|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 19, 2015 17:33:46 GMT
Kirk,
A number of years ago I was sent very detailed historical information by Jim Lents, which included the historical data you posted with details as to why it was not and could not be correct. . . . but was another great marketing ploy similar to the Godstone Esmeralda fairy tale. Jim Lents family has been breeding Herefords since the earliest imports to the US.
Have you ever heard of "another" mutation in the horned Hereford breed that was documented by science?
Have you ever heard of "another" mutation in the horned Dexter breed that was documented by science?
Have your ever heard of fresh mutation in the horned Highland breed that was documented by science?
Have you ever heard of fresh mutation in the horned Longhorn breed that was documented by science?
In order to be documented there needs to be TWO generations of parentage confirmation.
As a researcher Kirk. . . . . . . WHAT part of your research is ok to be hearsay or anecdotal and what needs to have proof, if any?
Is there a line you draw anywhere?
Hey, I believe in Santa Claus. With every fiber of my being. But I do not ask other people to believe in Santa Claus because I cannot prove he exists.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 19, 2015 18:20:31 GMT
There are always going to be science deniers that deny the science of mutations.
Yes, I have heard of PROVEN mutations, documented by parentage verification. It would even be easy to prove in a lab if someone had the funding to pay for it.
What proof do you have that legacy animals don't have lots of introgressions? Do you have two generations of parentage verification on all of them all the way back?
Let's just blank out ALL your legacy and traditional pedigrees until you can PROVE them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 19, 2015 18:37:33 GMT
I'm still waiting for the horned mutation out of two homozygous polled animals. Why don't those appear spontaneously as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Mar 19, 2015 20:32:44 GMT
One-way mutation science! It's right up there with the independent completely separate polled gene science.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 19, 2015 22:44:44 GMT
I'm still waiting for the horned mutation out of two homozygous polled animals. Why don't those appear spontaneously as well? Scores of genes are required to make horns. It's not just one gene. Among those scores of genes that make horns are some regulator genes. One of those regulator genes helps start the horn-growth process at a certain point in the calf's growth cycle. The polled gene, is just a broken horn regulator gene. Polled animals still have horned genetics, but just one of the genes is broken. If horns were an important necessity, we'd consider polledness to be a terrible defect... but the reverse is true... Many people de-horn cows. Certain genes have weak spots (mutational hot spots) that can break easily in the the same spot every time sorta like a batch of mugs that all have a hair-line crack in the same place on the handle due to a manufacturing weakness, and the handles always break at the same place). You can easily picture one of these weak mugs breaking occasionally in the same spot. But it's hard to imagine the handle magically rejoining the mug and healing perfectly. The chance of that one of these horn regulator genes will break (mutate) is about 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000 The chance that they could magically fix themselves is probably 1 in a billion. It's easier to break something than to perfectly fix something. |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 20, 2015 11:31:28 GMT
I'm still waiting for the horned mutation out of two homozygous polled animals. Why don't those appear spontaneously as well? If horns were an important necessity, we'd consider polledness to be a terrible defect... but the reverse is true... Many people de-horn cows. And therein lies the reason for the polled Dexter. You are calling horns a "terrible defect". And therefore humans are now responsible for the polled Dexter, not a fresh mutation specific to the Dexter breed. Remember, we are talking about a very, very, few in numbers breed, over a relatively short period of time. Maybe back before history was well recorded, or recorded at all, using your same theory but reversed, all cattle were polled at one point, but a broken gene CAUSED horns to grow. Because we didn't have fences, or humans with guns and a watchful eye, predators were abundant, the HORNED cattle, through natural selection and genetic drift, thrived, while the defenseless polled cattle perished. When the first horned bull appeared of whatever breed, he was so dominant over his polled relatives (no electric fences to keep them separate) that he could easily reproduce his horned genetics throughout the herd or other herds, and therefore horned became a dominant trait in all cattle due to the broken gene (or genes) that caused horns to grow. One only has to watch a mixed herd of polled or dehorned cattle combined with horned cattle to see who eats first and breeds first. It is entirely plausible that over thousands of years the horned cattle began to dominate the original polled cattle. In the early days of humans, they didn't really want the polled cattle, either because they didn't have the means to protect them as we do today, and horns were necessary for yokes to function properly. Therefore most remaining polled cattle were eaten because they served no purpose otherwise until humans began to see some other uses for them and make advances in their ability to protect them from predators. So in those times, the original polled cattle that managed to survive the surge and dominance of the mutated horned cattle before humans, were further reduced in numbers. So perhaps the horned cattle were the initial "broken handle off of the mug" (to use your metaphor which has no similarities at all to a living organism that is capable of healing itself) and the polled mutation is the "one in a billion" repair going back to the original polled genetics, not the other way around. Our time on this world is just a blink of the eye of nature as a whole after all, and you have no way of knowing for certain what existed thousands and thousands of years ago. After all you can't even prove if Saltaire Platinum was a fresh mutation or not 30 years ago! |
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 20, 2015 23:00:41 GMT
Hi Guys,
No internet here for days. Yes, the wind blew, and out we go...... Again!!!!!
