|
Post by cascade on Jan 20, 2017 4:59:34 GMT
As we all know, Saltaire Platinum's paper records show no grading or outcrossing to other breeds of cattle in his ancestry, and he was DNA verified as a purebred Dexter by DNA tests from UC Davis (Judy's favorite lab).
That test reported three different things:
1. Platinum has a Y chromosome common to a large number of pure Dexters.
2. Platinum's genetic profile is very similar to most other pure Dexters.
3. Platinum shows no sign of genetics from other breeds
Some of you here disputed that first test because you weren't happy with the comparison group of Dexters, but you've had ample opportunity to have a second test conducted against a different group of Dexters that you could support.
I'd heard long ago that you supposed "purists" were planning a second test. Have you conducted the second test? Where are the results? Are you hiding the results?
If you aren't willing to conduct and share the results of a second test then we will assume the results of the first test are accurate and any further testing will just confirm the first test..... Saltaire Platinum is purebred Dexter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:17:29 GMT
So if I test my cat to see if she is a dog. and sure enough the test says my cats a dog. Do I now have the worlds first meowing dog.
Of course not that would defy what is already known. Therefore the test was flawed and i am no longer rich because no one wants to buy my meowing dogs.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 20, 2017 16:22:01 GMT
So if I test my cat to see if she is a dog. and sure enough the test says my cats a dog. Do I now have the worlds first meowing dog. Of course not that would defy what is already known. Therefore the test was flawed and i am no longer rich because no one wants to buy my meowing dogs. In August 2015 when the first test was completed showing Platinum is as pure as the purest Dexters, you said that you could only trust the test if you helped make certain Platinum was compared with Dexters you feel are pure. You've had a year and a half to do that and Judy said she was working on it long ago. Where are your results? Did you already get those results and you're hiding them? Is that why you're trying to dismiss genetics science altogether?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 20, 2017 19:04:02 GMT
I remember 13 years ago when Judy stated that she hoped that someday there would be a test for breed purity. Well those days are here and Judy's favorite genetics lab says that Saltaire Platinum is as pure as the purest Dexters. So where does that leave us? Certainly you can still promote Dexters that meet the 1900 breed standard, like this pure traditional horned daughter of Saltaire Platinum (tested purebred Dexter) who meets the 1900 Dexter Breed Standard perfectly. She's 100% traditional.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jan 20, 2017 23:19:25 GMT
No one needs to "make up" any claims against Platinum, the fact that he was polled is evidence of chicanery. Unless you are going to bring up the Miracle again, but you already agreed in another earlier post that he probably had some other breed in him.
No one admits anything but the damage Platinum has done to the breed. As mentioned earlier , if you check the Dna of a subject against it's progeny , lo and behold, they'll be related!
I feel sorry for those who purchase from you, if you don't "own" what you have, and are constantly changing your descriptions to suit yourself. What will you call them next week? Stay Tuned!
You should brush up on your terminology. It's a good thing you don't breed AKC registered dogs, or registered equines, they don't put up with calling mixes "purebred".
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 21, 2017 2:34:35 GMT
As mentioned earlier , if you check the Dna of a subject against it's progeny , lo and behold, they'll be related! Many of you folks here felt the first run of the test in summer 2015 was flawed and you rejected it. Judy hinted that she would be working on a second run of the test, where Platinum's DNA would be compared only to Dexters that she felt were "pure". You here all agreed that would be a good idea. You said you would trust this second test, especially if Judy had involvement. Was the second test ever done? Where is it? Are you hiding the results?
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Jan 22, 2017 20:59:47 GMT
Lets make this simple. Any cattle represented as dexter are immediately disqualified as a purebred Traditional Dexter if that animal carries a polled gene or is the progeny of any cattle that have the polled gene anywhere in its pedigree. No exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 23, 2017 1:48:56 GMT
All Dexters have polled genes in their backgrounds because Ireland was the home of a very old polled breed "Irish Moiled Cattle" and those bulls roamed a lot, as many bulls do.
Further, until relatively recently, most breed associations didn't even track whether a Dexter was horned or hornless. So we don't know how many Dexters were polled or horned or dehorned prior to the 1970's or 1960's or so.
The registrars including Judy fairly recently simply stuck the word "Horned" on all the old pedigree records with no records to back it up... I plan on requesting we change those records to say "polled or horned" on any records of any old animals for which we don't have definate record of their horn status... Just like we put "Red OR Dun" on old pedigrees with no proof of red vs. dun
So, the only definition of "Traditional" that works is that the Dexter meets the 1900 traditional breed standard or not.
