|
Post by cascade on Mar 30, 2017 13:57:21 GMT
You definately can breed short to short and get a 100% true short breed, but you've got to eliminate the dwarfism genes from the breed like Herefords did. All breeds that select for shorter animals were plagued by dwarfism defects. The Hereford people were smart enough to get rid of those defects. They had a big fight on their hands because some people loved their defective little sickly runts with broken genes. A famous book was written about it... "The Battle of the Bull Runts (Overcoming Dwarfism)" www.amazon.com/Battle-Bull-Runts-Overcoming-Dwarfism/dp/B000JVG25WHere's the result (100% true-breeding, 100% healthy and free of dwarfism defects) It takes decades of hard breeding efforts to produce a great line of true-short cattle, but just anyone can use a defective dwarfism infected bull to get overnight "shorty" results... But it only works 50% of the time, and the poor defective dwarf animals with defective cartilage suffer.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Mar 30, 2017 16:32:51 GMT
Lakeport, it's all just smoke.
Googling produces amazing results. If Mendel's work wasn't widely known until the start of the 1900s, then Dexters were being selected by sight as early as 1840s. According to Judy's and Patti Adam's published old records, registered owners weren't poor farmers. They were the idle rich and early owners only had one, or a few at most, as a novelty. I think you are right in that the cute and unusual factor was the main selection criteria, and the only animals that met the criteria were dwarfs or animals that had a dwarfy look. I was asking Judy because she's done so much research, and I was questioning her use of the word dwarf, because as far as I can see the condition wasn't known until much later.
An old agricultural encyclopedia set has Dexters in it, and it said breeders expected to have pure 100% Dexters once the other genes had been bred out, and it was just a matter of time. That means it was the look they liked, not the dwarf gene.
I think you are right: only dwarfs (or the few who looked dwarfy but weren't) were selected to start with. But I think Cascade is right, too: would the breed even exist if owners had known back then they could never breed out the tall and the bulldogs (which was a definite breed objective), and they were wasting their time? Not according to that encyclopedia, and not according to the articles both Judy and Cascade quote, and not according to what Mrs. Smith in England says about the person who mentored her.
I agree with you we don't allow outcrossing here, so anything imported that has outcrossing is provably grade, by the no outcrossing rule.
I agree with Cascade no early animals were ever bloodtyped or dna'd, anywhere, and we all know how frequently little mistakes creep in, so just because there is no written record to show outcrossing here, you better believe it happened (just ask the genetics committee who deal with this all the time). From that, our Dexters are no more pure than anyone else's. The difference is England and AU have written records you can point to, we just have hope. I think that's Cascades point.
Then you get the experts with degrees talking about introgression. If 99% of all cattle genes are the same for every breed, and it's only a fraction of a percent that makes the difference between a longhorn and a highland and an angus, and those are the genes that create the different appearances that are the signatures of each breed, then talking about grade becomes scientifically meaningless, unless you want to use it as a marketing tool.
Ask yourself why most named breeds consider 3/4 pure to be 100% pure. That's science talking. I see the rest as marketing and status. I started out wanting pure Dexters but a little science soon convinced me that 'pure' is a purely subjective stand. I think the association follows conventional wisdom in it's definition of purity. Then there's a few who created their own definition, and are now using that high ground to criticize everyone else who isn't on their bandwagon. See: marketing.