Wow, do I have a lot of catching up to do.
First off - The picture of the mystery cow. Never would have guessed it to be white park. I certainly hope that all such animals are DENIED registration. Bulls steered and all heifers beefed too. My opinion, this may have come from white park but does not meet the breed description and should be terminated.
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". Come on Kirk, Don't throw something out just like this when you know better. ----------------------TWO BODY TYPES ----- remember. This is the type of thing that keeps everything going.
Yes, Hans. Lots of good points there. All my dwarfs are registered as chondro except for Kate. It was so obvious when we got her, I didn't test. I always figured I would if we ever decided to sell her, just so I the paperwork would be complete and recorded properly for her new owner. Now after two chondro calfs (sires test non) she's pretty much verified it, I would think. But technically she still remains untested.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 20, 2015 23:29:01 GMT
No, I'm NOT calling horns a terrible defect.... My comment was that nearly everyone who has polled cattle think of them as a BIG advantage, even though the polled gene really is a defective gene that interferes with the normal function of horn growth. Dun is also a defective gene that interferes with normal black pigment development. Some "defects" have TONS of advantages and very few if any disadvantages.
I believe that horns are wonderful to look at and can be very useful in working oxen and helping semi-wild cows defend themselves against wolves. But horns do have a big downside for many (but certainly not all) people and that's why polled cattle are so VERY popular and also why so many people dehorn horned-dexters.
Despite the popularity of polled Dexters, the demand for horned dexters is probably much more than it was in the 1970's and 1980's. I get calls all the time from people who want horns, or who don't care too much one way or the other and are happy to have hetero-polled animals that have occasional horned calves. If I can't meet their need, I happily send folks to horned-breeders all the time.
I will contribute toward promoting horned dexters because I love how they look and I'm happy some people keep the horns on, and I think dehorning should be banned. But many, many people DO physically dehorn cattle even though it can be brutal to the animals.
If you're raising horned Dexters, I think you should think about keep the horns on. If you want horns off, then consider using the polled gene.
As far as evolution of horns goes, it's certainly true that VERY distant ancestors of today's horned livestock and related animals did NOT have horns, and those horns evolved over a huge amount of time. We can see it in the fossil record. Horn growth is controlled by a good number of genes working together.... It wasn't just a single mutation that suddenly resulted in horns, but rather it was hundreds of mutations over millions of years that added up to the certain characteristics of today's horns. But to shut-off horn growth, it just takes one little defect mutation to a horn regulator gene to stop horns from growing. Those polled mutations may occur in 1 in 10,000 calves.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 20, 2015 23:31:12 GMT
Oops, missed all of page 3. Trying to catch up LOL
As for horns ---- Of course the polled gene is a defect---- By the very definition. It is a terrible defect for the animal to deal with. Horns serve as temp regulators, tools (you should watch my girls go into a hay bale, open a gate, or as a new mother tenderly uses them with her new little calf) and of course for protection. It is a marvel to watch a horned herd react when there is trouble; dogs, coyote, bear etc. The way that mama stands OVER that calf and drops her head, while the rest charge and defend the little one. They are a force. They move as one, taking care of the situation, long before the human can even begin to be of any usefulness.
