|
Post by midhilldexters on Jan 1, 2015 16:00:20 GMT -5
It would be fun to get hair from all these small black animals in other countries and see how close their markers were to Dexters.
Thanks for all the info Patti and Susan.
Carol K
|
|
zephyrhillsusan
member
Caught Dexteritis in Dec. 2009. Member of this forum since Oct. 2013.
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by zephyrhillsusan on Jan 1, 2015 16:03:55 GMT -5
Great idea, Carol, but I'll let YOU pull the tail hairs from the Camargue ones!
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jan 1, 2015 16:26:18 GMT -5
Midhilldexters (Carol K), I posted a recent study that did something very similar to what you're suggesting, and it looked at the historical and current means of classifying many different cattle breeds. Here is the link to it: www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/3/4/660Patti
|
|
|
Post by midhilldexters on Jan 1, 2015 17:54:32 GMT -5
Thanks Patti, I missed it before, half way through reading it now. Carol K
|
|
|
Post by midhilldexters on Jan 1, 2015 18:21:20 GMT -5
Figure 5 grabbed my attention in that Alderson has the Kerry and Dexter on the Iberian side. Then I saw there was something called Irish Dun on the Scandinavian side. Interesting.
Edited to add, I see Susan saw the same thing, didn't see your post. Carol K
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jan 2, 2015 0:32:01 GMT -5
Interesting that in 1998, Alderson (RBST)* had Dexters more cosely related to, in order, Angus, Shorthorn, Ayrshire, Galloway, Welsh Black, Belted Galloway, Holstei, Highland, White park===and then Kerry. He wrote, 'The relationship of the Dexter to the White Park and Kerry was remove, which calls into question only its common origin with the Kerry, but also the classification of the Dexter as a Celtic breed. A specific study by Buys and Chiperzak (1992) to compare blood types of Dexter and Kerry cattle showed significant differences between the two breeds and confirmed Royle's findings. A larger study by Blott (1997) showed that the Dexter was most closely related to the order (noted above). Again the relationship to Celtic breeds such as the White park and Highland was remote, and the Kerry was even more distant. Blott used multidimensional scaling, pricincipal component analysis, and phylogenetic tree methods to calculate genetic distance. She determined that the tree indicated that'...the Piedmontese, Guernsey and Dexter are intermediate between the two major gourps. However, the multidimensional scaling and principal component analysis suggest that...the Dexter is part of the mainland British group'. The conclusion that can be draw from these studies that that the Dexter, whatever its origin, has drifted or been selected to such a degree that it is not closely related to the Kery and cannot be classified as a Celtic breed.'
more fuel for the fire?
cheers, c.
*Dexter Cattle Origin and Relationships, First World Congress on Dexter Cattle, 1998
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Jan 2, 2015 7:34:55 GMT -5
cddexter, There has been so much progress in genetic testing and genetic analysis since 1998, that Alderson's results have been superseded with more rigorous evaluations done on a more comprehensive scale. Keep in mind that Alderson's population sample size may not have been sufficient to accurately represent the breeds that he was trying to evaluate. Very recent studies using Mitochondrial DNA are providing a different perspective: www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/6/1/178 and this one, which summarizes more of the historical information: www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/6/4/705Patti
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jan 2, 2015 12:23:17 GMT -5
Actually, Patti, I know things have moved along. This was by way of pointing out that one has to be pretty careful about what one uses as reference material. Which brings us back to good ol' Andrew.
I have some pretty good examples, but the quickest and best is from his comments on polled (NO, I'm not opening a can of worms, just making some observations, please). To quote from his 1998 Congress paper Genetic and Breeding Research in Dexter Cattle since 1970:
"The dam of Migh Poldark, Godstone Esmeralda, 10531, was claimed to be a novel mutation to polled, but was herself from a herd containing polled cattle upgraded from crossbreds, and with major inconsistancies in earmarks."