Lots of Saltaire Platinum's horned descendants meet the traditional breed standard, and they test as pure Dexter with no outside genetics.
PS. It's sounding like you are hiding Platinum's second test results that prove he is just as pure as your most pure Dexters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 14:49:02 GMT
There was talk about running another test. I dont know of anyone that did it. Seems like a waste of money. Testing something that almost everyone acknowledges to be a cross breed. You yourself stated platinum was cross breed. Its a dead issue. He is what he is no test is going to change that.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 23, 2017 18:02:27 GMT
All Dexters' ancestors started as cross-breeds. The purebreeding process with appropriate selection for breed characteristics purifies them, over a period of 3-5 generations.
There used to be only one method to check to see if an animal has successfully become purebred via the purebreeding process, but now there are two methods.
Method 1: Does the animal breed true for its breed-defining traits?
Method 2: Does the animal's genetic profile compare favorably to other known pure animals in the breed.
We've always known that Saltaire Platinum was purebred because he matched the breed description very well.. he was 42" tall, shorter legs, thick body, and he gave his daughters excellent milky udders, and his sons and daughters were very nice examples of the Dexter type.
We now know that his DNA compares very favorably to other Dexters thought to be very pure.
Saltaire Platinum is the only known doubly verified and highly rated purebred Dexter bull in the Dexter breed so far. I know of no other Dexter bulls that have been DNA verified as purebred Dexter.
PS. Ask Judy about the status of the second DNA test. Some of you here thought that the second test was so important that you even offered to help pay for it. I'm guessing it was completed and you are hiding the results.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jan 23, 2017 21:20:39 GMT
Sounds like you believe you can cobble together a Dexter out of any old cow parts you find, ala Frankenstein. If it's black or red, and smallish, you get to call it a Dexter.
The fact is , (or was, prior to ADCA's changing the rules)that like any purebred animal, you have to start with TWO purebred animals OF THAT BREED if you want to maintain the pedigree. That's the breeding strategy most folks on this board adhere to.
That the breed was selected, and described A CENTURY OR TWO back, with breeders who recognized the advantages and features of the breed, who purchased those animals and dedicated their cattle breeding careers to them, should provide you some understanding that they wanted to keep them separate, not to dilute them with other cow breeds.
All of the Red Herrings you keep dragging don't change the fact that a polled breed has been introduced to the Dexter breed, and changed it into two categories, Traditional(No Platinum) and Modern (Anything Goes).
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 23, 2017 22:21:27 GMT
Lonecowhand, The founders of the newly invented separate Dexter breed, in 1890, let any animal of any breed into the Dexter registry, as long as it looked somewhat like they felt a Dexter should look. The key identifying features were short, stocky, beefy cattle with milkable udders.
For several decades after the separate new Dexter breed was invented, they still would allow other breeds into the Dexter registry as long as the animal had Dexter traits. Even well into the 1900's you could enter any animal of any breed into the Dexter shows, and if it won a ribbon, it was allowed into the Dexter registry.
I don't know if you even have any registered Dexters, but if you do, your Dexters' pedigrees are full of holes. If you disagree, you'll give us some names of your animals, so we can show you the holes in your pedigrees... All Dexters have pedigree holes.
You seem to be saying that your Dexters (if you actually have any) aren't purebred, because your Dexters have pedigree holes.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Jan 23, 2017 23:50:26 GMT
Kirk,
Legacy pedigrees have no holes. The pedigrees may not be complete online for any or all of them because there are still about 10 herd books to enter. . . .. .but they have NO holes to foundation
Dexter cattle are a heritage HORNED Dexter cattle breed as organized and recorded by the founders. In a CENTURY there was never a Dexter registered without being horned by nature.
That there are breeders who wished to have animals that were polled at birth, would have been acceptable had it been properly and professionally managed. Instead, just as in the case of Saltaire Platinum, the situation was not on the up-and-up. It began with error at best, fraud at worst.
In America, there has NEVER been an approved upgrading program in this breed. NEVER. An American breeder is NOT permitted to raise grade animals to purebred. Yet, American breeder have been forced out of business and/or suffered considerable loss due to a lack of leadership that placed them in competition with animals they could NOT breed on their own farms, and hundreds of Dexters have lost their lives because of that same lack of leadership.
Had there been ANY leadership at all with wisdom and professionalism, the situation would have been easily resolved. It still could be put to rest with leaders of quality who had sincere concern for the breed and it's breeders.
