other lethal gene that comes along might be "accepted". |
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 19, 2015 6:02:09 GMT
Polled Herefords were developed by Warren Gammon in Iowa. " In 1901 Burton Gammon, a college student at Drake University, introduced his father to Charles Darwin's works, The Origin of Species and The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication. Inspired by Darwin's ideas, Warren hoped to produce naturally hornless purebred Herefords by using purebred Herefords exhibiting a hornless mutation to introduce the hornless trait instead of interbreeding with other types of polled cattle. Warren and Burton sent word to the 2,500 members of the American Hereford Breeders Association, asking if any ani-mals with documented lineage existed in their herds that also were naturally hornless, or "muley."Within the year, Warren Gammon acquired four bulls and 10 cows from around the United States. The breed was developed from 11 of those animals, with the first planned mating of Polled Herefords taking place on February 21, 1902, at the Gammons' barn near St. Marys. Because all of the animals were purebred, they were already registered with the American Hereford Association (AHA), but because at that time the AHA refused to note whether an animal was polled or not in its official records, it was necessary to maintain a separate Polled Hereford registry." The polled mutation is likely a mutational hotspot that breaks regularly in the same weak spot. ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=hotspotmutationregion |
|