Let's take a look at this one single sentence. Esmeralda came from the herd of Mrs. Fleharty, who operated a farm park with horned heritage breeds, open to the public, and which specialized in tours for school children (that last from Di Smith--Moomin herd--who went there as a child with her school class). Esmeralda was born in 1984. The ONLY upgrade on the property was from a Dairy Shorthorn cross (DCS HB 19883-5: Vycanny Orphan Annie A239). Most of the Dexters were Woodmagic or of Woodmagic descent, and the bull was Woodmagic (DCS HB 1983/4). All bull calves were steered and sold at market, all heifer calves were sold at the RBST sale at Stoneleigh each November. One year a heifer calf lost its eartag and the farm manager replaced it with the next sequential tag in the box (direct from the same farm manager, by phone, speaking with me about 15 years ago). No big deal, happens to all of us from time to time. They did not notify the DCS Registrar, so when the heifer got to Stoneleigh, the tag # didn't match the registration record. The manager explained but the person checking in animals refused to believe him, so they called Mrs. Fleharty who confirmed the story. Checker didn't accept her confirmation, flexed his power and offered them the choice of taking the heifer home again or selling her as a 1/2 Dexter cross. The name of the checker? Andrew Sheppy. The next year, another heifer lost her ear tag, it was replaced but this time the Registrar was notified, and the records show it was noted and the new ear tag # was added (confirmed by David Key, Registrar). That heifer went to Stoneleigh and sold as purebred, just fine. Oh, Andrew calls it an earmark, but it was only a tag, not a tattoo.
So, a lost eartag becomes 'major inconsistencies'.
"Migh Poldark was born on a farm where polled Murray Grey cattle were kept alongside the Dexters, resulting in a number of births being recorded in the Dexter Herdbook with Murray Grey given as a parent."
Another single sentence. Poldark was out of Esmeralda. Pam Weaver (Migh herd) had one Murray Grey cow from which she saved a few heifers via the Appendix registry. One cow. Not cattle plural as Andrew states (or implies there was a whole bunch of them). Upgrading was common, practically all the bigger breeders were doing it, including Andrew. For instance, in 1980, out of 13 females at his farm, SIX were upgrades: two 1/2 half Dexter, three 3/4 Dexter and one 7/8 Dexter (DCS HB 1980). In 1989, out of 17 females on his farm, FOUR were upgrades: one 1/2 Dexter, two 3/4 Dexter and one 7/8 Dexter (DCS HB 1989). I picked the years at random. If you want me to take the time, I'll list them from start to finish for you, rather than be accused of being selective. Pam banded bull calves within three days, and sold them at market as steers (Pam Weaver), both pure Dexter and the MG cross, if there was a bull calf born that year. There was nothing suspicious or spurious about what she was doing, nor was there any attempt to fudge records: it's all there in the herd book. Her farming practices were the same as everyone else's, including Andrew.
So, one cow becomes many, and a common practice--including with Andrew--becomes cause for distrust.
And a last example: "These two cases (Storm and Poldark) have been investigated more fully as far as was permitted by the bull's owners." This carefully implies he met with some resistance., and it's left you to figure out why the owner would resist. Pam's version was Andrew turned up at her farm, unannounced, knocked on the door, and said he was there to collect a hair sample from Esmeralda. Pam asked him why, and on who's authority. Pam told me Andrew's answer was he was out to prove Esmeralda wasn't a pure Dexter. Pam asked if Council had asked him for this, and he said, No, he was undertaking this on his own.
Now, tell me, would YOU have let Andrew proceed? As a parallel, think of what you would do if one of the US 'legacy' proponents turned up with the same story!
Just recently, Stephanie Powell (England), who is trying to continue the Woodmagic line, emailed me she'd just had a phone call from Andrew 'out of the kindness of his heart' to warn her he had written an aritcle discrediting Plover as a 1/2 Red Poll bull, and that because of the tight line breeding, all Woodmagic couldn't even be called Dexters (I have Steph's permission to pass this on). Plover was a foundation bull in the Woodmagic herd. He refused to let her or anyone else preview the article, or to give any details. When asked, Steph tells me Andrew did admit he had no specific proofs, just theories. But he 'published' it anyway.
I see a pattern here. Compare the examples above from 1998, with his current sentence about Plover being suspect because his dam, under a different owner, was bred to a Red Poll three years after Plover was born, as being one of his proofs that Plover was outcrossed. It's all the same smoke and mirrors. There's a lot more..but I think you get the drift.
