Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 17:37:59 GMT
Kirk Why is it you keep picking on this particular breeder. Someone who does not participate here and who I have never heard associated with traditional breeders. In fact he is very much an adca breeder and now a polled breeder. So why is it that you keep trying to make an example out of him. Seems rather underhanded.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Oct 2, 2017 17:53:26 GMT
FAKE NEWS based on hypothesis. FAKE NEWS. This is actually NOT what the older photographs portray. I just gathered ALL the early photographs I could locate in early herd books and elsewhere and sent them to Kerry friends to pay their favors to me. FAKE NEWS. This is pure speculation and does not dovetail with various historical items I've read.
Hypothesis, but more likely true than not. It is difficult to determine assumption, hypothesis, conjecture, or outright fabrication with you Kirk. You go to any and all lengths to try and elevate the standing of your miniaturized, outcrossed lines. You have NO idea of anything about the foundation Dexters. Even if you ever had a whisper of validity to lean on. . . . . . those bloodlines that exist in America far exceed the THIRTY-TWO generations Gerald Fry says are necessary to remove outcrossed genes, compared to the maximum of two or three generations from GRADE in yours. so it means nothing as to the current descendants.
FAKE NEWS: Based on hypothesis. Poster has never owned dwarf Dexter cattle to recognize the hardiness and healthiness of these little Dexters. . . . more than a century after their ancestors became an organized/documented breed. The dwarf Dexters are the foundation of the Dexter breed and the root stock of ALL the characteristics treasured by owners over the course of established bloodlines in the breed. What inexperienced, unknowledgable IDIOT would want to cull the BEST from the rest?
FAKE NEWS: The scientist, researcher, or historian who refuses to acknowledge data which does not support the desired pre-conceived agenda outcome is not just a time-waster, but a propagandist without principle.
FAKE NEWS: Totally fake news. One could postulate it is simply ignorance and lack of experience, but when advised repeatedly by those with actual knowledge and experience the premise is incorrect and it is still repeated. . it evolves to a different level whereby there is a conscious attempt to mislead.
FAKE NEWS: Amazing the hypothetical imaginary proclamations that come from one without an iota of knowledge or experience of the issue.
FAKE NEWS: Even in the 1830's a "real" scientist was able to describe the unique characteristics present in a dwarf Dexter, and valued through time sense. Compare a non-dwarf of any size to a dwarf of any size and the differences are noticeable in the head, face, eyes, legs. It is difficult to debate a skilled propagandist, but that isn't the case here. Ignorance and lack of experience are easily determined.
FAKE NEWS: The difference between a dwarf Dexter and a non-dwarf is not negligable or insignificant and the breed was built on the backs of those unique and special little dwarf cattle.
It gets old responding repeatedly to the same old -same old. . . .. but it is absolutely necessary. . . . . for HISTORY shows us that if a propagandist can repeat and repeat and repeat. . . . . . then the propaganda becomes accepted as truth. There are those who are absolutely vested in changing this breed and legitimizing the illegitimate. The carcasses of hundreds of Unique and Special Dexters destroyed through this type of propaganda and ignorance should not have suffered the indignity of ignorance in vain and those numbers will grow if the propaganda continues without contradiction. Those not helping to keep this from continuing are part of the problem. . . . not part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 2, 2017 21:25:20 GMT
Kirk Why is it you keep picking on this particular breeder. Someone who does not participate here and who I have never heard associated with traditional breeders. In fact he is very much an adca breeder and now a polled breeder. So why is it that you keep trying to make an example out of him. Seems rather underhanded. I'm not picking on anyone at all. I'm simply sharing the 100% provable fact that defining "Traditional" in terms of pedigree, is completely flawed and just plain stupid. I can find scores of animals that meet your completely flawed pedigree-based definition of "Traditional", yet they don't meet the 1900 traditional breed standard. Anyone with even basic understanding of genetics and breeding principles can tell you that regardless of the pedigree, animals can change drastically in one direction or another, simply based on selection decisions. If you want to preserve Traditional Dexters, choose an early traditional breed standard and use it in all your selection decisions. 