We will just keep waiting.
I hope you realize history will NOT be kind to those who made such dreadful decisions for this breed. No amount of rhetoric from your keyboard will ever change or excuse the tragedy suffered by the heritage horned Dexter breed in America.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 24, 2017 6:52:08 GMT
Judy, I could fully support a plan to preserve historical Dexters if the plan is rational and can be supported by DNA science and historical records.
1. I can support folks following the 1900 breed standard exactly. That means no brown (dun) colored animals, and no dehorning, and 100% shorter-legged thick and beefy animals, and 100% of male animals born don't go over 900 pounds as they grow and age.
2. If you indeed have animals today with complete pedigrees back to the 1890 starting list of original foundation of the breed, I could agree that they are special for their historical paperwork, but only if they also completely meet the 1900 breed standard. It seems to me that if you knew of any living animals today that go back to 1890 with complete pedigrees, you could input at least one in your pedigree system, without waiting to input the entire herd books... But I don't think there are any that go 100% back to 1890. I believe many of the American imports of the early 1900's aren't linked to the first foundation animals in 1890 Ireland?
3. All old holes in pedigrees are equal, and aren't meaningful. I haven't yet found a single living Dexter with zero holes in the pedigree back to 1890.
4. Both dehorned and polled Dexters do not fully meet the 1900 standard. But both dehorned and polled Dexters can meet all the other aspects of the 1900 standard.
5. Most polled Dexters are just as pure as most genetically horned Dexters according to recent DNA purity tests. Purity isn't the issue. The issue is phenotype. If you want to preserve the 1900 standard phenotype, then promote the 1900 standard phenotype to all breeders. You may not get folks to follow every bit of the 1900 standard, but if more folks followed most of it, it seems like you could claim success for keeping Dexters from drifting too far from that old standard.
PS. What year did they start actually recording horn status in pedigree records?
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Jan 25, 2017 23:11:05 GMT
Cascade, Who is this "We" and "Us" you are speaking for? Carole? the ADCA? Who's hiring you to spread divisiveness and misinformation on this forum?
And I'll take a "pedigree hole" over a purposeful, blatant, pedigree fraud any day.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Jan 26, 2017 7:17:17 GMT
There is zero evidence of any fraud, other than your false claims. Are you saying Judy committed fraud by keeping pedigree problems secret for more than a decade? What year did Judy first report pedigree problems?... 2010??? Why did she wait so long to report the problems?
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Feb 4, 2017 4:19:47 GMT
Kirk, I agree with Judy and the others the first breed comparison test was not valid because the comparison Dexters included animals with Saltair in the pedigree.
I'm sure I read somewhere on one of the other Dexter boards that a second test was done, again at Davis, using only animals that meet the Legacy standard, and Saltair Platinums results came back smelling...like a rose. Does that mean SP is actually a rose bush and now we get to argue what type and color?
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Feb 4, 2017 15:07:11 GMT
Cascade most likely I am pointing out the obvious, but no one here is looking for your approval or support on this forum or on the traditional effort. Your opinions are outliers and irrelevant here.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Feb 5, 2017 0:08:55 GMT
lonecowhand: I know I've seen somewhere there was a second test done with just Judy approved animals, not the general Dexter population, and SP came back as indistinguishable from the Legacy qualified animals. I think the test results were even copied direct (ie forwarded complete with Davis lab letterhead, not rewritten). If Davis says he's just like all the other Legacy animals, and there's no evidence of outcrossing (by comparing markers found in the suspect breeds), where am I going wrong here? I chosen not to support the baiting game some of you involve yourselves in, and I've chosen not to make it personal when I can't score points through logic, as some of you involve yourselves in. I don't have an interest in the topic as such, as I don't have polled animals. But, I'm curious why Davis is 100% right on Legacy, but 100% wrong on SP. Other than he can't be because he's polled, and (I, you, whoever) don't believe it could possibly be a mutation because that doesn't suit the game, what OTHER reason do you have for discrediting the Davis test, and refusing to believe SP's markers are just like the rest of the Legacy animal markers? I hate to side with Kirk (haha) but the original Dexters, from what I've read, did come in all sorts of colors, with and without horns, and were registered as 'pure', even though they didn't exactly match the standards, so Kirk is right about there being polled animals in the background of our animals. If descendants of those animals are okay, without the polled gene; AND with SP dna markers showing no identifiable introgression, what's the difference...other than bias and the fun of being an anonymous basher? I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Feb 5, 2017 13:35:00 GMT
Logic is subjective I suppose depending on your point of view. "showing no identifiable introgression" is a logical statement relative to your opinion. However, SP has identifiable introgression by the observable fact that he is polled, and therefore my "logic" prevails, in my opinion. "but the original Dexters, from what I've read, did come in all sorts of colors, with and without horns" is another attempt at re-writing history. "all sorts" would seem to imply white, red, dun, black, purple, etc. "with or without horns" has no historical relevance in any historical text I have read. The "game" seems to suit you as you continue to play it. It is an un-winnable game as SP progeny will carry the stain forever. It may become acceptable to the vast majority of Dexter Breeders, but the more you push to discredit traditional breeders as radical purest's the more the nagging little con job of SP introgression remains front and center. Your right, you "just don't get it".