The polled gene only benefits people (some people), it brings NO Benefits to the animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 20, 2015 23:49:41 GMT
Just read the above post. and helping semi-wild cows defend themselves against wolves. Really, Really??
Only semi-wild cattle?? REALLY?
No predators where you live? Coyote? Bear? Wolves? Mountain Lions? No feral dogs or maybe just the neighbors dogs running at night? Chasing and killing for fun??
They only attack semi-wild cattle? Not happy little cows with calves in their own pasture? In your pasture? In mine?
I assure you my ladies are neither wild nor are they even part wild. They are happy, well mannered Dexters that are as tame as can be and I think I could probably saddle either Macklynn or Triu and give out rides. They also live in the REAL world, and have to deal with all kinds of things on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 22, 2015 7:21:23 GMT
We live right next to a national wilderness area. We have black bear, billions of coyotes, neighboring dogs, cougar, lynx, and bobcats.... Those creatures are all scared of our cows (horns or not). When our cows go chasing those predators away, the predators don't wait to see if the cows have horns or not.... I suspect, though, that a pack of wolves might not be so scared of our cows and horns might come in handy, then.
I mentioned semi-wild cattle (meaning cows running loose in wild grazing areas) because wolves mostly live in rather wild places... we don't have any wolves here yet.
While an individual cow loves having horns themselves, they hate that other cows have horns, because other cows can be mean with their horns.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Mar 22, 2015 11:43:08 GMT
Although horned cows are MUCH more suited to surviving in wild or semi-wild conditions, they also have many advantages in completely man-made and controlled conditions.
It looks to me like they are SIGNIFICANTLY more clever than their polled counterparts. For example, I don't see a SINGLE polled cow in this video:
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Mar 22, 2015 17:02:45 GMT
Kirk, I have had, on occasion, over 100 horned cows on a farm that also had pgymy and standard goats, mini donkeys, mini horses, and llamas. ( Today only the donkeys and horses). I have seen two very impressive fights between adult bulls. I have seen scratches on hides and I have seen cows push and shove each other around. ( Don't polled cattle push and butt as well?). I have NEVER had a cow or a bull gore another animal. These animals know they have horns and they are remarkably aware of them and their position and purpose. It is truly astounding to witness domination without injury.
However, there is a "but". I can see a precription for disaster if too many horned animals are confined to a space that is not sufficient for their personalities and physical attributes. However, it does not take horns for a cow/bull or injure another animal or a human.
The same thing you said about horns can apply to tongues, and on certain occasions in certain circumstances I confess to guilt. Just like cows, one only needs to be concerned if they trepass on my personal space.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Mar 22, 2015 22:03:03 GMT
While an individual cow loves having horns themselves, they hate that other cows have horns, because other cows can be mean with their horns.
Hi! I do hope you were smiling when you said this..... meaning it to be funny! I don't know of any other way to take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on May 5, 2015 2:21:49 GMT
Kirk,
Still searching for dun. I'm growing more and more convinced that Mike is right about dun in the early lines.
When I purchased my first dun animal. . . the owner called him "red". He WAS a very reddish color when his coat shed during the summer months. For years. . . any dun animals that I saw in pictures or in person were this color that was called "red dun" ( once Mrs. Rutherford informed American breeders their animals WERE dun and not red). In fact. .. . . when Mrs. Rutherford visited America, I believe there were only TWO red animals and they were in the Thomas herd, grandsons of Parndon Bullfinch. The red from Yom Kippur did not turn up until some years later.
It was not until somewhere around ten years ago that I ever saw the light colored duns and then it was in a photo in one of the Dexter magazines. . . and I thought it was a different breed in the picture among black Dexters. It was very blond/tan in color.