In 1998, in response to some comments from Australia, Beryl had this to say (DCAI Bulletin, Winter/99, page 17): ”I can only speak with absolute certainty on my own behalf. I do not understand the mentality of those vociferous minority who apparently assume dishonesty in everyone else. I am lucky enough to still be around to provide my own defence!”, and “I think it a pity that conclusions drawn from hearsay and speculation are allowed to mar a work containing immensely detailed and constructive assessment of Herd Book data.”, and, “I would recommend his (Andrew Sheppy) contribution as being well worth reading and providing a useful insight into the breed, but with the proviso that note is taken of the conclusions, and they are only accepted where they are based on concrete data. Those which are drawn from guesswork and gossip should be ignored. *
cheers, c.
|
|
zephyrhillsusan
member
Caught Dexteritis in Dec. 2009. Member of this forum since Oct. 2013.
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by zephyrhillsusan on Jan 4, 2015 16:22:19 GMT -5
It is extremely interesting to get another side to this story. It is very disappointing that innuendos and misleading statements would be included in a paper that is presented as a scientific work. One dairy Shorthorn cross equals "herd containing polled cattle?" Two cases of lost ear tags, one of which was rectified in the records, equal "major inconsistencies in earmarks?" Such inclusions, presented as fact, only serve to discredit the author.
These stories are all very interesting, and I think it's important to establish for the record that there is another side to these innuendos. Unfortunately, many of the people whose herds Andrew Sheppy is attempting to discredit are dead and gone. Like Beryl, they can no longer speak for themselves. I'm glad we have someone who knows "the rest of the story" and is willing to share it.
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jan 6, 2015 6:35:41 GMT -5
The thing that concerns me most about all of this is not that the article ( cannot be called a paper because it isn't , it is just an article of someone's opinion) was written, as anyone can write an article about anything that they wish. I think that the problem is that an association actually allowed it to be published in a bulletin, without thought about repercussions. I hope that they have a disclaimer in their bulletin re "opinions of writers of articles not necessarily opinions of association" etc or else they may well find themselves in hot water, if someone decides to challenge it. BTW, I wonder if the DCS would allow a "right to reply"? it would be interesting if someone who had facts could reply to this article, asking for it to be published in the next bulletin , hint hint!!
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Jan 6, 2015 6:44:18 GMT -5
DCS was well aware of concern, both at home and abroad, but said any member is free to write what they like. Dangerous policy I'd have thought. They also said anyone is free to write a rebuttle, not sure that includes non-members.
Two more items of interest under the microscope, won't have the info for a few days, but will update then.
cheers c. PS and remember, my info could be just as unreliable, if it's based on personal communication. Only diff is I don't assume it's all true. haha
|
|
zephyrhillsusan
member
Caught Dexteritis in Dec. 2009. Member of this forum since Oct. 2013.
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by zephyrhillsusan on Jan 6, 2015 21:47:59 GMT -5
The other difference is, you have recorded the story in detail and did not use "Personal Communication" (vague and nothing more specific as to what exactly the personal communication was) as a "resource" in a bibliography! You were clear that so-and-so told you such-and-such a story. You didn't present the information in a paper as if it were a fact.
|
|
|
Post by burnside on Nov 18, 2015 18:14:30 GMT -5
The next issue of the Dexter Bulletin did in fact carry a response from me to Andrew Sheppy's article.
The use of modern genetic advances in the Dexter breed
During the last few decades the advances of our knowledge and understanding of genetics has surpassed all expectations. From the most basic understanding of how genetic instructions are carried in the cells of the body and how these can be replicated to produce the next generation, we have now the knowledge of the complete genetic pattern for man and some animal species. We can identify individual components of this code, and map out the normal, and from understanding the normal we can pick out the abnormal. Instead of merely spotting when a genetic abnormality is expressed by double inheritance of defective genes we can now produce relatively quick and easy to use tests which can pick out individuals carrying particular genetic codes, such as the chondrodysplasia gene so well recognised in the Dexter breed. We can identify which animals carry red or dun but look black, which produce A1 or A2 milk, are homozygous polled or heterozygous polled. More than this, if any previously unrecognised genetic defect is identified, we can, with as few as 6 affected animals, identify the exact location of the genetic defect and produce a test to identify carriers.
It was therefore with great sadness that I read “Intorgression in Historic Dexter Bulls” in the last issue of the Bulletin, purporting to show how the benefits of modern genetic techniques can be applied to the Dexter breed. There was on useful bit of information in the article, the reference to “Managing Breeds for a Secure Future”, a book written by DP Sponenberg and DE Bixby, published in 2007. Professor Sponenberg was hitherto unknown to me, but I learned that he is now a member of the DCS team of Genetic Advisors, is a highly qualified and respected authority in the USA, and I would commend his book to everyone. Being interested in exactly what he says about “the standard three test of Phenotype, history and genetic analysis” as quoted by Andrew Sheppy, I purchased a copy of the book and have read it from cover to cover. It is highly readable, requiring little specialist knowledge to understand, and is, in short, a wonderful exposition of exactly what a breed is and what is needed to keep it genetically healthy. I have begun, but not completed, an attempt to purchase a number of copies for distribution in UK, and the first recipients should be without a doubt, all our DCS council members.
