|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 4, 2016 17:18:39 GMT
I'd like to hear from the pros here about the return to original values. Are duns acceptable? What about all those animals that aren't short below the knee? Do they qualify for registration as Legacy, if their pedigree is clear? Should they? Don't we need to get answers from England or Ireland, instead of guessing.? Has anyone done this? Didn't Cascade say he'd read the bit about oak table color being culled? If I'm going to do it right, I want to be able to defend what I'm doing with the other side.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 4, 2016 21:23:46 GMT
I think I am not quite sure of the questions, but the first thing that jumped out to me was the suggestion of inquiry to Ireland and to England? Ireland ran out of Dexters in the early 1900's. ( accuracy demands I qualify that by saying they stopped registering Dexters and the English took over the position as the primary registry of Dexters). What confuses me is why England (or Ireland) should be consulted? Is there reason to believe England has authority over the Dexter breed? I am not willing to cede anything American to any country but America. In fact, America was the ONLY country that protected the original Dexter population until members of ADCA leadership wrenched control of ADCA from the Logsdon family who had not only saved the breed on this continent, but established ADCA, and thus approved importations of the first Dexters to come from the upgrade/appendix registry. Then you have ADCA, in their compulsive need for power and position proclaiming themselves the BEST and largest registry, ( neither of which is accurate) , and I dear say they would not wish to cede authority to England. As they have not in at least one breed issue.
The earliest historical photos and breed records clearly give sufficient evidence to the undeniable fact that Dexter cattle were a dwarf breed. Were all Dexters dwarf cattle? Of course not. I cannot have an entire herd of albino minature donkeys either. Just as some of my donkeys need to be born of color for the breed to survive, some Dexters through the percentages of both nature and survival must be born non-dwarf. The preservation effort recognizes and preserves both dwarf and non-dwarf. As to dun, it also appears obvious this color came in with foundation cattle as it can be traced within a generation or so of foundation currently. Since American breeders could not tell the difference between the reddish dun and the red why should we expect the Europeans could? I posit the theory that either the blond/tan duns were culled, or the line breeding of Mrs. Rutherford pulled it out and it was noticeable. By that time her herd was closed which made speculation of outcrossing difficult.
It is my experience that those members of the breed who are interested in preservation are the most reasonable and cooperative about it all. It is the establishment polled breeders who drew the line in the sand. . . refusing any acknowledgement or cooperation at all to save the dwindling numbers of non-polled preservation lines.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 5, 2016 0:45:24 GMT
Thank you, Judy. No, I agree England doesn't have authority over the Dexter breed. But you are wanting to work to the original standard, and that WAS set by England. If early Dexter breeders didn't accept dun as part of the original standards, then should we? If we accept dun if it's not part of the original standard, then we can't complain about others accepting polled, which is just as much a new standard as dun is, isn't it?
I want to be able to defend what I'm doing, not be discredited as having a double standard.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Jun 5, 2016 13:18:11 GMT
ADCA could have made this simple. As an example the American Shorthorn Association recognizing that the outcrossing to holstein changed the breed from its original form they added a "Native Shorthorn Category" to their registry in order to preserve the original breed type and genetic bank. The Native type and the modern type Shorthorns are two different animals. The modern with outcrossed genetics trying to compete with holsteins in milk production under modern dairy practices and the Native clinging to the original tri-purpose breed characteristics. Preserving the original lines of any domestic breed is just good management when using out sourced genetics to make modern improvements. How many breeds have been improved away and the original concept completely lost. Take the Kerry for instance. There have been some requests for an upgrade program both here and in Ireland. The Kerry is so prepotent genetically that when you make a cross onto another breed you get a Kerry. I have seen it first hand in Ireland with holstein crosses and here with a cross on Dexters. The Kerry is so pure genetically albeit because of low numbers, that it is highly prepotent when crossed onto another breed. For those that are concerned that Traditional breeders are headed into a smaller pool of breeding choices I would say bring it on. A forced line breeding program of sorts. It will over time solidify the differences between the Moderns and the Traditionals. I see the trend in Dexters overall leaning to the beef phenotype. With the moderns trending towards polled the tri-purpose has been stepped down to dual purpose (no ox teamster I know uses hornless cattle) and with the emphasis on beef traits it will soon be single purpose modern Dexters. It is what it is. There are 2 divergent paths and I no longer see the reason to argue. There are hurt feelings especially since the ADCA was the original Tri-Purpose Dexter organization. Not much can be done about it now. Lets just move on in the direction of ones choice.