As an example of where we seem to be today lets look at the Devon: "The original Devon Association split into two groups: one focusing on beef (Beef Devon Association) and the other focusing on the integrity of the original tri-purpose (beef, milk, and oxen) breed, calling themselves the American Milking Devon Cattle Association. There is no evidence that today's "Milking Devon" is any different or has been modified in any way from the original North Devon. The Beef Devon is an example of a change in selection, type and breeding which has resulted in a breed quite unlike the original North Devon."
In my opinion, the Dexter is on a parallel path. The SP lines are obviously moving toward a beef phenotype but are trying to hang on to the tri-purpose label. The traditionals are staying as they were/are. 10 years from now Red will dominate the SP phenotype and I predict will be much more of a singular beef type breed. The traditional Dexter will remain what it is, predominately black and dun, tri-purpose.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Feb 5, 2017 17:04:13 GMT
But, but, but...
Where is the proof that 'SP has identifiable introgression by the observable fact that he is polled'? He doesn't show the markers that SHOULD be present, even if three or four generations back now, for Angus or Red Poll or any other polled breed, if that's where the polled comes from.
On the other hand, there is incontrovertible proof SP's markers match the markers in your preferred type. This isn't just logic, it's PROOF.
I'm no geneticist, but doesn't it follow that if there is no dna evidence of outcrossing (and there should be if that's what happened), then the polled gene had to come from a mutation. If from a mutation, then your whole argument collapses, unless you want to veer off on a tangent and start claiming that he may be pure but he didn't meet the 'standard' so should not have been registered?
And I think you are make muddy water: the Devon used breeding selection, not intro of other breeds, to move to a more beefy type. You are accusing SP of changing the type through introgression, not selection, so imo using Devon as a comparison is invalid.
Or, are you admitting that SP is changing the breed to beefier through trait selection, not through outcrossing?
Or, are you switching back and forth between two different traits (polled and beefy), to suit the argument?
And here we go again, isn't dun a NEW trait in the breed? Red is old. Yet you are descrying red, and claiming dun is traditional. I think your feet must be full of holes, and the gun still smoking. HA
PS: where did I ever say anything to discredit traditional breeders? I'm on this site because I also believe in preserving the past genetics. Get real!
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Feb 5, 2017 20:21:36 GMT
The 1840's Dexter type description is that of a short thick beef breed (no mention of udders, nor horns). The 1900 breed standard is a red or black short and thick beef phenotype... But with milkable udders and with horns... No mention of triple purpose, and no mention of a dairyish frame. Definately no mention of brown/dun. This non-chondrodysplasia polled red Dexter cow matches the 1840's Dexter type description perfectly including no horns, and matches the 1900 breed standard including the beefiness and shorter legs and nice milkable udder (but she is hornless).
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Feb 5, 2017 21:46:18 GMT
But,
"I'm no geneticist, but doesn't it follow that if there is no dna evidence of outcrossing (and there should be if that's what happened), then the polled gene had to come from a mutation. "
You don't seem to understand. To me it is irrelevant where the polled gene came from as it is a disqualification no matter the source. No different than if a mutation appeared in the Milking Devon, Kerry or Highland cattle. It does not belong within the breed, period. It is especially offensive when it is introduced by deceit. Traditional Breeders will not accept it no matter the efforts of those who wish otherwise. To the lengths you go to convince us otherwise is very telling of your position, which is not defensible under the circumstances by which polled was slipped into the herd. To my thinking you would be better off selling the merits of upgraded cattle as a modern improved alternative. Highlighting the ball and chain aspect of SP drags on the message you could be selling.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Feb 5, 2017 23:26:18 GMT
Bruff... I can support your stand that traditional Dexters must have a traditional phenotype as described by the 1900 Breed Standard, or they aren't fully traditional.
