|
Post by teatpuller11 on Aug 30, 2017 21:27:02 GMT
Lonecowhand
No, no, you missed the point. Judy says she sees four types, not three. Two of the types are different dwarfs, or chondro carriers, if you will. Cascade came on and suggested a reason. I haven't seen a discussion about there being two types of dwarfism, much less an explanation. Do you have anything constructive to add?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Aug 30, 2017 21:27:12 GMT
Judy Stated:
"I think I would describe the four calf options as:
Homozagous dwarf - deceased "Kerry-type" Proportionate dwarf Non-proportionate dwarf"
Teatpuller asked about the proportionate vs. non-proportionate chondrodysplastic dwarfs. I gave the scientific explanation of why some seem proportionate and some are more dwarfish.
Subtract 5 inches of leg (via aggrecan deficiency) from a very long legged animal, and you get a proportionate animal. Subtract 5 inches of leg (via aggrecan deficiency) from an already shorter legged animal, and you get very dwarfish looking animals.
Pretty simple stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Aug 30, 2017 21:47:22 GMT
There was nothing constructive in this entire thread, just more BS.
Starting with the erroneous restatement, and Thread title, that the word Dexter meant small in Olde Irish.
Teatpuller (or maybe God!)asked JUDY if she had comment, not if you could recite the ACAN gene aggrecan deficiency speil one more time.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Aug 30, 2017 22:59:17 GMT
Gosh, Lonecowhand, recognition finally!
No one likes to be reminded we are depending on a damaged gene to give us lovely shortlegs, and not so lovely shortlegs. Just ignore Cascade. He can't help it.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Aug 30, 2017 23:31:10 GMT
Well C'mon! All dwarfing genes affect the average growth patterns of the standard animal. I have had Corgis, (dogs) , they are dwarves (or dwarfs) , but without the dwarf gene , what are they? Just another mutt.
Who cares!
We want drarfs for what they are , not what they might be if they weren't dwarfed (if that's a word). I beleive the ACAN gene is but one aspect , One allele of a composite of traits which together make a Shortie Dexter.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Aug 31, 2017 0:25:40 GMT
Both Professor Low in 1842, and the 1900 Breed Standard describe Dexters as a breed of true-breeding naturally short Dexter's all with 100% short legs. No deadly dwarf genes needed.
The idea of multiple body types was a modern addition made by people who had chondrodysplasia sneak into their herds.
The true traditional shorties can freely breed with each other and produce 100% short calves, without chondrodysplasia.
I wonder what year in modern times that the folks stuck with Chondrodysplasia, altered the breed standards to include multiple body types? Was it the 1980's???
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Aug 31, 2017 14:07:25 GMT
Cool, lonecowhand. What are the other traits you see?
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Aug 31, 2017 21:47:56 GMT
What is cool? It's a theory. Like studies that have bred animals specifically for good temperament end up getting other traits included with their desired result, including seeing white markings on animals where there were none prior to the selective breeding process.
I expect more white to show up on Dexters median lines over time, resulting from selection for friendliness, if they follow what seems to occur in other species. Not referring to breeding with White Parks or others breeds known for white.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Aug 31, 2017 22:06:39 GMT
White? Are you saying selecting for shortie Dexters brings white? Boy, now that's a 90 degree turn. Let's go back to your reference to a composite of traits that make up a shortie dexter? What did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Aug 31, 2017 22:47:02 GMT
I'm saying selecting for "friendliness" in temperament in other species has been shown to bring unexpected alleles with it, and in many cases that includes new markings on otherwise solid coloured animals.
So No.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Sept 1, 2017 0:08:42 GMT
I can agree with parts of what lonecowhand is saying, but he just needs a little help.
He's saying that the Chondrodysplasia gene has nothing to do with the traits that we love in our Dexters. Chondro is just one worthless broken ACAN gene that further unnecessarily shrinks and complicates our already short and friendly breed.
Our short, friendly, hardy, efficient, milky, beefy, Dexters, don't need the Chondrodysplasia gene at all. It's just an unnecessary hitchhiker in a tiny minority of Dexters.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Sept 1, 2017 14:31:54 GMT
I don't know what's worse...lch being sarcastic and talking all around the questions but not answering them, or cas repeating broken over and over.