And the dun question seems not to be an issue to me. Its been around long enough and certainly there seems to be enough evidence that it was considered red at one time. I personally breed for black only and am close to having a genetically pure black herd, not that I have anything against dun or red, just my preference.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 5, 2016 15:11:06 GMT
According to the standards posted, the original standard, set in Ireland and then in England, says black or red and short. Duns are not red, and they knew the difference then, nor are taller animals short below the knee. If you accept these changes to the breed, how can we justify not accepting others?
To have credibility about salvaging a specialized subset of a breed, with the clear agenda of using just original standards, don't we have to be able to be consistent?
And on the subject of polled, I'm sure I've heard or read somewhere that there was a second DNA comparison done with zero SP descended animals, just Judy's list of acceptable Legacy-style ones, and the result was the same: no discernible difference. How do you account for this if Legacy is 'pure' and SP isn't a real Dexter?
I'm returning to the issue: how can we justify only selected changes? I think we need to have a scientifically defensible answer.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Jun 5, 2016 15:43:00 GMT
This is the problem we have is it not? The credibility with a specialized subset is the polled. I fail to see why the you try to reverse the concept and portray the Traditional breeder as the rogue trying to change the standards. This group is resigned to the fact that the original Dexter is now on its own island. If the goal is to play the PR game and try and discredit the Traditional version you will loose. Historical data dictates otherwise. There are no 1919 photos of polled Dexters and terms like impure, upgrades, introgression etc. work against the polled. The polled is a new modern subset specializing towards a beef phenotype. Shall we keep this going or agree to disagree and each work in harmony towards our different goals?
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 5, 2016 21:39:16 GMT
The technicality is this; The original Herd Book VOl 1 published by the Royal Dublin Society published (1) Preface (2) Rules and Regulations.
1. The Preface was six pages long and published written articles/descriptions of Dexter cattle to that time. They were NOT called a breed standard or guideline or rules. They were a description of the cattle. The final paragraph above the signature of Richard J. Moss, dated September 1890, read as follows:2. The Rules and Regulations covered two pages covering the admittance of animals into the foundation herd. I will save myself the effort of typing them as anyone who is interested can find this herdbook on Google books. I will abbreviate it in "my" words.
All the animals that were previously recorded in the Farmer's Gazette were accepted and entered into VOL 1, RDS with the same numbers. Any Kerry or Dexter that received a prize or commendation at any Show held in the UK, where there was a separate classification for Kerries and Dexters would be eligible for entry into the herd book, with the stipulation that the judges had to be nominated by RDS, and the animals were required to comply with rules of color. For Dexters, the cows and bulls could be either black or red with a little white. For the pedigree stock, offspring of registered animals were eligible, All other requirements were based on proper forms, and fees.
*****************************************************************
These rules remained the same through 1900 when the DCS organized and published their first herd book and in 1901. I do not have the RDS herdbooks after that for reference to see if they amended to the UK published requirements.
When DCS published their first herd book they published a "standard" for both Kerry and Dexter cattle. That standard described the head, the horns, permitted a bit more white than was described in the Irish herd books, described the body, and set a weight standard of 900 lbs for bulls and 800 pounds for cows.