But that means no dehorning, no males over 900 pounds, no long legs, no brown color (dun), no dairy frames (thick beefy frames only.
Other than horns, both polled and dehorned Dexters can equally meet all the other aspects of the traditional 1900 phenotype, if selected to do so.
PS. A large percentage of Dexter breeders have been removing horns from Dexters before most any of us were born. Dexters have been officially both a horned and hornless breed since the early 1960's, when hornlessness was officially added to the breed standard as being equal to horned.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Feb 6, 2017 0:11:22 GMT
Hi bruff: I see you've taken over from lonecowhand. That's okay.
I said "you want to veer off on a tangent and start claiming that he may be pure but he didn't meet the 'standard' so should not have been registered?". Finally, an answer that makes sense. All you had to do was say 'yes', and it's the end of the argument. See. Easy. No unfounded accusations, no assumptions, I'll bet even Cascade will be impressed.
And on second thought, what happened to all your comments about introgression and fraud? SP tested as 'pure' Dexter, nothing different from your 'traditional' animals. Does that mean we can dispense with all the accusations and libel, and simply agree you think, without any proof, there were never any polled animals allowed into the original foundation stock? Which brings us back to if there were, and their not-polled descendants are okay now, why isn't SPs descendants treated the same way?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Feb 6, 2017 6:57:12 GMT
Saltaire Platinum had pure Dexter DNA AND he did meet the standard of the day which said horned and hornless Dexters were of equal merit.
Keeping horns from growing was fully allowed in the standard, and that standard didn't limit how one could accomplish that. The polled gene simply interrupts horn growth just like a hot iron interrupts horn growth.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Feb 16, 2017 22:28:40 GMT
Saltaire Platinum did . . . . . NOT . . . . . .test as "pure" Dexter. Saltaire Platinum DOES have appendix animals in his pedigree that are currently on record. ... . and even the importer of the semen, Carol Davidson, confirmed that there is an error in the pedigree, and that when the appendix cow, Homer Rixey Piella, Appendix A138 (originally registered in 1969) was re-registered a couple years later with a different sire and a regular registration numbre 8611, this was an error. As I understand it, the breeder who did the re-registration has confirmed her error. Some of this confusion came from the fact that there was not a printed herd book in 1969, the year of the original entry. And finally, there is NO scientist for whom I have been given a name that will substantiate a mutation for the polledness. I am aghast that repeatedly outright falsehoods are published here regarding this GRADE bull. There are FIVE issues in the pedigree of Saltaire Platinum. How does anyone pretend. . .with any credibility. ... he is "pure". Or even "purebred"? I am uploading sections of the pedigree from the DEXTER CATTLE SOCIETY online pedigree site. If you go to ADCA, or Legacy, or DCS and pull up the pedigree for Saltaire Platinum, you will notice on the sire side, the bull, Onnybrook Maybug2145 You will note that the recorded sire of Onnybrook Maybug 2145 is Templeton Michaelmas Squeak 2043. When you pull up the pedigree of Templeton Michaelmas Squeak 2043, the record of DCS shows clearly that he descends from an outcrossed breeding in the appendix registry. DCS only shows the C category descendent, Legacy shows the complete entry. I have listed this information on my own website for a dozen years, I have detailed it on a number of discussion groups, and it is readily available in the herd books of England. So how does anyone who claims any degree or standard of character come onto this site and deny there is outcrossing in this bull? In addition to this there is an older outcross recorded in Legacy records with Woodmagic Blackcap. Comes straight from the herd books, volume and page quoted. That there is an error in the online pedigree for Homer Rixey Piella is only one of a number of errors online that wait correction. The error HAS been acknowledged by all involved parties. I thought there was no one left who believed in a fake mutation . .. but now I realize I am wrong. One person still promotes that fairy tale which science does not support, and had there been ANY testing or archiving of samples, ( why wasn't there?) the issue would be put to rest with nary a blink of the eye. Pursuing the fairy tale merely throws into question the breeding of a much loved icon in the breed. It was not a mutation, therefore it was either a mistaken identity of a heifer calf in a herd where there existed a polled cow who calved in close proximity of the cow in question, or there was a problem in the parent animals, one not being as recorded. There are some who DO believe this to be the answer. Why not just admit the truth and move on? The damage is done and worsens daily, with the only hope against the destruction the reversal taking place is by committed preservationists Judy
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Feb 16, 2017 22:46:37 GMT
I have just given solid proof in the above post this quote is false. Not only is it FAKE NEWS. . . the author is a committed researcher who plods through pedigree records frequently. He knew this was not the truth when he posted it.