Food for thought (only a slight pun, ha). Ever think of how things were maybe 600 years ago: all apples were small and often sour and there were no named varieties. Now, with deliberate selection, we have all sorts of specialized apples for eating, baking, juicing, with disease resistance, and more attractive color. How many of us would like to go back to those small sour apples, and how many appreciate the modern options? Judy, in a previous post, said it's enough that her cows have enough milk to raise a calf and it doesn't matter if the udder isn't even or well suspended; or the feet are flat as long as the cow can walk because it resembles the first Dexters. What I see is recommending 1850-type Dexters and criticizing the 2000-type Dexter because it's not exactly like the original. How many of us would want to go back and have just small crabbed apples? Or any other foodstuff that's been selected for? This raises the question: are Dexters being kept as providers of food for humans, or are they simply a pleasure to have around and there are no demands made on them to be tough or tender, stringy or plump, and it doesn't matter if you get 1/2 gallon or four, or 200 lbs or 400 because economics don't come into it?
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Sept 1, 2017 20:55:09 GMT
No. Thats not what he's saying, He's saying exactly the opposite. He's saying that the chondro (ACAN) gene must have other traits that go with it, so remove it and you remove them, which arguably may be celebrated Thriftiness, the renowned immunity, or the recorded small birth weights. And that the polledness gene has other traits attached to it, add it and you add all of those traits, for good or worse.
I dont know what's worse either...an Antagonist who already knows all the responses to his repetitive missives, but who's intent is to cover every thread, and make up stuff and call it historical fact;
Or his Sheildmaiden, who protects him when he's losing credibility, or parries the topic to fit some other Sticky Motive.
A Thought about "Improvement": most of the edible things we like have been improved, so much so that many of those improved strains are extinct, having lost the market by attrition. Cattle have been absurdly "Improved" in more than one direction:
If it's beef you want , there's a Swiss Giant Beast who is too bulky to breed without assistance.
For a copious milk supply, there are cows who MUST be milked of a barrel a day, or Burst. So if those ends are desirable to you, you should get one or two of those types and get out of this breed altogether. Someone beat you to the punch. The improvement you are wanting to produce have been accomplished.
What I see is the criticism of a Heritage breed , precisely for the attributes which made them historically popular. Disparagement of Horns are a motivator for those who introduced Polled, and who stand to gain by the sale of semen or genetics. (tp11) Contempt for the Dwarf Genetics which condition has been a cornerstone of the pre-"improved" Dexter Breed, and the rabid recommendation to eliminate those genetics entirely, motivated by the desire to sell their own non-chondro miniatures. (kc)
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Sept 1, 2017 23:01:29 GMT
If you're saying that a broken ACAN gene provides for a list of desirable features. Then that means that the 50% of offspring with normal ACAN genes, from a chondrodysplastic parent, can NEVER have those nice features.
What are those magic invisible nice features that only chondrodysplastic Dexters can have?
What are those magic invisible features that come along with polled gene?
Please provide a comprehensive list of both so I can prove you wrong.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Sept 1, 2017 23:05:26 GMT
?? If you are making your comments personal (tp11), I have never supported the excesses one finds in the prime commercial cattle breeds, and certainly don't support them for Dexters. Not sure where the reference to gaining by the sale of polled comes from, but it doesn't fit me.
I don't support keeping bad feet just because some early Dexters had them. Can't we find a middle ground where Dexters retain the early esoteric traits you mention (thriftiness, immune system, etc.) but are also bred away from poor udders, and bad feet, and skinny muzzles...i.e. working toward the proportionate, not the dis.
What I see is you taking an extreme swing as examples. What we need is a moderate, reasonable swing. And you still haven't addressed my question: what traits? You get thriftiness, immunity and small birth weights from both Dexter types, just like you can get poor do-ers, sickies, and big calves from both Dexter types. Exceptions are always the rule.
Why MUST there be linked traits? Every dwarf has two genes, one just is shortened. Do you think that maybe the misspelling in the bone growth gene creates a new sentence that affects personality, or something?
|
|
|
Post by karenp on Sept 2, 2017 18:55:33 GMT
I don't know what's worse...lch being sarcastic and talking all around the questions but not answering them, or cas repeating broken over and over.