100% of genetics experts would agree with me on this. The first known Official Dexter Breed Standard written in the late 1800's and published in 1900, said 100% of bulls should weigh 900 pounds or less and have shorter legs and beefy bodies. If your herd throws bulls heavier than 900 pounds, or bulls who aren't short and thick, then you don't have a traditional Dexter herd. I actually support the movement to preserve Traditional Dexters, but you need some help to develop bullet-proof definitions. The ONLY black-and-white indisputable definition of a purebred Traditional Dexter, is a Dexter that meets the old traditional breed standard, and when bred on other Traditional Dexters, 100% of offspring also meet the old standard. The problem is that most of you folks that claim to have traditional herds, don't even have herds that meet the old standard. You just have a bogus marketing scheme to trick newbies into buying your not-so-traditional stock with a fake label of "Traditional". Are there any breeders that are following every word of the old 1900 breed standard? I don't think so. Why not? PS. I'd be happy to help you fix your badly broken, irrational "Traditional" movement so it makes sense and is indisputable. But that means that many animals in your fake-Traditional herds, would no longer be considered Traditional.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 2, 2017 21:45:11 GMT
Much of our place has 39 inch field fence. My tallest old girl is just over 44 inches. Several old girls at 43-44 inches Lots and lots of breeding age girls at 37-42 inches My tallest bull is 41 inches My primary bull for breeding this year is 36 inches tall but he's only 19 months old. He's the shortest animal in the breeding herd, including girls who are even younger than he is. Without the ability to test for Chondrodysplasia, in the past, many Dexter breeders did what I'm doing... use a shorter bull to keep Dexters within size limits. But if that bull had Chondrodysplasia, then he simply hid the true too-tall height of the calves with the dwarfism effect, and the chondro-breeders passed too tall genetics on to the next generation. With Chondrodysplasia testing, you can find bulls that are truly short, and free of the Chondrodysplasia gene. These true-breeding short Dexters can bring down the true size of too-tall Dexters. Boy, you're lucky that your search of the Tractor Supply website shows that there is a 39" field fence that is sold...lol I don't believe for a second that you're using 39" field fence to separate your cow herds, and that field fence is not 39".
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 2, 2017 21:54:43 GMT
Judy,
ALL the early Dexter breed descriptions and breed standards describe a breed where 100% of Dexters have shorter builds with short beefy legs, and thick beefy bodies.
Perhaps 1% of all old Dexters prior to 1920 have any strong evidence of having Chondrodysplasia.
Prior to 1992, I don't believe there is any word of the three different phenotypes associated with Bull-Dog Chondrodysplasia (BD1, BD2). The three phenotypes being shorter legs, longer legs, and monster deformed dead calves.
I'd love for you to post any and all of the earliest official written references to monster defect calves, and shorter legged animals having longer-legged calves... I'll wait here for your posts. I haven't found anything prior to 1992.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 3, 2017 12:03:03 GMT
I have an entire herd of these little shortie cows like Tiara. Even if Tiara had produced a long leg, I'd be surprised if he matured to 43" at 3 years of age. Simply put, your claims that this type of cow were not popular and selected for in the past, prior to the chondrodysplasia test, is pure fantasy. Even in your miniaturization breeding program, you'll never approach this size of a mature cow. You will certainly never accumulate 60 plus of them, even though you have a large herd and produce a number of calves every year. These cows consume less feed, and yet they are capable of producing a steer that outperforms the dam, and equals or exceeds any non-carrier miniature Dexter herd that you could assemble, assuming they got anywhere near the size of Tiara. Using a non-carrier bull on this cow or any of the others assures me that I will not have "monster deformed dead calves". Your never ending, repeat the same words over and over posts became tiring years ago, so when you have assembled more than a few Dexters that don't come within an inch or two in height to a 48" field fence, or need to have a photo taken with you standing on your toes, or taken while you're standing on a mole hill while they are in a hole in the pasture, or you put a 5'5" person next to them instead of 6' plus as you obviously are, you can brag all you like. photos.app.goo.gl/Q68FeNCeZPSZya1q1
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 3, 2017 16:56:03 GMT
The point remains:
The Dexter Breed was never intended to have chondrodysplasia (broken ACAN gene).
The Dexter Breed wasn't based on chondrodysplasia. It was based on true-breeding short and thick cattle without chondrodysplasia.
All the old breed descriptions and breed standards describe a breed of true-breeding short and thick cattle of one single type (that's not how lethal-gene based chondrodysplasia works).
Even in the 1800's, it would have been very easy to describe a breed that was based on the three different phenotypes found in calves in a herd of chondrodysplastic cattle... but nobody ever officially described it, because they didn't intend for it to be part of the breed.
Chondrodysplasia was an unwelcome occasional intruder that the old-timers tried to eliminate/hide, otherwise they would have proudly displayed and discussed the three phenotypes in the breed association standards (which they never did).