But it's fun to debate, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Mar 30, 2017 17:30:51 GMT
Teatpuller:
"Then you get the experts with degrees talking about introgression. If 99% of all cattle genes are the same for every breed, and it's only a fraction of a percent that makes the difference between a longhorn and a highland and an angus, and those are the genes that create the different appearances that are the signatures of each breed, then talking about grade becomes scientifically meaningless, unless you want to use it as a marketing tool. "
Very convenient statement considering the deception. Maybe some breeders would have liked to make their own conclusion and not find out later that they unwittingly used a grade bull snuck in the back door by a few individuals whom thought their scientific assessment was superior to the greater membership. A bit narcissistic in my view. That is ultimately where the resistance comes from regarding Salitare. Furthermore I don't buy your statement above for one minute. Regarding Cascade s example above, the miniature Hereford (which I also raise and know a little about) where created within the breed without going outside the breed for upgrading. The Kerry and American Milking Devon, two breeds with small populations, are showing no signs of introgression. Actually the opposite. The American native Shorthorn was destroyed by grading. Like a politician, pull the scary introgression card when one wants to cover the truth. Funny how this tread deviated from Salitare to dwarfism? Can't take back a lie.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Mar 30, 2017 17:52:45 GMT
Teatpuller:
"Then you get the experts with degrees talking about introgression. If 99% of all cattle genes are the same for every breed, and it's only a fraction of a percent that makes the difference between a longhorn and a highland and an angus, and those are the genes that create the different appearances that are the signatures of each breed, then talking about grade becomes scientifically meaningless, unless you want to use it as a marketing tool. "
Very convenient statement considering the deception. Maybe some breeders would have liked to make their own conclusion and not find out later that they unwittingly used a grade bull snuck in the back door by a few individuals whom thought their scientific assessment was superior to the greater membership. A bit narcissistic in my view. That is ultimately where the resistance comes from regarding Salitare. Furthermore I don't buy your statement above for one minute. Regarding Cascade s example above, the miniature Hereford (which I also raise and know a little about) where created within the breed without going outside the breed for upgrading. The Kerry and American Milking Devon, two breeds with small populations, are showing no signs of introgression. Actually the opposite. The American native Shorthorn was destroyed by grading. Like a politician, pull the scary introgression card when one wants to cover the truth. Funny how this tread deviated from Salitare to dwarfism? Can't take back a lie.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 30, 2017 21:31:26 GMT
These facts remain:
1. No Dexters today have complete pedigrees back to Herd-book #1 in Dublin (if you disagree, then give us a name of one with a complete pedigree).
2. All of today's Dexters have holes in their distant pedigrees, including Parndon Bullfinch and Saltaire Platinum ( if you disagree then give us the name of one with no holes)
3. There are no other recorded breeds in Saltaire Platinum's pedigree (if you disagree, then post a picture of the record of the other breeds)
4. DNA tests show no traces of other breeds in Saltaire Platinum's DNA (if you disagree, then post the test results here showing other breeds)
It would be extremely simple to prove these four statements wrong by posting the requested information.... But you won't post any of it because I'm 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Mar 30, 2017 22:20:43 GMT
The fact remains you are 100% incorrect. Non of those 4 items are relevant and require no answer. Saltaire Platnum is genetically polled and therefore does not qualify as a Traditional Dexter because of that very fact. So if you want a gualifier, that is it. Traditional Dexters must be genetically horned. Period. Because Saltaire was not genetically horned none of his offspring qualify. Period. Your Registry of choice differs on this point so spend your time and energy there.
|
|
|
Post by Donlin Stud on Mar 30, 2017 22:24:57 GMT
If 99% of all cattle genes are the same for every breed, and it's only a fraction of a percent that makes the difference between a longhorn and a highland and an angus, and those are the genes that create the different appearances that are the signatures of each breed, then talking about grade becomes scientifically meaningless, unless you want to use it as a marketing tool. Reading the above one would think - yes you are right..........but when you consider that " Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA." Sorta puts it all in a different light - hey ?!
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Mar 31, 2017 1:16:53 GMT
Um, Donna: no...chimps and humans selected different traits, maybe unintentionally. That's why Longhorn and Highland don't look the same, and have different registries, even though they probably share 99.9x % same genes. If you cull on genes that don't belong to one breed but do belong to another, and breed for the genes that belong to one breed to the exclusion of the other, mostly just visual traits like hair length, shape of horn, etc, it doesn't take long for the 'other' genes to go permanently, and you are left with an animal that has only the selected breed's appearance or yield.
bruff: I agree. However, according to old articles, originally everyone was breeding short to short, and longlegs were culled (bulldogs culled themselves). If I follow your logic, that means that the nondwarfs today should not be registered because they don't meet the standard.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Mar 31, 2017 2:31:08 GMT
" non dwarfs today should not be registered because they don't meet the standard."