Food for thought (only a slight pun, ha). Ever think of how things were maybe 600 years ago: all apples were small and often sour and there were no named varieties. Now, with deliberate selection, we have all sorts of specialized apples for eating, baking, juicing, with disease resistance, and more attractive color. How many of us would like to go back to those small sour apples, and how many appreciate the modern options? Judy, in a previous post, said it's enough that her cows have enough milk to raise a calf and it doesn't matter if the udder isn't even or well suspended; or the feet are flat as long as the cow can walk because it resembles the first Dexters. What I see is recommending 1850-type Dexters and criticizing the 2000-type Dexter because it's not exactly like the original. How many of us would want to go back and have just small crabbed apples? Or any other foodstuff that's been selected for? This raises the question: are Dexters being kept as providers of food for humans, or are they simply a pleasure to have around and there are no demands made on them to be tough or tender, stringy or plump, and it doesn't matter if you get 1/2 gallon or four, or 200 lbs or 400 because economics don't come into it? We don't call those "new" apples crab apples, we call them Granny Smith, or Fuji...because they are not the same thing. Those old crab apples have desirable traits the modern apples no longer have. There is room for both, but they are not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Sept 2, 2017 21:59:22 GMT
Those old crab apples have desirable traits the modern apples no longer have. There is room for both, but they are not the same thing. In apples, you can mostly preserve an old variety for many hundreds of years, by cloning. You take a bud of an old variety and graft it. In animals and plants that sexually reproduce each generation, you aren't cloning them, so they will change over the generations. There is only one way to attempt to preserve old varieties of plants and animals that sexually reproduce. The ONLY effective way to preserve heirloom traits is to make a detailed list of traits that you are trying to preserve, and select for those traits generation after generation, otherwise, genetic drift and mutations will change your breed. Most people who are serious about preserving heirloom plants and animals understand this very well. They don't save the seed from every plant, instead, they carefully mark the plants that have the desired heritage traits, and only save seeds from those few plants. The same thing occurs with people who are preserving old breeds of poultry. They don't let every chick mature into a breeding adult, instead, they cull any birds that don't fit the detail heritage description. Please give us a detail list of the traits that you are preserving.
|
|
|
Post by karenp on Sept 4, 2017 11:05:11 GMT
Those old crab apples have desirable traits the modern apples no longer have. There is room for both, but they are not the same thing. In apples, you can mostly preserve an old variety for many hundreds of years, by cloning. You take a bud of an old variety and graft it. In animals and plants that sexually reproduce each generation, you aren't cloning them, so they will change over the generations. There is only one way to attempt to preserve old varieties of plants and animals that sexually reproduce. The ONLY effective way to preserve heirloom traits is to make a detailed list of traits that you are trying to preserve, and select for those traits generation after generation, otherwise, genetic drift and mutations will change your breed. Most people who are serious about preserving heirloom plants and animals understand this very well. They don't save the seed from every plant, instead, they carefully mark the plants that have the desired heritage traits, and only save seeds from those few plants. The same thing occurs with people who are preserving old breeds of poultry. They don't let every chick mature into a breeding adult, instead, they cull any birds that don't fit the detail heritage description. Please give us a detail list of the traits that you are preserving. I am not a breeder in any way more than is needed to have a milk cow. Unfortunately, I am not articulate enough to describe a traditional Dexter and will have to leave that to others. I can only paraphrase Justice Stewart; I can describe it, but I know it when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Sept 4, 2017 15:14:51 GMT
No. This is the propaganda you wish to promote to legitimize your multiple outcrossed bloodlines. The fact that you have NO experience with the dwarf cattle is why you do not recognize a very accurate description of their phenotype which non-dwarf cattle DO NOT have. Furthermore, the most acclaimed breeder in history knew, and designated her herd, established very early in Dexter history, as a dwarf breed, as did others. There IS a reason that Kerry cattle and Dexter cattle were organized into breeds and a herd book together. The traits that are MOST valued in Dexters are carried by dwarf cattle. Lose the dwarf. .. . lose the Dexter. As simple or as complicated as that. There is NO Dexter unless those dwarf genes are preserved.
Chondro did not "sneak" anywhere. It is the very basis of the Dexter identity. The diversity of phenotype within the Dexter breed stems solely from the DWARF cattle. How wonderful! STOP spreading false information to try and legitimize your outcrossed bloodlines.
Indeed. But they lose the most important trait. . . . .. . .their DEXTERness. Your cattle are NOT Dexters. They are miniature outcrosses with Dexter ancestors in the pedigree. You have not a single TRADITIONAL Dexter in your herd. How sad that ADCA is responsible for such a tragedy when the first line of the ADCA mission statement was, " To protect the purity of Dexter cattle". The United States had the most unique herd of Dexter cattle in the world. . .. .and in two decades that unique purity was destroyed by ignorance and greed. History will not treat ADCA kindly for permitting the eradication of a rare minor breed and the committed effort to NOT inform breeders of the upgrades they permitted to be imported.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Sept 4, 2017 19:29:57 GMT
Here's how one would describe a breed that would be based on the chondrodysplasia deformity lethal gene:
25% of calves have monstrous birth defects and die at birth 25% of calves are normal 50% of calves are stunted
Here's how one would describe a truly short and thick breed without chondrodysplasia:
Dexter's are a remarkably round and short-legged breed.
Professor Low and the early breed standards described a truly short and thick breed without Chondrodysplasia.
The idea of multiple body types was a very modern invention, first added to Dexter breed standards in 1992.
|
|