People who select toward true-breeding short and thick Dexters, aren't trying to mimick chondrodysplasia... it's the other way around. Chondrodysplasia produces fake-shorts that very poorly mimick the true-shorts, because the fake-shorts (chondro's) can't breed true.
PS. If I'm not 100% correct about this, please post any old documents proving otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Oct 3, 2017 18:18:25 GMT
This is just more of your MADE UP propaganda to legitimize your outcrossed miniaturized cattle. We ALL know that Dexters are NOT miniature cattle. They were the "smallest breed of European cattle". OK. So. .. how did they get small and stay small? BY BEING A DWARF BREED. I clearly understand that your lack of experience with dwarf Dexters permits some degree of ignorance, the rest is unacceptable because you have been told repeatedly by those who DO have the knowledge and experience to know and appreciate the DWARF characteristics so aptly described by Professor Low in the mid-1800's. That YOU don't "get it" is because you don't want to. You don't want to deal with the truth because it means you were snookered, you are snookering others, and you are simply stuck. . . . . . . stuck with a herd of outcrossed miniaturized cows that will not breed as true as the dwarf cattle will. What do people do when they get financially and emotionally stuck without means to free themselves? They change, or they lie. To themselves and to others. One of these days. . . . . . one of you who are passing off upgraded cattle are going to get sued out the kazoo by someone else who comes along and gets snookered and prefers not to rely on fantasy to excuse the deceit.
Early pictures define the Dexter breed as dwarf. Professor Low described dwarf cattle. The premier English breeder of the Grinstead herd, Lady Loder, defined her herd as dwarf cattle, in writing, in 1949. SEVEN decades later. . . YOU. .. . . know more than them with your miniaturized cattle that in NO WAY resemble dwarf Dexters. The look like just what they are. .. . . . miniature cattle. So why do YOU have such a problem calling them what they are? DENIAL.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 4, 2017 0:03:40 GMT
Professor Low said: "some doubt may exist whether the original Dexter was the pure Kerry, or some other breed proper to the central parts of Ireland now unknown, or whether some foreign blood was mixed with the native race. One character of the Dexter breed is frequently observed in certain cattle of Ireland, namely, short legs, and a small space from the knee and hock to the hoofs. This has probably given rise to a saying sometimes heard of:Tipperary beef down to the heels”. However the Dexter breed has been formed, it still retains its name, and the roundness and depth of carcase which distinguished it. When any individual of a Kerry drove appears remarkably round and short-legged, it is common for the country people to call it a Dexter”. Notice he says nothing about the three phenotypes associated with chondrodysplasia (long-leg, short legs, dead deformed calves), he doesn't mention horns, he says Dexters are likely the result of crossbreeding, and says they are ALL thick and beefy with short beefy legs. He's describing a typical beef frame of the day. Also notice that he never used the word "Dwarf". This pictured non-chondro Dexter bull on my farm meets every word of Professor Low's description. This bull descends from a Dexter bull (Saltaire Platinum) that has twice been DNA-Proven to be as pure as the purest of Dexters. No other Dexter has better evidence of purity.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 4, 2017 15:42:08 GMT
We ALL know that Dexters are NOT miniature cattle. They were the "smallest breed of European cattle". OK. So. .. how did they get small and stay small Dexters are definitely miniature cattle. Miniature cattle are any cattle that are substantially smaller than typical cattle. But Dexter's are NOT miniature versions of some other breed of cattle. Lowlines are miniaturized versions of Angus, mini-Herefords are miniaturized versions of Herefords, Dexter's are NOT miniaturized versions of some other existing breed of cattle. Animals living on an island with poorish resources tend to self-select toward shorter frames because shorter frames can do better on limited resources. In the past, there were elephants living on a poorish island, and they evolved into a very short breed of elephants. All the old cattle breeds of Ireland, had small to medium-small frames, compared to the giant breeds found on continental Europe. Kerry cattle varied from small to medium-small. The broken version of the ACAN gene, that causes cartilage defects (Chondrodysplasia) does nothing to reduce the true genetic size of animals... In fact, it does the opposite. It hides larger genetics, in an artificially shortened frame. When the rather rich inventors of the Dexter breed in the late 1800's, got the idea to create an actual miniature breed of cattle called "Dexters", they simply rounded up any exceptionally shorter animals of any breed, to act as foundation members for their new miniature breed of cattle. Most foundation "Dexters" would have had truly short genetics, but a few would have been fake-shorts with Chondrodysplasia or nutritional deficiencies, hiding their true larger genetics. Chondrodysplasia has continued to interfere with the ability of Dexter breeders to stablize their supposed-to-be compact breed, because the fake-short chondro-dexters hide larger genetics.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 4, 2017 20:54:55 GMT