I have one non dwarf cow and she is no more than 2" taller than my Chondro. Nor was her mother. As i am sure you have seen there is variation in the Dexters. However, I have seen some very good examples of consistency as well. Depends on the breeder. A few years from now I'll know better if that 2" variant can be consistently reproduced.
As far as not meeting the Standard, if you adhere to the ADCA recommendation for height there is no worries. The range is now very accommodating.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 31, 2017 4:42:30 GMT
The fact remains you are 100% incorrect. Non of those 4 items are relevant and require no answer. Saltaire Platnum is genetically polled and therefore does not qualify as a Traditional Dexter because of that very fact. So if you want a gualifier, that is it. Traditional Dexters must be genetically horned. Period. Because Saltaire was not genetically horned none of his offspring qualify. Period. Your Registry of choice differs on this point so spend your time and energy there. The term "genetically horned" tells us why polled Dexters were allowed in the breed registries. So many "horned" breeders were cutting horns off of Dexters that they converted Dexters into a primarily hornless breed. It was folks like the Old Orchard herd, that converted Dexters into a substantially hornless breed, long before Saltaire Platinum was born. Once hornlessness was widely accepted, then that opened the door for naturally hornlessness Dexters. If an animal without horns can be considered traditional, then polled Dexters can be traditional. By the way, all Dexters have some polled ancestors because Ireland was home to polled cattle for eons.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Mar 31, 2017 5:52:18 GMT
Bruff: I think you really should pick one standard and stick to it. If you want traditional dexters that meet the original standard and polled is out, then you must want traditional dexters that meet the original standard and nondwarfs are out. You are using the original standard against polledness, but the current standard for height that fits dwarfs--confusing height with dwarf characteristics. Muddy thinking.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Mar 31, 2017 10:49:20 GMT
Both of you are now reaching very far. Both previous comments defy any reasonable logic whatsoever. I suppose it's safe to play here with a small group. If you both posted these myths on the larger Facebook groups you would expose the truth. I don't envy your position trying to defend a lie. But that's the trap of deception, you can deny it forever but admit it only once. The energy spent on denial becomes endless. That's where y'all are. If this all came clean at the beginning this topic would have evolved in a different manner. Now it's a wrap on some folks personal Legacy's.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Mar 31, 2017 17:16:39 GMT
The enthusiasts and traditional dexter Facebook groups won't allow scientific discussions that challenge their unscientific myths, and they ban anyone who brings facts and science to their discussions.
Judy has to be congratulated here for allowing the science and facts to be discussed openly, even though some of those facts challenge some of her deeply held beliefs.
I've learned tons from Judy and appreciate all the historical research she has done.
The ONLY definition of "Traditional" that holds any water is that an animal fully meets the 1900 Dexter Breed Standard (including having horns, and no brown-dun, and 100% of males not over 900 pounds, and 100% having short, thick builds).
"Purebred" means that an animal breeds true for its breed-relevant traits as recorded in the standards.
"Registered" means the animal as been accepted by a widely recognized registry.
So Saltaire Platinum is purebred registered Dexter, but is not traditional because he lacks horns, and he likely was over 900 pounds.
The Old Orchard herd was purebred and registered, but NOT traditional, because they lacked horns, and many males were over 900 pounds.
I only have one fully purebred traditional registered Dexter on my farm. The rest don't have horns, so they don't meet the 1900 Standard, so they aren't fully Traditional.
Why not accept this simple indisputable logic?