In the US showing cattle in the minor breeds was rare, so there were no judges with knowledge of Dexters to judge Dexter characteristics ( nor is there today for that matter), and in modern times the associations have not required any regulations or requirement of standards to show, and persons who have happened upon Dexters at show venues have seen a hodge-podge of bodies and colors, including cattle with white patterns, many of them modeled after modern beef breeds. The absolute worse thing to happen to the Dexter breed in America was the modern ADCA, for the only rules they have cared about are those that instill power and purse. Since 2004 there has been a cabal of polled breeders who went to any length to try and keep the secret of the non-purebred pedigree of Saltaire Platinum, and then when denial could no longer be sustained, they commissioned a white-wash of reality. The preservation breeders asked only ONE thing of ADCA. . . . . . identify the polled bloodlines so that old breeders and new could make breeding decisions and choices from a base of knowledge as to the pedigree. It was as simple as two categories or a letter notation of some sort after the registration number. ( You will recall that in the beginning a certain breeder insisted that all Lucifer registrations carry an "X" after the number which was originally on my Lucifer descended registrations in 2001). That may not have ceased comments from preservation breeders concerned with decreasing numbers but it would have been a wise decision by leadership for it would have shown they gave a slight damn. Instead, a board that has consistently been overwhelmingly dominated by polled breeders made every excuse possible to hide the truth of the situation and instigated criticism, condemnation, vilification, and even censure towards preservationists seeking only to have the truth told. One board member lamented in writing I was "hurting his sales". I suppose he didn't get a memorandum in his leadership book his position of leadership was not to increase his sales but to enforce the mission statement. . . . the first line of which was, " To protect the purity of Dexter cattle". It is my opinion few of them gave a whit about the Dexter breed except as a means to financial opportunity. A number of them rode that wave off into the sunset. Darn pity the majority of them didn't follow.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 5, 2016 22:07:18 GMT
So, let's pretend for a moment you have preservation interests, and I am not saying you need to pretend because it may be that you have not been overly fond of the polled cattle yourself, but what do you think preservationists should work to preserve? You had commented on the dun. . . . and I have off and on had reservations of the dun but I've got considerable hours of research invested in dun and I believe it existed in a very reddish tone in the earliest foundation of this breed. It is my belief that other factors may have mutated the shades of dun. My second herd bull was dun, but the breeder called him red, and believed him to be red. I am certain those red shaded duns were called red in the early days. Have you noted how many red were in the early herd books? Do a search on Legacy World for red with DCS and look at the numbers. To me the numbers seem very high, especially when it is lore here in the US that the quickest way to lose the red in the herd is to breed with dun. Consider that by the late 70's in the US there was NO red in America. It had all but been lost until Sandy Thomas line bred to Magic, and the Beerex herd through line-breeding brought in the red from Yom Kipper's lineage. If there was dun here it was being called red as well so that had disappeared also until the 50's imports of the Grinstead, Atlantic, and Framfield animals produced the modern dun prior to Woodmagic imports. How do we know that what they called red in the early herdbooks wasn't actually dun? How do we know that the "orange-red" we see today was the red of yesterday? There are those who believe the actual red was a deep Irish-setter type red, and that would make sense as to mistaking the red-dun with red. I will post one photo of an animal listed as red from the earliest registrations and I cannot say she was red versus our "red-dun", for the photo is black/white.
Would you wish to limit size? Or let the size resolve itself by the original weight standards?
Larry, those were great posts with really good points and I am going to read them again! !
Judy
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 6, 2016 0:47:26 GMT
If one were to say we wish to follow the original standard set by Ireland and England (those judges must have had something to work from), then dun and tall and polled cattle would not be accepted.
If we were to say we wish to follow as closely as practicable the original standard, allowing for dun because we think it was present and not bred out (like polled would have been, for instance), and we accept the longer legged version because the DNA is the same with the exception of the not-true-breeding lethal chondro gene, then we could defend ourselves, sort of.