We ALL know that Dexters are NOT miniature cattle. They were the "smallest breed of European cattle". OK. So. .. how did they get small and stay small When the rather rich inventors of the Dexter breed in the late 1800's, got the idea to create an actual miniature breed of cattle called "Dexters", they simply rounded up any exceptionally shorter animals of any breed, to act as foundation members for their new miniature breed of cattle. Most foundation "Dexters" would have had truly short genetics, but a few would have been fake-shorts with Chondrodysplasia or nutritional deficiencies, hiding their true larger genetics. Chondrodysplasia has continued to interfere with the ability of Dexter breeders to stablize their supposed-to-be compact breed, because the fake-short chondro-dexters hide larger genetics. Actually the thing that has most interfered with the ability to stabilize the "supposed to be compact" Dexter breed is the selection for superfluous traits like red, polled, A2, and increased beef production/size. The same selection has led to the likely introgression of other breeds to enhance or improve the odds of getting those traits. I have easily selected for the smaller sizes using chondrodysplasia Dexters, because I know what to look for, because I have a lot of experience with the chondrodysplasia gene. I can understand how you may be fooled, however.
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 4, 2017 21:38:38 GMT
Lakeport, I actually think you're in the top .001% of people who understand chondrodysplasia enough to do whatever you want with it. It will still interfere a little with your ability to make progress in selecting toward true-short and compact Dexter genetics, but with your special knowledge, you could still do a decent job of it.... But the other 99.9% of folks mostly don't have a clue about it, and they are just creating giants and dwarfs with hidden giant genetics.
You're right that anything that takes your eye off of the #1 most important feature of Dexters (compact size), is going to interfere with size selection.
I've seen folks marketing huge Dexters because they have a "Traditional pedigree" or because they have horns. It all distracts away from frame-size.
When I look at the latest Dexter AI Bulls, I'm seeing tons of smaller red, polled, A2/A2 bulls... And lots of giant, horned "Traditional" bulls.
Many of the red, polled bulls have some of the most reliable pedigrees of all, because the early testing method for homozygous-polled in 2003, required family tree testing, which verified their pedigrees.
Also, most of the folks who created the first wave of red polled bulls had serious genetics expertise.
Today, many red polled breeders are leading the way in focusing on compactness.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 5, 2017 11:16:12 GMT
Lakeport, I actually think you're in the top .001% of people who understand chondrodysplasia enough to do whatever you want with it. It will still interfere a little with your ability to make progress in selecting toward true-short and compact Dexter genetics, but with your special knowledge, you could still do a decent job of it.... But the other 99.9% of folks mostly don't have a clue about it, and they are just creating giants and dwarfs with hidden giant genetics. You're right that anything that takes your eye off of the #1 most important feature of Dexters (compact size), is going to interfere with size selection. I've seen folks marketing huge Dexters because they have a "Traditional pedigree" or because they have horns. It all distracts away from frame-size. When I look at the latest Dexter AI Bulls, I'm seeing tons of smaller red, polled, A2/A2 bulls... And lots of giant, horned "Traditional" bulls. Many of the red, polled bulls have some of the most reliable pedigrees of all, because the early testing method for homozygous-polled in 2003, required family tree testing, which verified their pedigrees. Also, most of the folks who created the first wave of red polled bulls had serious genetics expertise. Today, many red polled breeders are leading the way in focusing on compactness. Nonsense about the reliable pedigrees. What happened prior to the genotype requirement? And once again, the genotype and parent verification is only as reliable as the person who is pulling the tail hairs. The genotype and parent verification was used primarily to (falsely) add credibility to polled Dexters as being purebred. What do you think of this polled "Dexter" bull, with shorter legs and a compact body? Oops, he's an Angus, so he'll even be homozygous polled.. Please tell me in detail, what is the difference between what your bull will produce, and what this bull will produce? www.bismanonline.com/red_lowline_bull_eOr, how about these? www.bismanonline.com/registered_2_yr_old_red_angus_bull/?app_track=suggested_from_adviewwww.bismanonline.com/lowline_heifer/?app_track=suggested_from_adviewwww.bismanonline.com/3_lowline_aberdeen_heifers/?app_track=suggested_from_adviewDo you realize that under the current ADCA rules regarding genotyping, that I could purchase these $400 heifers, breed them to a polled Dexter bull, and then when they calve say that the calves are out of one of my horned Dexter cows that had a bull? Or better yet, one of my recently deceased Dexters could be the dam. I could pull the tail hairs of the Lowline cows and send them in to be genotyped. I would then genotype the calves, and VIOLA! They are now registered and parent verified Dexters, with a thick beefy build, and short compact legs and body. Right now, all the Dexter has going for it is the name and the history of the Dexter being a family type cow. All of the other traits can be acquired in other breeds. I could make those little lowline heifers very friendly. They very possibly are A2/A2. I could sell the Lowlines at a sale barn a lot more easily, however. As the Dexter market crashes, I wonder how many red polled Dexters are going to be run through the sale barn as Lowline Angus???
