ADCA Numbers -- Can this be correct?

[otf]

The front page of the ADCA website says:

ADCA 2014 

The world's largest registry of pedigreed Irish Dexter Cattle

7515 ADCA Members

31400 Pedigreed Animals

More than 7500 members?  Can this be correct?

[genebo]

The ADCA Members list is claimed to be accurate and up-to-the minute, updated every few weeks. The latest one is dated August, 2014. I just opened it in Adobe reader. On my display it has 36 pages of members. I counted the number of members on a typical page, 43, and multiplied by the number of pages, 36. The answer is 1,548.

[otf]

Genebo, thanks, I think you are probably right and that this 7500 figure is a typo. Really, you know, mistakes can happen, but proofreading should have caught it. I've also found a number of "missing" animals -- no owner listed, things like that. Disturbing.

[jamshundred]

LOL!   It has become lots of fun to make public comments about Legacy accomplishments and sit back and wait for ADCA to counter them!  When Legacy began the DNA genotype database. . . ADCA had no lab.  Testing was being done in Canada. . ( an excellent laboratory and reputation).   When the numbers reached 500 genotypes in the database  many comments were made about the success of the effort and the integrity in the breed that was being developed.  Well, guess what organization couldn't abide another group being ahead of the game.   ( Read the old boards folks).   About that time Dr. Cothran signed on as a professor at Texas A&M where he had a research and private laboratory which continued his expertise in horses ( it was even named the Equine labortatory but ADCA had him change that when it also came up in conversations) and his affiliation and involvment with domestic species.   Most breeders today are not aware that lab was established only 7 or 8 years ago with used equipment from another defunct laboratory and that students worked in the lab for credit hours and experience.   Even then they were not aware. . . . . . because ADCA personnel denied this truth and propagated the myth that this private lab was overseen by Texas A&M as UC-Davis veterinary teaching laboratory is.  ( read the old boards).

 The most responsive you will ever find ADCA is when they feel a need to compete.    Another example is when Legacy was able to procure all testing in Dexters at UCD - and provided pricing that was less than half what members had been paying at the Cothran lab.  Boy were the skirts and britches scurrying!  Owners have no one but Legacy to thank for the pricing they enjoy.   Lately Legacy has been commenting publicly about the largest ancestral database available in the world. . . which is true.  Legacy has been adding herd books entries for those adding their genotyped cattle back to both the #1 herdbooks of Ireland and England. These are not available anywhere else at this time.  The English records only go to the 1943 herdbook at this time with only a few entries before that year and the ADCA records that were added from England don't go as far as the English records.     ADCA cannot make the same ancestral claim, so they fine-tuned it to an exaggeration.    Actually it is an outright lie.   Those are not all American numbers. . . they include Canadian animals, Irish, and English.   The members number includes every dead American soul they could add, Canadian, and English as there are a few ot them in there as well.   If they are going to toot. . . . .  .it should be factual with integrity.  Otherwise the toot sounds like it is coming from the other end.     Now they can be the laughing stock of the world. .. . because it is actually the BRITISH that hold the distinction in both categories when compiled by the same methods as ADCA and when compiled honestly.    In their quest to always be the best a little honesty and integrity will never get in the way!   Owners should be thanking Legacy each and every day for the modern benefits they have because ADCA has to work so hard to keep up with Legacy!   

[otf]

I was assured by the registrar that the numbers as published are accurate; here is what she wrote to me:

"The Member's List online only shows current paid members. 7515 is the overall membership count in the database and has the correct number of membership entries. It is not a typo, we are choosing to show the public how many members are in the organization. The Member's List is totally different."

Personally, I find this misleading. I am clueless as to what "overall membership count" means, but I will try to find out.

[jamshundred]

It is not a true pronouncement and it leaves red on the face of ADCA.  Or should.    

England inherited the Dexter breed from Ireland just a few short decades after Dexters were organized.    The first English herd book was published in 1899.    The USA was two decades behind them in gathering their cattle into a registry.   The numbers in the American registry grew very slowly.   Almost all the Dexters in the US were gathered by Mr. Logsden and kept as the Peerless herd, though there were small pockets of Dexters in the east, with owners that at that time were registering in England or not registering.   It was the Logsden family that "saved" the Dexter breed in America and "saved" the registry as well.  Mr. Logsden's daughter Nancy was the registrar for the breed, and later her daughter Daisy took over.  After that Rosemary Fleharty became the registrar.  It was not until the 1950's when the Peerless herd held a public sale that Dexters moved into the mainstream and numbers began to increase.  