Detractors could say well, the same thing that applies to chondro could apply to polled: same DNA, just one gene different.
If we want to claim only original standards, but accept exceptions, then we will never have credibility.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 6, 2016 1:56:09 GMT
DCS #622 Carrier or non-carrier? Early registration - is she short from knee to hocks? My real interest is color. She is registered as red. Could she be "red-dun"? Sire is registered as black. Dam is registered as red.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jun 6, 2016 14:45:59 GMT
Looks like a non-carrier to me, at least very much like our Traditional non-carriers do, maybe even a little longer in the leg than they are.
As far as red and dun, last I checked UC Davis and the others weren't using DNA at the turn of the prior century to verify colors. And if the ADCA and other registries require the DNA color testing of a black and red, or a black and black, etc.. to list the Dexter as red on the registry today, why in the world does anybody think that it was more easily determined back in the early 1900's? Color photography didn't exist so you can't use photos to try to determine the color either.
I have a dun heifer calf right now, the dun sire does not carry red, but the dun mother does, that when I look at her I get tempted to ask for a re-test of her sire to see if the sire carries red or not and I have a red calf. That said, I can always tell the red and dun apart from each other. But that is because I know by genetic science that both red and dun exist as colors in the Dexter breed. If I was of the opinion only red existed and didn't have the science to say otherwise, then they would all be red Dexters.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 6, 2016 18:18:32 GMT
Oh my goodness! How did I miss that? I've been fighting for dwarf cattle for years. . .
"Non-true breeding lethal chondro gene". POPPYCOCK! There is NO breed that breeds true. If there was. . . .. the term "throwback" would never have become so commonplace in livestock. My chondro cattle, if bred to chondro or bred to non-chondro breed as true as those I've seen pictured on the web. There is a photo of a bull that is often used on this forum as an "example" of a "perfect" non-short Dexter. Whether stated or not, the impression is implied this bull breeds "true". That bull does NOT breed true. I have seen a photo of one son, and had discussions with an owner of another.
How can " the same thing that applies to chondro apply to polled"? Dexter cattle are a heritage dwarf breed with horns. From the beginning. Polled came to the US on a NON-purebred upgraded bull. No comparison.
"One gene different". First of all, NO ONE has yet to discover the gene that takes the horns off cattle. There was a frenzied search a couple years ago by Cothran and Schultz and other scientists around the world but there has been no announcement it has been identified. The genetics of the dwarf cattle are diverse and traits that were valued in the dwarf cattle are either absent from non-dwarf cattle or minimized.
The preservation effort, from the beginning has had nothing but credibility, because at all times there has been an effort to search for information and to share it. Nothing has been hidden.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jun 6, 2016 18:19:47 GMT
T-Puller, Being color blind, I could not tell a dun calf from a red calf from a green one, as most on here can attest, as I ask dumb questions like: "Is that a red calf? " It's no surprise to me they never got the color terminology down.
If you really are concerned about the preservation effort, do your homework, breed from the best old lines you can, and don't use a good traditional cow to produce a Modern, and you'll be doing the breed a service.
If you have standards, you don't need to worry about detractors,or credibility; you'll know you are doing the right thing!
Bill
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 7, 2016 5:22:22 GMT
I guess I got carried away with cascade's commentselsewhere. I thought homo chondro was a lethal? Doesn't that mean you cannot expect to get a consistent result? I'm not sure which bull you are referring to, but do you mean he produces calves with lots of white, or under or oversized ones, or brindle or some other non Dexter trait? How are you defining lack of consistency? This is all confusing.
But back to basics: if we use original standards, then we should limit our registrations to 900 lb bulls that are black or red and horned and are short below the knee? If we register anything else, then it's not to the original standard, and we leave ourselves open to criticism.
Edited to add: I'm not sure what's happening here. I ask a fair question, and answers mostly reflect attacks on polled or other breeders. One was good and did suggest I simply do my best. That's what I always intended, but what's that best mean, if some exceptions are okay but not others.
