Traits and Characteristics of Mitochondrial DNA ??

[Deleted]

OK I moved this from another thread because I wanted to bring it up for discussion.

May 26, 2013 8:23:32 GMT -5 Gorignak said:

BUT, in this era of precision and focus, I would like to hear what traits and characteristics that might be affected by the Mitochondrial DNA have become measurable.

[kansasdexters]

1. Cows that have bred and calved every year, for 10 or more years, without assistance, and without any dead calves, abortions, or losses.

2. Cows that breed every year with no more than 2 live service or AI-service breedings, that carry to full-term, and then raise a healthy calf, every year, for 10 years or more.

3. Cows that have gone through 10 or more lactations and that still have well functioning, well supported udders in good shape with 4 healthy quarters and 4 teats of normal size and length.

These performance characteristics are measurable and recordable.

Here is such a cow (she just had her 11th calf, a dun bull, born on 5/4/2013):

www.dextercattle.org/pedigreedb/ponyweb.cgi?horse=11993&HorseName=Mornin%20Glory&Page=1&Sort=0

Patti

[Deleted]

Ok understand all the above - but really, while these are good consideration points

..............surely one doesnt wait for the above to be ticked off in every aspect before considering the keeping/use of a bullcalf [from one of the first 10 calves] as a/one of herd sire/s?

Do they?

Cheers
Donna

[kansasdexters]

Donna,

If you want to select for longevity, fertility, maternal instinct, and calving ease -- these are the cows that have proved themselves over and over, thus they are the elite group from which to evaluate and select bull calves from. They are worthy of being "bull mothers". They also produce some pretty fine replacement heifers.

When we first started our herd, we sought out a yearling bull from an older cow that met our criteria. It was well worth the effort.

Patti

[cddexter]

hiyu rosegay
photos on page 2 of the udder thread of photo album here. 17 calves in 19 years, no assist, no death, no problems, good (well, exceptional) udder attachment and teat size, shape and placement and exceptional consistent quality of offspring. c.

[jamshundred]

ENOUGH! We need to breed functional animals that serve their purpose.

The creator never made a perfect human. .. .though some humans have tried . . . . always with a tragic ending. Dog owners have tried. . always with a tragic ending. Cat owners have tried. . . always with a tragic ending.

WHO in the dickens wants or needs a perfect Dexter? Bad feet? How bad? Can they walk to grass and water? Udders. . . can they sufficiently nurse their calves? Dip in the back, high tail set, ( oldtimers will tell you a high tail set so common in Dexters of the past equaled ease of calving, also common in Dexters of the past and apparently less so in these modern animals) must be eliminated! Poo!

If perfection was intended then all living things would have been created perfect.

Come on! Function matters and perfection is unattainable and often the quest for it creates awful genetic blunders. Those of you who constantly encourage owners to strive for the perfect parts in the anatomy are causing many good and functional animals their lives and I will bet you a stand in front of the mirror won't get you supreme champion at the next human show. Though I must admit it is going on with humans now too and the cosmetic surgeons are loving the confirmation of their bank accounts!

If an owner gets good and sufficient milk from teets that are different in length and circumference and it raises nourished calves it is good enough.
and if one can eat delicious meat born of a cow with a less than perfect udder and flat feet the purpose of the animal is met and served.

Judy

[marion]

The comparison with dog and cat breeding is not a good one. They were never bred for functional traits. Reputable breeders of dogs and cats, using the ability to test genetically and x-ray are making progress with their chosen breeds.
Using your rationale, it is ok to put any animals together and let them breed, as long as they can eat and walk around long enough to put some calves on the ground. Even then, there is still some sort of selection if you have to prove the animal out long enough to make sure her teats and milk are "good enough" and she can continue to get around. Form follows function. The ideal form for livestock, did not come about just for looks. It takes just as much to feed a cow with a big front, tapering off to a shallow body and weedy rump as it does to raise a cow with a deep body and some rump width. Why keep breeding weedy cows with bad udders bred to anything with balls, to get more of the same? Try milking a cow with huge teats or teats too close together. Bad idea to use a bull on her who will improve udders?? Selection is not a dirty word.
People who just put males and females together to reproduce are not breeders, they are animal 'havers'. I have never met a Dexter owner who does not love their cows, in spite of imperfections. Most will also cull for the freezer an animal that just does not do well. Even though perfection is rarely attainable, we must have an eye for our animal's shortcomings and strive for improvement in those areas whether it be conformation, production, fertility, health or longevity.
Take a look at some of the animals offered on free classified sites, for an eyeful on what can happen with putting any males and females together..marion

[Gorignak]

WOW....I once talked to a Marine Colonel who's father was also a Colonel and Douglas Macarthur's aide. He described the atmosphere in the room, and the conversations when Macarthur was notified that the North Koreans had invaded South Korea in 1950. A privilege to be in a room of smart people as they "chat".

We have all the heavies ( intellectual....not physical) here on this one. I am going to sit back and watch...BUT....the core question HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED ..... Is there any mitochondrial DNA segments that have been directly tied to any of these physical traits and thus become indicators for heritable characteristics.

Be nice gals.....I do enjoy hearing from all of you.....

[midhilldexters]

I don't see why there is something wrong with wanting to improve things like feet and udders, or any fault we may have within the breed. Just because something with bad feet can make to the water trough doesn't mean that's right or good, or how it should be.
Just because a cow with a bad udder can spit out a calf doesn't mean she can feed it.