As to "Judy's favorite lab". Let's address this comment.
UCD-VGL is a professional arm of the education program for Veterinary sciences at the University of California. The lab is expected to be self-supporting, it is managed and ran by professional employees. . ALL on salary. UCD developed DNA testing in cattle in the 1950's. Read that again. SEVEN DECADES ago. Only a few reading this board were living when the DNA technology was developed at UCD. UCD worked with many cattle owners, breeders, researchers, groups, associations, registries over the decades. AND. .... . . they were one of the top recognized laboratories in the world. An impeccable reputation. When UCD-VGL was chosen to be the laboratory to process Legacy samples and to house the Dexter DNA database, the homework was done. It was a PROFESSIONAL choice. At the time, the laboratory being used by both ADCA and the new PDCA was a Canadian laboratory. Legacy felt that American Dexter owners and breeders should support the expertise available in America! !
ADCA . . . .REFUSED. ... . .to use UCD for testing. REFUSED to recognize their results. Can. . . .. . you. . . . . . imagine. . .. .. . . that? Perfect example of the lack of professional leadership that has plagued the American Dexter breed for decades. What did ADCA do? They went to a professor who had just left a University of Kentucky professorship and taken a professorship at Texas A&M. A&M has multiple labs affiliated with their university. Big and small. Most involved with various research taking place in seperate venues. Gus Cothran was an expert equine specialist and researcher, and he had a small laboratory he used for his research. He had purchased old, used equipment from a defunct lab to set up his lab. ADCA personal sought him out and took the ADCA testing to this lab. When challenged by this choice, they denied the truth of the fact that the lab was a small private lab set up by Gus Cothran, and tried to erase where possible the truth of the matter. There are MANY instances of mistakes made by this lab and reported by owners. Mistakes in genotypes, mistakes in parentage, mistakes in A2. How many very important mistakes are yet to be uncovered? The lab was staffed by students working for credit with some professional oversight.
It was not only "my" favorite lab. . . . it was the best choice that could have been made for a lab. That choice has certainly been confirmed by the steady stream of owners who have made the switch to UCD.
Does anyone yet wonder why the Cothran lab is still promoted by ADCA? I wonder if ADCA owners were aware that EVERY sample they submitted was guaranteed to a research group, Texas Agrilife with permission to do ANY type of research without parameters or restrictions, BY CONTRACT. ADCA took ownership of their member's samples, and signed a contract for their use. ADCA was also charging members a fee for testing. When mistakes were being reported here and there. .. ADCA never once reported this in their pseudo minutes. ADCA members are nothing short of dollar bill signs to ADCA. That's what you get with an OLIGARCHY form of governance.
Judy
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Feb 17, 2017 21:35:14 GMT
1. Yes, Saltaire Platinum has some holes in his distant pedigree just like all Dexters do.
2. There are no known other breeds in the pedigree records of Saltaire Platinum (same as Parndon Bullfinch) ... Pedigree holes exist in Bullfinch and Platinum pedigrees, but no other named breeds are in the written records. Those pedigree holes could simply be unregistered Dexters, or even registered Dexters, with poor record-keeping.
3. UC Davis is the better genetics lab by far... No disagreement there. Judy's favorite lab says Platinum is purebred. It's my favorite lab too (by far). Some individuals still support the Texas lab because they felt an allegiance to the Texas University, and because their entire herd's records are still there, that's understandable.
4. Give me the name (and contact information) of a respected geneticist that you trust, who will be willing to respond to my questioning, and I'll show you that they support the idea of a polled mutation. Mutations are the very core of genetics science. Platinum's polled gene either came from a mutation, or from a calf swapping incident in his ancestor - the recent DNA test favors the mutation theory, but both theories are scientifically possible.
5. All Dexters have tons of non-dexters in their backgrounds, but the purebreeding process can purify them over a number of generations. Even the purest of pure Legacy animals in the early 1900's mostly all had non-dexter parents and grandparents.
6. Saltaire Platinum is still the only DNA-Proven Purebred Dexter, proven to have no traces of any other breeds in his DNA, and proven to have similar DNA to the purest of pure Dexters.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Feb 17, 2017 22:39:15 GMT
Hogwash, Prattle and Codswallop. Lies, Falsehoods and Deceit.
Please take your circus elsewhere.
Shouldn't you be in Washington, DC?
|
|