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 5, 2017 17:09:28 GMT
Nonsense about the reliable pedigrees. What happened prior to the genotype requirement? And once again, the genotype and parent verification is only as reliable as the person who is pulling the tail hairs. The genotype and parent verification was used primarily to (falsely) add credibility to polled Dexters as being purebred. What do you think of this polled "Dexter" bull, with shorter legs and a compact body? Oops, he's an Angus, so he'll even be homozygous polled.. Please tell me in detail, what is the difference between what your bull will produce, and what this bull will produce? [b In 2004, I was offered my choice of two red, DNA-tested homozygous-polled, purebred Dexters. Both had been multi-generationally parentage-mapped by one of the best DNA labs at the time. One bull was Hillview Redwing, the other was Belle Fourche Frasier. I picked Frasier and it turned out he was A2/A2 (he's still alive and producing, going on age 14) There have always been plenty of red, homozygous-polled purebred Dexter bulls from reliable breeders who had documented access to Saltaire Platinum's red and polled genes. Every person with red polled Dexters today, can trace their Dexters back to that handful of reliable breeders using Saltaire Platinum's red and polled semen. Saltaire Platinum has been DNA verified to be as pure as the purest of Dexters. This photo what Frasier produced... Notice her 100% pure Dexter udder. She meets the 1900 Dexter Breed Standard perfectly, except she is hornless. My now 37" tall, red, homozygous-polled A2/A2 bull (likely to top out at 40") is heavily linebred to this 12 year old 100% purebred Dexter cow (Cascade's Shade) with a great udder, tested free of all known genetic diseases.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Oct 5, 2017 21:54:19 GMT
Hans, all this is fun to read, but... "Nonsense about the reliable pedigrees." You must realize this applies just as much to you, and all traditional owners/breeders, as it does to anyone else?
There's an old saying, 'we all judge others by our own standards'. If you are so determined that everyone else is dishonest, does this mean we should be doing dna testing for breed purity on your cattle, if it's so easy to cheat? I can see selecting chondro highland crosses for short coats, and registering them as Dexters. There are all sorts of photos on the Dexter sites of horns that look suspiciously like Highland--do those come from you?
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 6, 2017 13:42:08 GMT
Hans, all this is fun to read, but... "Nonsense about the reliable pedigrees." You must realize this applies just as much to you, and all traditional owners/breeders, as it does to anyone else? There's an old saying, 'we all judge others by our own standards'. If you are so determined that everyone else is dishonest, does this mean we should be doing dna testing for breed purity on your cattle, if it's so easy to cheat? I can see selecting chondro highland crosses for short coats, and registering them as Dexters. There are all sorts of photos on the Dexter sites of horns that look suspiciously like Highland--do those come from you? Why in the world would I register Highland crossed with Dexters as registered Dexters? The only reason I could think would be to add a shorter leg and deeper body to the Dexter. Our Highlands have both in abundance. There is one horned bull out there that I've seen Kirk post and praise that I could see some Highland influence I suppose. However, when I can sell high percentage Highland bull and heifer calves for more than registered Dexters, why go through all the trouble of registration and selling to a saturated Dexter market? And it is saturated, just have a look at the ADCA "For Sale" page and they've now added another category other than bulls and cows called "Herd Reduction". I am taking a number of our Dexters out of the registered Dexter breedings, and pairing them with our 11 year old 42" Highland bull to make more Highland/Dexter crosses. The females sell easily, at a slightly lower price than the registered Dexter does, but I don't have to spend $200 of direct costs and my time up front on all the testing and registration, and I'll keep the short leg heifers to breed back to another 4 year old 39" Highland bull we own to make high percentage hairy Highland little things. The bulls grow out faster and better than a Dexter does, because of the hybrid vigor. Oh, we also have a little White Park/Highland/Dexter short leg bull that I'll be breeding to some of our long leg Dexters too. Only my very, very, very best Dexters are going to be making more registered Dexters from here on out. In my opinion, the Dexter breed is going to have some tough years ahead, unless breeders find specific niches that they serve well. You can see red polled just about everywhere now, and many of them are awful examples of the Dexter breed, indistinguishable from Lowline Angus, other than they look worse than the Lowlines. They are trading on the Dexter name to attract the people who don't know any better. It's pretty sad when I can go on Craigslist and find cows and bulls that are unregistered, but that are better examples and representative of the Dexter breed than the registered Dexters being sold on the ADCA sales page. The expense in testing, registration, membership in the ADCA, doesn't help matters either, and I see a lot of breeders dropping out. They better have a good beef market lined up, but they can always take them to the sales barn and some might be fooled into thinking that they're Lowlines (I think they're starting to call them Aberdeen Angus now). Do you think it's easier to sell one of these? Or a Dexter? And I'm pretty sure that he sold (at one week old) for more than any Dexter ever has. photos.app.goo.gl/XbE3p9l1V24h9urK2