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Apr 2, 2017 14:05:08 GMT
An excellent example of the divergence between the new improved polled dexter an the traditional dexter can be seen on the FB page "Dexter Cattle For Sale". This morning Sally Coed posted a picture of a polled black cow for sale. She also posted a picture of the bull she is bred to. This is not a knock against Sally. She is breeding to her choices in dexter. But these cattle are a great examples of how the two types are rapidly diverging into separate breeds. The contrast is remarkable
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 3, 2017 4:23:36 GMT
Bruff, I saw the picture you are talking about and the cow definitely is too big for a Dexter, but it has nothing to do with Polled. I've got bunches of very compact polled Dexters that meet the traditional 1900 breed standard (except they have no horns). There definitely are not just two types of Dexters, there are lots. For example, this is Ms. Fermoy, a "Legacy" dehorned Dexter. She wasn't very compact. Here's a horned (dehorned) Dexter bull Here's some traditional horned Dexters It takes constant selection toward compactness, to achieve and maintain compact Dexters. Has nothing to do with horn status, nor old pedigrees.
|
|
|
Post by bruff64 on Apr 3, 2017 9:01:09 GMT
I want to be clear on my earlier statement regarding Sally Coed's cattle post. I am not criticizing her or her farm or what she is breeding towards. My only point was that there is a clear divergence between the 2 types of dexters. The new and the old have variations within the respective breeds.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 3, 2017 11:08:38 GMT
Kirk, either you never listened (likely because you sure like to talk/write), or your forgot, that the photo of the bull you just posted was photoshopped. The original photo taken at the AGM didn't turn out, so the photo was taken in the barn and the background photoshopped with the background. Also, she's not standing on her toes and she's not 6 plus feet tall like you. I've met them both in person, have you?. The other photo is of some old steers and as you should know, they keep growing. You'd have more credibility if you stuck to the facts and made accurate representations.
Let's see some more of your cows and bulls, rather than just a few of them.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 3, 2017 18:28:19 GMT
Lakeport, the photo of the very large dehorned bull above is a direct link to the owners website where they show lots of VERY large genetically horned Dexters. You've commented several times that you know that they select for very large beefy Dexters. You're a very smart guy, certainly you 100% agree with the following facts: 1. A breeder could create a true-breeding line of excellent Dexters that are rather tall (bulls at 50"), or rather short (bulls at 40 inches), simply by ongoingly selecting for the true-breeding height you prefer. 2. Horn status has no effect on height 3. Color has no effect on height 4. There are some very tall horned Dexters 5. There are some very short polled Dexters. 6. The Chondrodysplasia defect masks the true height genetics of an animal. Chondrodysplasia interferes with height selection. Here's a 39" tall true-short red homo-polled A2/A2 dexter AI bull that will likely top out at about 41-42 inches and 100% free of known lethal genes. Glenn Land Mr Baird Red E+E+ DOB: 3/23/2014 ADCA Number: 035756 Polled (Pc/Pc) Chondro negative PHA negative Shoulder Height: 39” Milk: A2/A2 Weight: 850 $50 per straw, plus S/H
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 3, 2017 20:51:09 GMT
No way in heck is that a 39" tall bull. There is no point of reference at all to judge his height, the photo was taken from a point above him to make him look smaller as well. Look at how small the ear tag is in the ear and it tells you it's a large bull. Look at the leg length of the bull and unless he has a very shallow body (not desirable in a bull) there is a lot of real estate under him. As far as chondro masking the height, not true. Here is a bull on the right of our breeding that is out of a chondro positive bull. The photo was taken today. He is out of traditional lines, and really and truly is 38" at 2 years of age. We had no trouble from the beginning identifying that he would be an excellent bull prospect. Look at his leg length compared to the AI bull you posted. You can see the difference. The cow on the left is a chondro carrier by the way. This is his father. Sheril, by the way, is only 5'2" tall: You can select for any number of things, however you can usually only select well for a couple of things at a time, even if your herd is already well established as you would like it to be. Don't even try to convince me that you can select for smaller height, while at the same time selecting for temperament, udder, beefy, A2, color, overall conformation, longevity, disease and parasite resistant, polled, and all the other things that you claim to be doing, unless you're seriously culling. And by your other statements and how your herd size is increasing whilst maintaining a closed herd, either you're not selling anything, or you're not as selective and culling as many as you claim. Show us more of your Dexters, and I'll be less skeptical :-)
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 3, 2017 23:15:10 GMT
Lakeport, If I have 15 young non-chondro bulls born pretty much all at the same time, it's easy for me to pick the shortest, thickest bull of the group. Because these young bulls and all their parents are non-chondro, I can easily spot the shortest, thickest bull out of the shortest, thickest parents... It's very simple.