Frankly, during the last 10 years I've wondered about the numbers.  Something seems as if it is  "off a bit".   The numbers increased too rapidly.  When the polled bull Saltaire Platinum was imported in 1994 there were only 6500 Dexters ever registered in the US. . . . and these included Irish and English ancestors which never set foot on these shores.  That was only TWENTY years ago.  How many do you think were living in 1994?
( Another reason and example of the lack of foresight of our leadership to bring in a grade polled bull with numbers so low).

In 2013 England registry numbers were over 47,000 COWS.  They use a different numbering system for their bulls, so there  are thousands of those to add to that number.   These numbers encompass animals that were actually registered in England, while the ADCA numbers include ancestors that were given ADCA numbers.   England, is in fact, the largest registry in the world and probably has the largest overall numbers of members through the years as they registered animals for many countries over time. 

The pronouncement is misleading and false and really very typical of a consistent lack of professionalism.  I wonder who laid that egg?   

Judy

[jamshundred]

There is another factor in that misleading ADCA stat.   The people who are sold steers for beef and given FREE memberships.  ( Another costly ill-advised decision by leadership).

And more than that there IS a stat I would like to see compiled.  The attrition rate.  People who stay in the breed for 10 years become "old timers".  A person with five years has longevity.

ADCA automatically grants a free membership to anyone new who purchases an ADCA registered animal.  I would like to see a list of how many of the free  memberships actually paid to keep their membership in the next year. 

Judy

[lakeportfarms]

Sept 7, 2014 14:24:13 GMT jamshundred said:

Frankly, during the last 10 years I've wondered about the numbers.  Something seems as if it is  "off a bit".   The numbers increased too rapidly.  When the polled bull Saltaire Platinum was imported in 1994 there were only 6500 Dexters ever registered in the US. . . . and these included Irish and English ancestors which never set foot on these shores.  That was only TWENTY years ago.  How many do you think were living in 1994?
( Another reason and example of the lack of foresight of our leadership to bring in a grade polled bull with numbers so low).

Judy, am I interpreting this to mean what I am thinking (and have thought for some time) that in the race to produce more polled "Dexters" which were in great demand and selling for high prices, that some other polled breeds were mixed in (genotyping was of course not required prior to 2009) in order to artificially boost those numbers?  In other words, some polled Dexters out there don't attribute their existence to Saltaire Platinum?

From my own personal experience, we started out with Angus cows, including 2 lowline angus.  We purchased Mike back in 2005 to breed these Angus because we didn't want an Angus bull on the property with kids an all.  The calves out of Mike and the two lowlines were virtually identical to what Mike would later produce when we started acquiring Dexters to breed to him, other than they were polled.  Close observation could pick out subtle differences.  We sold them as calves, so I don't know how they ultimately matured.  We also bred Mike to a few full size registered Angus cows that we owned.  When bred to a registered Angus, these heifers and steers they produced were monsters, and grew very quickly to where they were larger than our fully grown Dexters at a year old.  But when bred to Mike, even the non-carrier heifers had smaller more Dexter-like appearance.

What ultimately got us breeding all Dexters was finding out that Mike had sired multi-time National Champion Wieringa's Paula MD.  We didn't want to "waste" him breeding non-Dexters, so we sold our Angus and started our hunt for Dexters to breed him too.  For that I have to thank them...

Just my observations...

[jamshundred]

I am not sure! I know this. . . genotyping bulls adds some ability to cross-check questions. . . but it is NOT bulls used most often in outcrossing. It is females. I have seen Jersey cows bred to Dexter bulls that have produced animals you cannot tell from a Dexter in that first generation. The questions don't arise until the second or third generation when the recessive genes pass down a genertion or two. Even some holstein crosses will be pure black in the first generation. In questions of polled or color. . . . a requirement of two or even three generations parentage confirmed should be in the rules.

Another issue that created a false increase in the numbers was either faulty software or procedures. When the stats were compiled last year on all the registrations. . . . there were as many numbers missing animals as those with. You can see what I mean by doing a search that brings up a large volume of animals. Then click on the column that shows the registration number. Look down through the numbers and see that for every number with an animal listed. . . . there is a number without an animal. If the registrations came in a batch ( for instance three or four or more animals, than look below the sequenced numbers and you find exactly that many blank numbers. There are hundreds of blank numbers in the registry because for a period of time. . . . every registered animal used two numbers.