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Oct 6, 2017 14:20:28 GMT
Hans, it gets just as tiring reading your posts about illegal crossing as it does reading Cascade's posts about purity. Nothing to stop you from calling the kettle black, but it's really offputting. It seems to be your mantra. Easy to point fingers when you don't have to prove it. All it does is add another level of distrust with no evidence. I saw an article about genetic drift, with photos, all in 20 years, from the same foundation cows in one herd then passed on to a different herd. No visual relationship at all. NOT done with crossing, but with human selection criteria. Please stop trying to discredit everyone one else who doesn't do it your way, unless it's the attention that makes you do it. That way, if you continue, then those of us who post and or read posts here will know you are acknowledging it's just for the fun of it, and we can discount your comments accordingly.
Ditto arguing about the big prices Dexter breeders of red polled are getting and it's all about money, and then boast about your novelty market prices.
If you look at old ADCA bulletins (online), you'll see some pretty horrific animals, so really nothing has changed, just the owners and the years passing.
If I ran the ADCA, you'd see improved education on conformation, and assistance for testing, and a whole lot of support for owners to breed higher quality. Not going to happen. Dexters survive in spite of the assns and in spite of poor breeding choices. You are on the right track to breed the best and register only those. Ever think of running for Director or Pres?
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 6, 2017 20:52:58 GMT
Hans, it gets just as tiring reading your posts about illegal crossing as it does reading Cascade's posts about purity. Nothing to stop you from calling the kettle black, but it's really offputting. It seems to be your mantra. Easy to point fingers when you don't have to prove it. All it does is add another level of distrust with no evidence. I saw an article about genetic drift, with photos, all in 20 years, from the same foundation cows in one herd then passed on to a different herd. No visual relationship at all. NOT done with crossing, but with human selection criteria. Please stop trying to discredit everyone one else who doesn't do it your way, unless it's the attention that makes you do it. That way, if you continue, then those of us who post and or read posts here will know you are acknowledging it's just for the fun of it, and we can discount your comments accordingly. Ditto arguing about the big prices Dexter breeders of red polled are getting and it's all about money, and then boast about your novelty market prices. If you look at old ADCA bulletins (online), you'll see some pretty horrific animals, so really nothing has changed, just the owners and the years passing. If I ran the ADCA, you'd see improved education on conformation, and assistance for testing, and a whole lot of support for owners to breed higher quality. Not going to happen. Dexters survive in spite of the assns and in spite of poor breeding choices. You are on the right track to breed the best and register only those. Ever think of running for Director or Pres? There is no way I'd ever be allowed to participate in any capacity in the ADCA. Nor would I really want to. If I were king the first order of business would be to eliminate the late registration fee for bulls and cows for a period of three years after they were born. Regarding crossbreeding, it has happened. I'm not going to get into how I know, but I also know several people that I trust completely who have intimate knowledge, and their information wasn't solicited by me, it just came up in conversation. They have no dog in the fight, although they do raise Dexters. I don't advertise my Dexter Highland crosses as anything other than what they are. I make good money on them, however the problem is that I can't produce them in one or even two generations of crossbreeding. I can get closer, but you can still tell the difference. So that represents an investment of time and money, and that wasn't the case with the polled Dexter if you used another breed to add the characteristics that were in demand. I couldn't take my horned Dexters and in 10 years, much less 20 years, create much of a difference in those Dexters that comes anywhere near what you've seen in the polled Dexter compared to the Traditional lines or even the Lucifer descendants. That's all I need to know to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by lonecowhand on Oct 6, 2017 21:05:28 GMT
Someone has to cover the conjecture and fabrications offered as facts, as well as the challenges as to traditional purity, from Our Antagonist. Thanks Hans!