I haven't seen a single reply that's dealt head on with the question. Has anyone checked with the source? Do we really have an accurate answer? I haven't seen one. If I try to follow the Legacy version of original standards, I'm allowing exceptions that are hand selected for what looks like expediency. For me, this isn't good enough, and I feel unable to justify the position. As things stand, I can't find a difference between Dexters from the original imports PLUS some other more modern traits thrown in, and Dexters from original imports with other modern traits thrown in.
You'll have to excuse me if I'm blind. The explanation will have to be in simple terms. Why only some modern now internationally accepted traits, in fact why any modern traits at all? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of preserving original standards only?
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jun 7, 2016 15:40:54 GMT
You could make the same argument about the Chinese Crested Dog, yet both types are considered the same breed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Crested_DogLast year we had a 14 year old chondro carrier cow who calved twins, one long leg and one short leg bull calf. Obviously there is an inconsistent result, but it is entirely consistent with the breed description because even the long leg has a short leg below the knee compared to most other breeds. Just not as short below the knee as his short leg twin brother. Although I suppose it was possible to monkey around with introgression and still retain the horns, the allowance of polled opened the door wide to introgression from a variety of breeds, especially when the prices polled Dexters fetched as a result of the popularity with new owners made fudging or in some cases just poor herd management profitable for breeders. Since DNA testing has only been a fairly recent requirement. Last I checked, owning Dexters never meant that other breeds couldn't be owned as well. In my case, we also have Highlands. Even with the current DNA requirements and parent verification, I could take a Highland cow of mine right now, breed her to a Dexter bull, genotype the bull or heifer calf, and then use it on other Dexters to create a horned, thick bodied, short in the leg (without chondro) "Dexter" that would be the envy of many a horned Dexter breeder. However there wouldn't be much of a financial benefit to me to do so. Perhaps if I was keenly interested in leaving a "legacy", no pun intended, as a breeder it would be tempting. Isn't that something along the lines of what the English did with their experimental and upgrade registries?
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jun 7, 2016 16:36:00 GMT
My point was, Who are you concerned about being criticised by?
What "Traditional" breeders are attempting to do is to breed as close to the old standards 'as is possible given the times and whats available'(italics). Many of the older milkey dwarf lines are gone now, eaten or disbursed or diluted. So the hunt is on for animals that are as close to the old breed as possible, and that means deliberately avoiding animals whose genetics are suspected of outcrossing, and there are plenty of those.
And there's the rub, anyone who breeds those "improved" lines gets defensive of their breeding choices, and criticizes or attacks those trying to keep the original breed intact. Using fighting words like "lethal chondro gene" exacerbates the situation, when those are precisely some of the genetic characteristics that many here cherish.
Whats left are two divergent ideals; the Stewards of the old standards, and those who prefer polled. You'll be criticized either way. The arguement that "since this is this, then that should be too" won't fly with this group, however, and you can read endless posts on this board which try to use those debate techniques to no avail.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 7, 2016 16:37:34 GMT
Still confused about the inquiry. To my way of thinking you have received many thoughtful and polite replies.
Legacy Dexter Cattle Registry does not discriminate. All Dexter cattle are registered and Legacy is the only source of bloodline identification within the three registries.
The Preservation effort, while not entirely fluid, is tiered and based on pedigree and era. As in nearly ALL preservation efforts of which I am aware. . . . .. the primary focus is to preserve the earliest bloodlines because they carry the foundation traits established within and valued by, the breed. The focus is always to preserve the earliest genetics possible. The dun issue appears a smoke screen to me. . . as I consider it no issue at all. It was called RED by every living Dexter breeder until the 60's.