Carol K

[jamshundred]

Marion,

There is no difference whether it is dogs or cats or ponies or Dexters.
We are talking about appearances. Not function.

If a cow has an ugly udder and still feeds a calf every year for the duration of a normal lifespan and those calves are hale hearty and healthy. . . I think that meets the criteria of the creator and nature.

A cow having flat feet or being cow hocked may not be pretty but if she can walk to graze and get water to sustain herself and her offspring, and lives out a normal lifespan. . . she has been a good and useful animal. Maybe not a pretty one - but a functional one.

If the udder is dragging the ground. a calf is starving, they are in pain from anatomical errors of leg or back or feet. . . . if for any reason the flaws are preventing the animal from being functional. . . by all means cull it and have some good meals. . . that IS another function of their lives.

I do not wish to see perfectily functional yet flawed animals be destroyed because they meet the standards of nature and the creator yet fail the standards of man. . . and that seems to be more and more the emphasis being placed on owners and breeders. Cull. .. cull. . . cull. Owners and breeders are being publically shamed and humiliated when they show photos of animals with what others deem faults.

Judy

[kansasdexters]

Mike,

The following article will help to clarify the role of mtDNA and its importance in the effect of selecting along maternal pedigree lines:

www.angusjournal.com/ArticlePDF/AJ0704_mothers.pdf

Much of these research findings can be applied to any cattle breed.


Patti

[Gorignak]

Oh Patti........big hug.......THAT is the article I wanted to have tossed at me to keep me from doing the "research"....there is only so much each of us can do each day, and I didn't have the time to launch a deep search on Mitochondrial DNA.

AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHH.....NOBODY KNOWS (yet) is the summary.... But the potential is exciting...... Nice article with just enough technical data from preliminary studies to have me paying closer attention. There is always a rush of opportunity, at the outset of a new concept, with computers allowing collation of decades of data that has been gathering dust. There will be quick nuggets found in this information stream.

So...you and Carol and Carol and Marion and Judy have been playing with this for years, decades, intuitively knowing..."there's something about that cow". congrats.

So.....as lindon would say..."good on ya' Patti"
MUCH appreciated.....

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 15:46:59 GMT -5 midhilldexters said:

I don't see why there is something wrong with wanting to improve things like feet and udders, or any fault we may have within the breed. Just because something with bad feet can make to the water trough doesn't mean that's right or good, or how it should be.
Just because a cow with a bad udder can spit out a calf doesn't mean she can feed it.

Carol K

Hi Carol, and others………..I see where you are all coming from, but I am reading this a little differently.

My personal frustration with some is, that many a times it “appears” and I say it “appears” as I have never spoken face to face with members of this forum………….replies and comments appear to resemble someone with blinkers on.

Let me explain::::::::::

There are those comments that appear to see ONLY bad feet – cull the animal!

And somewhere on this forum, there was the comment made that breeders need to start culling cows whose udders were not near perfect……………………………………………well
• What about the rest of the animal?
• What about the good traits of the animal?
• What about overall balance and physical appealing qualities in appearance of the animal?

We, as breeders, do need to concentrate on those undesirable traits which are appearing in the majority of the breed – but not at the cost or expense of the highly desirable traits.

A structure and sound breeding program needs to be in place – there needs to be BALANCE in one’s herd to achieve the desirable results!

As Gorignak has stated elsewhere on this forum – “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to focus on one or two traits that are enjoying current favor, and not alter others.”

And that is so very very very true, and maybe b ecause of this focus on feet, udders and dipping near tailhead focus, we as breeders, are actually causing great detriment to the Dexter as a breed??!!
Does this make sense? Do I make sense?

[midhilldexters]

Hi Lindon,
lol yes you are making total sense and I really do understand what you mean.

I agree, It is very difficult online to portray sometimes what we mean.
What I would do if I had a cow with say bad feet, is to try and "improve" on that trait in the next generation. For me that is what breeding is about. As with everything we have to take the whole package into consideration.
I think we are open enough to discuss faults, but not blinkered enough to think that is all there is to the breed. Of course this is only my own personal view, others will have their own take on things.
I'm all for open talk and conversation on things, I want to know what causes conformation faults so I as a breeder will have the choice to try and correct that fault and not to promote it.
I don't think any of us would have people think we are blinkered on faults and that's all we think about, but maybe it comes over that way?
There are some that just think that cows should manage themselves and we as humans interfere, maybe they are the blinkered ones
I think we all have to accept there are poor specimens of the breed that maybe shouldn't be used as a bull, but they are. I'm sure we have all at one time or another steered an animal for beef, that's culling. There may be animals that are so arthritic that they are euthanized, that's culling. It happens.
am not sure if I have helped or hindered your thought process on all of this with my ramblings.

Carol K

[kansasdexters]

There is no such thing as a "Homozygous Perfect" Dexter. I don't advocate culling on the basis of a single undesirable trait. There is a distinct difference between "selecting for" desirable traits and "culling" unproductive animals. It's not the same thing.

Selecting for desirable traits is the responsibility of a good breeder. Culling unproductive animals is also the responsibility of a good breeder, so that reproductively unsound animals are not passed on to someone else.

Patti