No one wants to, doing it gets old, but it's that or have every thread end with Myth. Hans tries to point out the ease by which one can fake the results, and offers his success as proof that he's doing it right, offering his animals as what they are.
I don't see him "boasting", except in response, to prove a point. Made sense to me! By the way Hans, Nice Silver Fluffy.(Sterling)
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Oct 8, 2017 2:57:46 GMT
Someone has to cover the conjecture and fabrications offered as facts, as well as the challenges as to traditional purity, from Our Antagonist. Thanks Hans! No one wants to, doing it gets old, but it's that or have every thread end with Myth. Hans tries to point out the ease by which one can fake the results, and offers his success as proof that he's doing it right, offering his animals as what they are. I don't see him "boasting", except in response, to prove a point. Made sense to me! By the way Hans, Nice Silver Fluffy.(Sterling) Thank you Bill, that sums it up pretty nicely. To make these little fluffy calves, it takes multiple generations. A lot of them are culled for beef or sold for a lower price than they would have fetched as registered Highlands. Why should I offer calves for a low price so somebody can just start out with what took me a decade plus to produce? My point was that even with the supposedly stringent ADCA requirement for registration, I could immediately take a nice Lowline Angus cow and create "Dexters" that were in much greater demand than their horned counterparts. Why should I sell the little Highlands for a low price that took a lot of blood sweat and tears, over a decade worth of breeding, so somebody can start out in the same place I'm at? I earned every piece of cake before I have had a chance to eat it too. And I have no illusions that I'll ever be able to register my little Highlands into the AHCA, even though I used a lot of registered stock to create what I have. Imagine in the Dexter breed, what it was like 10 years ago when genotyping for cows AND bulls was not required for registration. And even if they were tested, there was zero assurance that they had the same markers of their registered parents, grandparents, etc...
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 8, 2017 3:14:44 GMT
UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab can run breed analysis DNA tests on a Dexter, to see if it has any genes from a crossing to other breeds in the past.
So far, 100% of the polled Dexters tested, have been shown to be as pure as the purest of Dexters, with no traces of other breeds.
So if you want tested purity, polled is the way to go. I don't think any horned Dexters have been tested for purity by UC Davis. If I'm wrong, please post results.
|
|
|
Post by otf on Oct 8, 2017 15:37:06 GMT
UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Lab can run breed analysis DNA tests on a Dexter, to see if it has any genes from a crossing to other breeds in the past. Curious....can you tell me specifically which test is this? I don't see anything on their list of cattle tests. Do you know the cost for such a test?
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 9, 2017 4:45:24 GMT
UC Davis VGL doesn't feature the test online, you have to contact them and request it. Price is $120.
|
|
|
Post by otf on Oct 9, 2017 12:11:43 GMT
Aha, thanks for the information.