An understanding of the dynamics of the genetic makeup of a breed lets us understand the slow loss of genetic variability within a closed breed over a period of time, and as an antidote to that the value of occasional added genetic material. This added material may be in the form of “grading up” as an official breed society policy, or it may happen by accident through mistaken registration of outcrosses as purebred animals. In fact it matters little in the longer term which happens, as long as the resulting offspring from any such “impure” individuals are selected according to breed standards. Seven generations down the line we have less than 1% of the genetic input of the introduced genetics. The advantage to the breed is the replacement of some of the genetic material lost in the course of closed breeding, which happens unseen and unrecorded. It is interesting to note that one of the findings of the Cardiff project was that the Dexter breed, though showing evidence of being very much a distinct and identifiable breed, possessed a great degree of genetic variability, the sign of a healthy breed.
In Andrew Sheppy’s article on “Introgression in Historic Dexter Buills” we find him applying the three standard tests as suggested by Prof Sponenberg. But let us look at the reliability of the evidence placed in each of the three parts of the test. As far as the first, “History” is concerned, in the first two cases, we find Mr Sheppy relying on hearsay evidence, from family members of deceased breeders. In the case of Charley Pudding he says “it was admittded” and we have to ask, by whom, and would they have been in a position to give such a statement. In the case of Shadwell Robert, the historic evidence comes from alleged statements from a niece of the breeder. It is well recognised by those with long experience of the breed, that the two sisters of the family concerned had a very poor relationship and thus family disagreements enter the arena and cloud the evidence. That accounts for the historic evidence in the case of the first two bulls in the paper. For the third, the third bull in the paper, Grinstead Plover, the historic evidence is so flimsy that it enters the realms of the fantasy world of the emperor’s new clothes. We are expected to believe that Lady Loder, one of the foremost and most respected breeders of her time, was either so deceitful, or so stupid, that she either ignored, or did not notice, that a bull reared in her herd from a calf, was polled, at a time when the whole herd was horned, no calves being dehorned. Worse still, Lady Loder then sold the bull, and Beryl Rutherford, one of the most observant people I have ever encountered, who did not notice that a bull with no horns was being sold from a horned herd, and that 50% of his calves were polled.. The assumptions made by Andrew Sheppy are a dreadful slur on the reputation of some of our most significant and most respected influences on the breed. He also expects us to believe that the dun colour, having entered the Red Poll breed when the Suffolk Dun merged with the Norfolk Red, emerged in Grinstead Plover. What Andrew does not tell us, is that the Suffolk Dun and the Norfolk Red merged in the 1840’s. How many generations do we go down from 1846 to 1966? With the Red Poll breed selecting so strongly for both red and polled, it seems to me that Mr Sheppy’s version has little credibility.
For the future, I would urge DCS Council to disregard Mr Sheppy as a “genetic advisor”, to concentrate on advice from properly qualified geneticicists, such as Professor Sponenberg, and Prof. John Wooliams of the Roslin Insitute. Now that I think on it, Dr John Woolliams was listed by our DCS council Chairman when I pushed her to name the genetic adivisors, though he does not appear on our website as such..Please, DCS Council, consign the advice based on hearsay and bias to the bin, concentrate on the advice of properly qualified professionals, and, most importantly, READ PROFESSOR SPONENBERG AND BIXBY’S BOOK.
I was at the time both surprised and pleased that it was printed, but sadly the actions of the DCS council together with A Sheppy in pursuing the case for an "Original Population" indicates pretty conclusively that they do not want to listen to reason.
Duncan
|
|
zephyrhillsusan
member
Caught Dexteritis in Dec. 2009. Member of this forum since Oct. 2013.
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by zephyrhillsusan on Nov 18, 2015 21:58:38 GMT -5
Thank you, burnside, for a well-thought-out and factual rebuttal to Sheppy's article. And thank you for sharing it here, for those of us that are not DCS members.
|
|