There were not so many red cattle registered from the Irish herd books as there are in the early English books. There are lots of reds, and I keep going through these pedigrees and something is niggling at me. .. . but I cannot quite put it together yet.
Kirk. . . . why is there dark reddish duns and why are there blond duns. What changed the shades?
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on May 5, 2015 2:25:13 GMT
Kirk,
The Gammon story is a fairy tale. Jim Lents sent me a detailed rendition of the Hereford fairy tale. The Godstone Esmeralda story is a fairy tale. THAT one could have been immediately disapproved with the science available in the 80's. and those involved knew it.
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade on May 5, 2015 19:59:41 GMT
Kirk, The Gammon story is a fairy tale. Jim Lents sent me a detailed rendition of the Hereford fairy tale. The Godstone Esmeralda story is a fairy tale. THAT one could have been immediately disapproved with the science available in the 80's. and those involved knew it. Judy Mutations definitely do occur. It's 100% science. Jim Lents had no scientific proof one way or the other. The only way to prove them is with mandatory parentage verification. In the case of the Godstone Esmeralda, a mutation is a possibility, but a low probability. The other explanation of a calf swap is 1,000 times more likely. It's likely that Esmeralda got her polled gene from a great grandsire, a polled milking shorthorn bull born in 1961. I'm voting YES for Mandatory Genotyping in the ADCA so we can prove future mutations. Under the current rules, we're forced to just accept unproven mutations because we don't have mandatory genotyping. Without mandatory genotyping, we could see the polled gene pop up in legacy and traditional lines, and there would be no way to prove it one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade on May 5, 2015 20:20:46 GMT
Kirk, Still searching for dun. I'm growing more and more convinced that Mike is right about dun in the early lines. When I purchased my first dun animal. . . the owner called him "red". He WAS a very reddish color when his coat shed during the summer months. For years. . . any dun animals that I saw in pictures or in person were this color that was called "red dun" ( once Mrs. Rutherford informed American breeders their animals WERE dun and not red). In fact. .. . . when Mrs. Rutherford visited America, I believe there were only TWO red animals and they were in the Thomas herd, grandsons of Parndon Bullfinch. The red from Yom Kippur did not turn up until some years later. It was not until somewhere around ten years ago that I ever saw the light colored duns and then it was in a photo in one of the Dexter magazines. . . and I thought it was a different breed in the picture among black Dexters. It was very blond/tan in color. There were not so many red cattle registered from the Irish herd books as there are in the early English books. There are lots of reds, and I keep going through these pedigrees and something is niggling at me. .. . but I cannot quite put it together yet. Kirk. . . . why is there dark reddish duns and why are there blond duns. What changed the shades? Judy The dun (brown) gene is found in nearly all animals, usually at a low frequency. I have dun pigeon on my farm (It's called "silver" or "red", but in just the past few years they found it's the same broken tyrp1 gene that makes dexter's dun and makes chocolate labs, chocolate). I'd bet that Dun(Brown) is also in Angus and Herefords and many other breeds of cattle at very low frequencies. Why some dark reddish duns and why blond duns? There are likely a good number of unknown gene variations at unknown loci that impact the shade of both dun and also red dexters. I've got the same thing happening in some of my reds... Some are blondish red, and some are deep red .... it's NOT just a matter of E+ vs. e |
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on May 9, 2015 13:52:04 GMT
Kirk,
The more ancestor pedigrees I see, the more I think the dun, the very reddish dun which looks like a red animal and which Americans thought was "red", was also called red by the English and that the early colors might actually have been "red-dun" and black with a smattering of red. The numbers of red recorded in the early English records is high. Since we know dun came through Grinstead ( it can be traced behind Grinstead now), then those animals had to have been registered as red, and THEY had to come off animals registered as red.
I am posing a new theory that "red-dun" was considered red by those early breeders. Somewhere that dun became diluted or mutated into the blondish/tannish color that appeared in Ms. Rutherford's herd. Isn't it in the English record that Mrs. Rutherford had the "first" duns? We know that is not correct. . . . . so what she had to have was the first blondish/tannish duns. . .right?
Judy
|
|