If I had chondrodysplasia in the mix, it would make it VERY confusing. A 36" chondrodysplasia-infected bull likely has taller genetics than a 40" non-chondro bull. The Chondrodysplasia bone disease can rather variably and artificially subtract 2" to 10" from the true height of the infected animals, due to the bone malformation disease. So even among the chondro-dwarfs, the shortest can have taller genetics than the tallest. What a confusing mess.
Is your 38" bull non-chondro? If he is non-chondro, I'd keep him and make hamburger out of the chondrodysplasia-infected sire.
I think you have a good eye for cattle, and Chondrodysplasia interferes with your ability to develop an excellent consistent true-breeding line of trouble-free compact Dexters.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 4, 2017 1:11:41 GMT
Nonsense. I can pick the shortest, thickest bull from either the carriers or non-carriers. Here is a 6 week old bull calf out of the same bull. What do you think? Chondro carrier or non-carrier? I know what he is because there is a test and I can know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Apr 4, 2017 13:04:51 GMT
My dwarf Legacy cow throws herself. Every time so far and different bulls. Dwarf or non-dwarf breeding bulls. My experience is that there IS consistency in a dwarf herd and from what I have seen of non-dwarf herds, I would venture to say there can be more size consistency than in non-dwarf herds.
This is what has always confused me. The compulsive need of humans to set the rules. WHO and WHY should a breed be all the same size? Most really are not. WHY do you think that so important Kirk, especially when I look at your photos and I see small and large? I see Holstein cattle of various heights, some have large areas of black with white patterns, some have large areas of white with black patterns. Some are red. Just like Dexters USED to be, you can see them in a field and recognize the breed.
When I look through the long list of genetic defects in various breeds, ( the celebrated Angus just identified a new one - and we all need to keep our fingers crossed these imported animals whose genetic heritage is unknown don't bring their problems into OUR breed), I marvel at the hardiness and health of Dexter cattle. At least in the early bloodlines. It DOES appear to me the modern lines have far more health issues. I have never had a Dexter with mastitis or one with milk fever. I have never had to pull a calf from a traditional or Legacy Dexter with the exception of a 20 year old cow. As the breed moves away from it's dwarf roots, it moves away from the unique breed characteristics we treasure. Hardy immune systems, easy calving, maximization of minimal forage. WHY on earth would a breed with such wonderful traits want to breed them out? It is an absolute puzzle to me! There is NOT a loss of 25% when you breed dwarf to dwarf. An experienced breeder will have LESS than 10% and that is the "normal" mortality rate quoted for cattle herds anyway, and because of the genetic traits of dwarf cattle, they pull down that mortality average to practically zero. Can you not see the forest for the trees? YOU are pumping nonsense and nonsense stats because of notions YOU have determined are the right ideas and those are based on a lack of experience and knowledge. You talk the talk without walking the walk.