Here's an interesting bit of information I just recently discovered. Sylvan Ebony has a red son.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 7, 2016 16:55:47 GMT
ADCA could have made this simple. As an example the American Shorthorn Association recognizing that the outcrossing to holstein changed the breed from its original form they added a "Native Shorthorn Category" to their registry in order to preserve the original breed type and genetic bank. The Native type and the modern type Shorthorns are two different animals. The modern with outcrossed genetics trying to compete with holsteins in milk production under modern dairy practices and the Native clinging to the original tri-purpose breed characteristics. Preserving the original lines of any domestic breed is just good management when using out sourced genetics to make modern improvements. How many breeds have been improved away and the original concept completely lost. Take the Kerry for instance. There have been some requests for an upgrade program both here and in Ireland. The Kerry is so prepotent genetically that when you make a cross onto another breed you get a Kerry. I have seen it first hand in Ireland with holstein crosses and here with a cross on Dexters. The Kerry is so pure genetically albeit because of low numbers, that it is highly prepotent when crossed onto another breed. For those that are concerned that Traditional breeders are headed into a smaller pool of breeding choices I would say bring it on. A forced line breeding program of sorts. It will over time solidify the differences between the Moderns and the Traditionals. I see the trend in Dexters overall leaning to the beef phenotype. With the moderns trending towards polled the tri-purpose has been stepped down to dual purpose (no ox teamster I know uses hornless cattle) and with the emphasis on beef traits it will soon be single purpose modern Dexters. It is what it is. There are 2 divergent paths and I no longer see the reason to argue. There are hurt feelings especially since the ADCA was the original Tri-Purpose Dexter organization. Not much can be done about it now. Lets just move on in the direction of ones choice. And the dun question seems not to be an issue to me. Its been around long enough and certainly there seems to be enough evidence that it was considered red at one time. I personally breed for black only and am close to having a genetically pure black herd, not that I have anything against dun or red, just my preference. 1. The American Shorthorn Association added a "Native Shorthorn" Category because they actually have a solid objective measure of that category. It ONLY includes cattle that can trace 100% their pedigrees back to the originals with NO BLANKS on the pedigree. They have a good number of Shorthorns that fit that objective pedigree measure (assuming the pedigree is 100% accurate). No such thing exists in Dexters. Every definition you guys dream up, is subjective, irrational, and full of holes. If there was an absolute objective measure that made sense in dexters, I could somewhat support it. I've asked you guys to give me an EXACT decision tree for your irrational categories and you have been unable to do so. Every definition you offer is full of holes. 2. If you are truly concerned about dexters morphing into a different modernized phenotype, then you traditionalists should publish a physical description of a traditional phenotype, so that ANYONE interested, can select for those traditional features. Many of my polled Dexters are more "traditional" in phenotype than many of your flawed category "Traditional" animals. 3. If Dun isn't an issue, then hornless Dexters aren't an issue either. Hornlessness been around long enough and certainly there seems to be evidence that folks have removed horns from Dexters for many many decades (same reasoning as accepting "dun"). If you say that hornlessness isn't traditional, then traditionalists need to ban dehorning. Perhaps we should make a new rule for pedigrees listing any dehorned animals as "Hornless" instead of "Horned".
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jun 7, 2016 17:08:50 GMT
See? "If this is this then that should be too..."
