Legacy entries

[jamshundred]

Kirk,

Your questions regarding pedigrees are in a thread of a different topic so I will start a new thread for answer.

The Legacy registry is a work in progress when it comes to ancestor records.  You will find records from the late 1800's and early 1900's not available elsewhere.  There is a steady effort to add animals to the pedigrees, but sometimes the leprechauns  don't want to work!   The cases are chosen and entered online by variouis  criteria, ( of late red animals are being entered so those researching color have information not available elsewhere), most often now the entries are done from herdbook though modern information may still be taken from online existing sites.  Hundreds and hundreds of pedigrees were copied from the ADCA online pedigree site, not realizing it was fraught with error.   Hours and days were needed to try to audit all entries and get them corrected.   Just think of how many animals are in a ten-line pedigree and extend a modern animal to foundation.    When an ancestor animal prior to 1950 is added directly from herdbook the volume, page number, and any other informtion in the herdbook is added in the notes section.   Some entries are added from the herd book ancestor records. . . . those will not have a volume number listed.   In the case of foundation animals, those that were identified in early herdbooks as "foundation stock" with an FS have that entered in both the notes and on the name line as well, and those that were "qualified by inspection" have QBI on the name line.  Every effort has been made to provide all the available information.   Pictures are coming soon .

Here's a key to understanding the entries as they exist. . . .       If yoiu come to an animal and it has a blank in the next generation. . . it is a work in progress.  This is true if there are H's or other letters in the blank box.

When a pedigree has reached it's end. . . .  .there is always a notation on the next generation of a M00 or F00 for registration number and the herd sire is listed as:  No record - Foundation Sire and the dam is listed as No Record - foundation dam.    If you don't see those entries. . . consider it a work in progress.  More will be coming.

Judy

[cascade]

I want very much to appreciate your good efforts.

But some of your work is giving your records system a BIG BLACK EYE and making it appear to be a fraud.

For example, you've taken the liberty to blank out part of Saltaire Platinum's KNOWN pedigree.

His pedigree is just as sound as all those legacy pedigrees that lack DNA tested parentage verification.

If you're going to do that, then you should blank out ALL pedigrees that have animals lacking parentage verification and that would mean blanking out all your legacy and your assumed "traditional" pedigrees.

If you want your system to have trusted value, I recommend that you STAY CONSISTENT.    If you want to mark some animals as parentage verified and some as NOT verified, that would make sense, but BE CONSISTENT.

[jamshundred]

Kirk,

The pedigree of which you remark is a pedigree that is marked as a REVISED pedigree.   Those appendix entries exist and they have been confirmed.  The Homer Rixey Piella entry was confirmed to be accurate by the DCS archivist who sent me a copy of the original archived record and was also confirmed to be accurate by the importer of SP semen when brought to her attention, and that is also in writing.  What do you want. . .. the error or the truth?

Kirk, I am sorry your herd is based on Saltaire Platinum.  You are not responsible.   You are actually a victim.   A victim of those who had the same opportunity as I did to check the records and use their common sense.   They are not even saying it anymore Kirk because science tends to not be in your favor.  ( Think on that a minute).   I consider a fraud was perpetrated on you.   There is no proof otherwise.   Don't give me the magnificent mutation garbage Kirk.   If I have a polled calf born on my farm.today . . . . I PROMISE you NOT A SINGLE person in this breed will take my word for it that it has to be a "fresh mutation".   You gonna buy it?    People of honor  do not believe nor propagate false information for personal gain.  Those who needed that story to be true had the opportunity to prove it with science.  They didn't and to this day have not.

Judy
PS.   Your phrase, " some of your work" is misleading.  Did you mean to be misleading?  The correct phrase is:   ONE of your pedigrees is different from what *i* think it should be.  That pedigree is accurate based on the herd records, and science.   There is NO scientific proof that Godstone Esmeralda was a mutation, nobody really believes it. the percentages are way, way, way, against it,  and astronomically so.  

Edited to add;   Back in the early 40's I saw a couple of pedigrees corrected in the DCS herdbooks.  I have not entered the post 1990's records or even been through those records except for SP. . . .  . but I have not seen any corrections.  I have found a couple errors on the online site.  I have been told that DCS is fully aware they have pedigrees that are not correct and that there is discussion on how to proceed.   Maybe one of these days you will see SP corrected in England as well.  It absolutely should be.  What do they care?  It just gives him the same upgraded status that exists among the high percentage of their herd.  No biggie.   It is only a BIGGIE here in the US. . . . . and if you have not noticed. . . . those who own his descendents like you. . . . . don't seem to care.    Soooooooo?

[cascade]

You have replaced Godstone Esmeralda's KNOWN sire of Woodmagic Pine Martin with "Unknown polled breed" simply because you lack an understanding of how genetics work. 

Here's your monkeyed-with entry where you replaced the documented sire, with your own made-up text:

legacydextercattleregistry.com/pedigree.php?sec=1&aid=1428


Here's the record submitted by the breeder and accepted by the registries

dextercattle.org/pedigreedb/ponyweb.cgi?horse=6504

Until YOU CAN PROVE that Woodmagic Pine Martin is NOT the sire of Godstone Esmeralda, you need to show him as sire or we will simply assume that your legacy pedigree system is completely worthless and you've just made stuff up. What other records have you monkeyed-with, without proof?  Perhaps your entire Legacy record keeping is just made up.

I have no problem if your research has found PROVEN records that provide additional infromation and I'm happy to have you post your better information in your corrected pedigree, but to change the sire of Godstone Esmeralda with NO PROOF, is completely dishonest.

I'll wait here to see YOUR PROOF that Woodmagic Pine Martin is NOT the sire of Godstone Esmeralda.

If you require parentage testing, then you MUST require parentage testing for ALL your records.