I know of no finer cattle on the face of the earth than a dwarf Dexter. NONE. NADA. With advances in science which offer the opportunity to preserve the unique qualities without loss, they are absolutely without doubt the finest breed for the purpose they have always served. It should be abundantly obvious to thinking persons who have observational skills that the Dexter breed is beginning to show the same environmental and genetic issues found in other breeds. . . . BECAUSE. . . . . .the dwarf genetics have been removed from so many herds. Absolutely foolhardy for those in the breed to have so little historical knowledge or foresight about a unique animal whose value to mankind in the worse of times is immeasurable so it is incumbent on those of us who DO know....... to preserve the treasure.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 5, 2017 5:34:12 GMT
I marvel at the hardiness and health of Dexter cattle. At least in the early bloodlines. It DOES appear to me the modern lines have far more health issues. I have never had a Dexter with mastitis or one with milk fever. I have never had to pull a calf from a traditional or Legacy Dexter with the exception of a 20 year old cow. As the breed moves away from it's dwarf roots, it moves away from the unique breed characteristics we treasure. Hardy immune systems, easy calving, maximization of minimal forage. WHY on earth would a breed with such wonderful traits want to breed them out? It is an absolute puzzle to me! There is NOT a loss of 25% when you breed dwarf to dwarf. An experienced breeder will have LESS than 10% and that is the "normal" mortality rate quoted for cattle herds anyway, and because of the genetic traits of dwarf cattle, they pull down that mortality average to practically zero. All old heritage breeds are healthy and hardy because they come from a time when they were forced to be healthy and hardy or they died. That selection pressure kept their genetics very well tuned. When modern people step in with modern technology to prop animals up, then the genetics weaken. When people use modern technology like antibiotics and chemical dewormers and modern vet care to save animals with weak genetics, they can make animals genetically weaker in the future. The reason why you believe that short x short only results in 10% dead calves instead of 25% dead calves, is that more than half of those shorts were true-short (non-chondro). Yes, the "shorties" are special, but you don't need Chondrodysplasia to have "shorties".
|
|
|
Post by Donlin Stud on Apr 5, 2017 22:10:04 GMT
The reason why you believe that short x short only results in 10% dead calves instead of 25% dead calves, is that more than half of those shorts were true-short (non-chondro). Yes, the "shorties" are special, but you don't need Chondrodysplasia to have "shorties". Im leaving the answer re 10% vs 25% to Lakeport since their experience in such matters are not from a book nor hearsay nor Chinese whispers but from solid and non arguable hands-on experience. And the Dexters without Chondro are special but there is something different - more of - when a Dexter is a dwarf. We were told this early on in our ownership by a very experience and very much respected Dexter breeder. And how would you know anyways when you do not breed nor own dwarfs? Youre just being argumentative
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 6, 2017 6:32:38 GMT
Donlin,
Unless you have tested ALL your "shorties" for chondrodysplasia, you and your friends don't know which of your "shorties" are chondrodysplastic, and which ones are non-chondro.
Chondro-dwarfs are heterozygous-hybrids.... with one broken ACAN gene and one normal ACAN gene. If you breed a lot of proven chondros together you'll get 25% homozygous normals (two normal ACAN genes), 50% heterozygous chondrodysplastic dwarfs (one broken ACAN gene and one normal ACAN gene), and 25% homozygous chondrodysplastic-dwarf (terribly deformed and born dead). It's Genetics 101.