But phenotype doesn't address inherited traits for meat, milk, or temperament.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 7, 2016 17:43:46 GMT
True-Breeding is an important concept in breeding purebred plants and animals and has been well understood for centuries. There are many thousands of true-breeding plants and animal strains. True-breeding means that if you breed the animal or plant to ANOTHER true-breediing individual of the SAME sort, then all or nearly all offspring will have that same feature that is considered to be a true-breeding feature. Blacks can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time Duns can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time Reds can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time Polled can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time Horns can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time A2 can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100%, of the time Natural Shortness of stature can be made to breed true 100%, or nearly 100% of the time. Breeding true requires working toward homozygous pairs of genes... PHA and Chondro can never breed true because they are lethal genes that cause the death of the animal in the homozygous state. It can take decades of smart breeding effort to breed animals that breed true for certain features. If two supposed true-breeding dun animals ever throw anything but dun, then one or both is not actually true-breeding (to be true-breeding dun, an animal has to be homozygous black and homozygous dun). A true-breeding dun bred on a non-true-breeding dun can throw non-dun offspring. That does NOT mean that the true-breeding animal doesn't breed true.... it means that the OTHER animal isn't true-breeding. In order for a true-breeding short animal to breed-true for shortness, they have to be bred on another true-breeding short animal. If two supposed true-breeding shorts throw a tall animal, then one or both of those true-breeding shorts haven't been refined enough to be truly True-Breeding. "Throwbacks" are nearly non-existent if one has truly done the effort to purify a trait. Two homozygous reds, have nearly a zero percent chance of having a black throwback calf (unless a fresh mutation occurs).
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 7, 2016 17:48:49 GMT
See? "If this is this then that should be too..." But phenotype doesn't address inherited traits for meat, milk, or temperament. Meat, milk, and temperament are ALL Phenotype issues. Anything that you can see, taste, touch, feel, observe, or measure, is phenotype.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jun 7, 2016 18:03:12 GMT
Observable Physical Traits are what I have considered phenotype, tho I may have erred.
Breeding something that appears similar may fit phenotype, but may be very dissimilar in genotype.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 7, 2016 18:42:07 GMT
You can observe an animal's genotype via lots of linebreeding...Breed a bull on a bunch his own daughters and you'll see what he is hiding. Even the "purest of pure" Dexters descend from a mish-mash of non-Dexters. They certainly don't have purified genotypes. But one could undertake a project to purify their own herd to work toward eliminating genes that "aren't Dexter enough". Other than horned/hornless, can you give us a list of features/genes that you are concerned about?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 8, 2016 15:46:13 GMT
You could make the same argument about the Chinese Crested Dog, yet both types are considered the same breed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Crested_DogLast year we had a 14 year old chondro carrier cow who calved twins, one long leg and one short leg bull calf. Obviously there is an inconsistent result, but it is entirely consistent with the breed description because even the long leg has a short leg below the knee compared to most other breeds. Just not as short below the knee as his short leg twin brother. Although I suppose it was possible to monkey around with introgression and still retain the horns, the allowance of polled opened the door wide to introgression from a variety of breeds, especially when the prices polled Dexters fetched as a result of the popularity with new owners made fudging or in some cases just poor herd management profitable for breeders. Since DNA testing has only been a fairly recent requirement. Last I checked, owning Dexters never meant that other breeds couldn't be owned as well. In my case, we also have Highlands. Even with the current DNA requirements and parent verification, I could take a Highland cow of mine right now, breed her to a Dexter bull, genotype the bull or heifer calf, and then use it on other Dexters to create a horned, thick bodied, short in the leg (without chondro) "Dexter" that would be the envy of many a horned Dexter breeder. However there wouldn't be much of a financial benefit to me to do so. Perhaps if I was keenly interested in leaving a "legacy", no pun intended, as a breeder it would be tempting. Isn't that something along the lines of what the English did with their experimental and upgrade registries? Chinese Hairless Crested Dogs aren't a true breed. True breeds must breed true for their breed-defining traits, otherwise you get nonsense breeds instead of true breeds. In the case of the Chinese Hairless Crested dogs, 50% of them aren't hairless and aren't crested. The only way to make that nonsense breed make sense would be to change their name to "Chinese This and Thats" In Dexters it was clear by the 1900 breed description that ALL Dexters must be compact and have shorter legs. You can slap a Chondro gene on most any breed of cattle and get instant "fake" shorts, but that trick only works 50% of the time. How do we know that people in the past didn't just slap a Chondro gene on various mish-mash breeds and call them a "Dexter"?