Gale
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 12:38:21 GMT
Gale, As usual Kirk is making stuff up. It is not a purity test it is a test to identify breeds not one that indicates that it is the only breed in the animal. Platinum did not test as the purest dexter as kirk states. He came in around 90% and that was comparing him to his own offspring. The test would be useful for picking out 1st generation crosses and maybe 2nd gen but it is not what Kirk states it is.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Oct 9, 2017 13:41:52 GMT
Mike is correct yet Kirk keeps attempting to slant the reality. It is IMPOSSiBLE for the results Kirk repeatedly references to be as he says. Saltaire Platinum has FIVE outcrossed animals in his pedigree. One is an obvious error of record and the other 4are recorded in the original herd books, That DCS has not yet corrected the online pedigree is not to their credit, but I expect they will eventually get around to it for it was voted to do so by council. The longer they delay the more people are being sold pedigrees that are knowingly not accurate.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Oct 9, 2017 14:25:30 GMT
He came in around 90% and that was comparing him to his own offspring. The second test on Saltaire Platinum none of his offspring were compared to him. Maybe Judy will finally try and get those results posted. I know who paid for the second test to be run. Here is more of what Judy posted on this forum where she is giving permission for anyone who would like to pay for a second purity test run on SP from samples submitted by Legacy. Below is part of Judy’s original post. The first test that was run was paid for by Patti Adams who owns the right to it. It is Patti’s tests results which we will call the first purity report on SP that has been posted in the past. The second test which Judy has acknowledged receiving per her statement on this forum dated May 23, 2016 10:40:29 GMT -5 jamshundred said: "The results nor the information forwarded to me belong to me”. So there is no “FAKE NEWS” there “IS” a second purity test which you are well aware of that has not been released. Judy you know the individual who paid for the test and even mentioned them in your comment on this forum "When the owner is ready to make them public it will be done". Why has this second test not been released??? It has almost been a year. Some are aware of the results showing that SP is pure Dexter the second time around, the same results as the first test. The second test used different animals that had no relationship to SP, and from what I understand these are animals in which Judy helped pick out. WHY all the secrecy of this second report? Just what are you afraid of??? I find this all very shameful on the part of the people who had anything to do with the second test results of SP and not releasing those results. This does not reflect well on them. Is this really how you Judy and Legacy what to portray yourselves??? Barb
|
|
|
Post by cascade on Oct 9, 2017 15:30:53 GMT
There are 3 parts to the test
1. Does the animal have any traces of any other breeds? (none found in the case of Platinum)
2. Does the animal's DNA look very similar other expected pure Dexters? (excellent match in the case of Platinum, on two runs of the test).
3. In the case of bulls, does the Y chromosome map to pure Dexters? (Perfect match in the case of Platinum)
Platinum's test was run twice with the same result. Platinum is a purebred Dexter, as pure as the purest of Dexters.
The "90" number isn't a percentage of purity, it's a statistical number and is about as high as you can get.
Judy has no record of Platinum having any other breeds in his background. If she did, she could post it here. What are those other breeds?
PS. Even the purest of pure Dexters have scores of holes in their old pedigrees.
|
|
|
Post by teatpuller11 on Oct 9, 2017 16:59:54 GMT
Judy, I took a look at Platinum's pedigree, and I can't find five outcrosses. There is one from which the next and next and next and next generation descend, which could make five if you want to cheat or skew the results or make up something, but the way science calculates it, it's one cross that will obviously show up in subsequent generations. Trying to make it sound like five different non Dexters were introduced into his pedigree lessens your credibility. And don't forget that it's a long way back, so each next generation gets less and less of the possible introduced genes, and that most genes are bovine specific, not Dexter specific, so the genes for most traits are the same no matter what the breed. This means that the percentage of outcross includes identical genes no matter what the source. You can't look at a dna and say oh, look, his nostril diameter comes from a Simmental, or whatever.
I know there is that long thread on Irish Dexter cattle board about 'American' red, but the wild red gene is the wild red gene, and there is no such thing as American red. If you want to distinguish between a red gene that came with the early 1900s imports and the same gene that turned up later, well I'm sure there's some people out there who might think one is a rare gene and the other is introduced, but it's all smoke and mirrors to create a false market--especially since there are all sorts of posts pointing out the source of the 'american' red came from a farm with other breeds of red cattle and illicit cross breeding and falsified records--accidental or otherwise. I get really upset when you trash one story that doesn't suit you, and believe to the marrow in your bones other stores just as true/damaging are simply gossip and not to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by jamshundred on Oct 9, 2017 19:43:05 GMT
*I* have NEVER said at any time.......that I own results of SP for a purity test. NEVER. I have never had anything to do with testing SP for purity. EVER. I own the original genotype on file at UCD. There was only a small amount of sample which was used for the DNA testing.
IT is all a nonsense argument.
1. There was NO mutation. There has NEVER been scientiific evidence of mutation. There IS circumstantial evidence of record error by breeder.
2. There IS documented error of the Re-registration of the cow Homer Rixey Piella who WAS an appendix cow. EVERY party to this, including then breeder who erred and has admitted the error has stated the original registration with an unknown, un-named crossing is the correct entry and the DCS record file shows the sameness.
It is not only nonsense....... it is patently disingenuos and deceitful to argue otherwise or to try to claim purity for this multiple outcrossed bull. DOES someone have to initiate a lawsuit to get it set right? Or will honesty prevail?
|
|