Those percentages are the same in all heterozygous features. If you breed two heterozygous blacks together, you get 25% reds, 50% heterozygous blacks, and 25% homozygous blacks... again, that's genetics 101.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 6, 2017 8:59:46 GMT
Donlin, Unless you have tested ALL your "shorties" for chondrodysplasia, you and your friends don't know which of your "shorties" are chondrodysplastic, and which ones are non-chondro. Chondro-dwarfs are heterozygous-hybrids.... with one broken ACAN gene and one normal ACAN gene. If you breed a lot of proven chondros together you'll get 25% homozygous normals (two normal ACAN genes), 50% heterozygous chondrodysplastic dwarfs (one broken ACAN gene and one normal ACAN gene), and 25% homozygous chondrodysplastic-dwarf (terribly deformed and born dead). It's Genetics 101. Those percentages are the same in all heterozygous features. If you breed two heterozygous blacks together, you get 25% reds, 50% heterozygous blacks, and 25% homozygous blacks... again, that's genetics 101. So you've just ignored discussing the little bull calf that I posted above? Chondro or non-chondro? I could recognize the status within a day of his birth, because I have a good eye for signs to look for (we have dozens of both types born here on the farm every year). Have you ever seen a carrier within a few days of birth? How many have you actually even seen in person? The reason I could identify his status was because I can compare him to his siblings both male and female. I'm actually 100% in recognizing carriers born here on our farm for at least the past 10 years. Several times it took a month or two to visually recognize the as a carrier, but following the results of the test confirming they are a carrier, I think "duh!" I should have known it.... It's true that there are carriers who are less likely to be as obvious, and frankly if that's the case I actually agree with you that I don't see any real advantage in having many or even any of them. Maybe that's what your personal experience has been with the carriers, if you've had any at all?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 7, 2017 3:57:35 GMT
Lakeport,
As I've said many times in the past, I think you have a VERY good eye for cattle, and it doesn't surprise me that you have a good track record for identifying chondrodysplastic calves because you have had tons of experience in a large herd. But you can bet that the average Dexter owner that has one or two or three calves per year, couldn't tell a true short from chondrodysplastic-dwarfs most of the time. So the little old ladies who loved their "shorties" mostly didn't have a clue as to whether their animal had chondrodysplasia or not.
By the way, we shouldn't call chondrodysplastic-dwarfs "carriers", because in genetics, the term "carrier" means the animal is carrying a hidden gene. You're telling us that the BD (bulldog style chondrodysplasia) genes can't hide, so the term "carrier" is completely wrong.
The accurate term would be Aggrecan Deficient Dwarf with defective cartilage (Chondrodysplasia).
PS. I'd love to see you develop a line of Lakeport True Shorts so you could provide folks with a short bull and a short cow that produce 100% short calves. The simplicity would be very good for our breed.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 7, 2017 21:57:18 GMT
So if somebody doesn't have enough experience to tell the difference between a chondro and a non-chondro, how in the world are the going to evaluate the quality of what they are breeding at all?
By the way, I see you have your bull for sale. I have a 10 year old non-chondro Dexter bull that is 44", a full 1-1/2" shorter than the one that you're selling. And he's the biggest thing on our farm by a long shot. Tell me again what it is you're doing that is so special?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Apr 7, 2017 23:06:49 GMT
What am I doing? Selecting for many things at the same time here. That bull was the result of a 2010 breeding and I've been making tons of progress since then. That bull's father was shorter, but was hetero-polled, and the hetero-polled bull's sire was friendly but not super friendly. The homo-polled A2/A2 bull that's for sale throws lots of shorter and very friendly calves. Also very disease resistant, parasite resistant, bloat resistant, and food efficient.
My next upcoming primary bull is red, A2/A2, homozygous polled, and VERY friendly, will likely be 40" at age 3 and top out at 42"
Both of this new bull's parents are short and thick and super friendly.
PS. We don't know how big your biggest animals truly are because the Chondrodysplasia gene hides their true heights.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Apr 8, 2017 11:38:14 GMT
I know exactly what my chondro positive animals produce just as well as you know what your non-chondro ones do, because they produce non-chondro animals as well that I can evaluate. That bull above that you don't seem inclined to guess on his status is non-chondro, tail hairs and $10 (plus postage) tells me so as well as my own observation did. Is he not short and thick/beefy enough for you already at 6 weeks of age? If I breed him to one of my chondro positive cows (that also come from parents that throw short non-chondro Dexters, do you think he will throw "giants"?
The truth is that most of us have been at smaller heights for some time and don't need to work them down any lower.
|
|