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Jun 9, 2016 15:00:38 GMT
Lakeport, are you comparing Dexters to crested dogs? That's even worse!
Cascade, we all know you can't breed true Dexters if you don't use the shortleg gene.
Back to the original question. We've gone around this, and around and around. The answers are thoughtful, but they haven't dealt with the question.
On this board, Judy and others have said they wish to follow the original breed standard in the Legacy program. But they've also said they accept dun. It's not an original breed trait. I'm asking how you can claim to be following the original when you allow dun. The reply is oh it's been around for a while, and was probably present originally so it's okay.
In my book that's a pretty lame answer.
I ask if anyone has checked with England or Ireland and the answers are we aren't bound by England (today), and we aren't the problem, it's those horrible polled breeders that are causing trouble.
In my book, those aren't answers at all--at least not to the question asked.
Legacy talks about following original standards. If I want to follow the Legacy lead, I need serious, defendable answers. Please will someone here provide that!!
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jun 9, 2016 16:49:37 GMT
I have never said what you said I said. You may quote my words at any time but you may not speak for me.
i cannot help but wonder if the advances the preservationists are accomplishing with no help, cooperation, or encouragement from the polled establishment and solid opposition from ADCA leadership is becoming so noticeable as to warrant the eatablishment becoming uneasy and sending out the minions yet again.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Jun 9, 2016 17:47:04 GMT
Judy, the polled breeders are helping and cooperating a lot...All you have to do is look at the ADCA for sale page, or even the AI bulls page, to see registered Dexters that have so dramatically deviated from the photos of just a dozen or so years ago. Another 10 years and there will be few similarities at all. I'm waiting for somebody to explain to me how there could be such a dramatic difference in phenotype in such a short time frame (I could post photos but apparently it wouldn't be polite and I'll have the usual suspects scold me for doing so) , but instead they turn the question back around at us. Classic deflection technique.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jun 9, 2016 18:21:35 GMT
Here's a defensible answer for you: If you perceive the dun color as a flaw, Don't Breed That!, breed Black and avoid the problem altogether.
That's what traditionalists have been doing all along, avoiding genetic characteristics they think don't belong in the Dexter Breed, and keeping those they think do.
Perhaps in so doing, you'll eventually have what everyone wants. Surely you can decide this for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jun 9, 2016 19:48:23 GMT
All you have to do is look at the ADCA for sale page, or even the AI bulls page, to see registered Dexters that have so dramatically deviated from the photos of just a dozen or so years ago. Another 10 years and there will be few similarities at all. I'm waiting for somebody to explain to me how there could be such a dramatic difference in phenotype in such a short time frame (I could post photos but apparently it wouldn't be polite and I'll have the usual suspects scold me for doing so) , but instead they turn the question back around at us. Classic deflection technique. I don't see a dramatic difference in Phenotype from this "Legacy" cow (Wee Gaelic Ms. Fermoy) from a quarter of a century ago to this very popular AI bull of today (Belle Fourche Mr. Right 43.5" at 3 years). Is Ms. Fermoy a "modern" phenotype? or is Mr. Right a "traditional" phenotype?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 22:04:11 GMT
No one is going to be the breed standard police. It is what it is breed to it or dont. Interpret it the way you want to. The dwarf issue is the reason there is a note at the top stating that the original standard is describing a dwarf. It is up to the breeder to apply an interpret that standard to their non dwarfs. I have a pretty clear picture of what that should be but who are we to start changing wording. Before you know it you have this dextercattle.org/edu/history/about_dexter_cattle.pdf . What in the world is this it says nothing other than there made up height standard it says nothing. It might as well say that the Dexter is a small cow that may or may not give milk and maybe eaten. Personally my goal is to breed away from the so called "true short" and yes I do have them. I put taller bulls over them to try and get them back to what I believe a non dwarf should be. I am also working to breed a dwarf to what I believe dwarfs historically looked like.
|
|