|
Post by wdd on Feb 13, 2010 16:00:48 GMT -5
The ADCA does not have a 'Breed Standard'. They have a guideline that lists suggested upper and lower height limits and weight limits in regards to cows and bulls. The Dexter Breed is a mix of ancient breeds that met the need of the poor Irish farmers that raised them. They provided milk for the family and meat for the table from extra calves. Dexters were developed and nurtured over hundreds of years for this dual purpose. This purpose can still be utilized today for homesteader type and those of us with a little acreage outside of town. There are Angus, Hereford, and other breeds developed for massive commercial meat production (they too years ago in England where used as milk cows but have been bred for meat over the last 50+ years and look how those few years in Earth History has changed those breeds). There are Jersey, Holstien, and others bred for commercial milk production. Other than a special niche market, a true Dual Purpose Animal can't match these commercial breeds in meat or milk production. Shorthorns now have split into the milking type and the meat type. They have lost their dual purpose. Brown Swiss is being bred for higher milk production that may be at the expense of meat production. Do we want the same to happen to Dexters? There is already a bad reputation amongst some towards Dexters. Dexter Breeders keep singing the praises of the Dual Purpose Dexter, but most haven't milked any of their cows nor do many breed to maintain milk and udder qualities, but instead focus on meat production. Many feel there is too much emphasis on meat production and little regard on the milking aspects when it comes to breeding. If someone wants to produce commercial meat with the great Dexter taste they can breed Dexter/Angus or other crosses with commercial meat animals so they get great taste and commercial sized carcass. The same if they want to produce milk for a commercial operation, breed Dexter/Jersey or other cross if you feel it will add to the flavor or quality of milk. If you want to raise Dexters as the breed we fell in love with, then lets look at keeping all the qualities we love and that makes the Dexter unique instead of trying to change it into a 'mini me' version of another breed.
I don't wish to offend. I just want to stand up for the Dexters and the great qualities they offer to we who appreciate them. There is no reason to coward behind the commercail breeds wishing to make the Dexter more like them. Instead the Commercial Breeders should be wishing to make their animals more like the true Dual Purpose Dexter. Healthy Grass Fed Beef with smaller input and impact on the environment and add some healthy great tasting Dairy products to round out your diet. Let those who don't care about the health affects of eating Commercial Beef/Dairy products filled with antibiotics, hormones, and genetic engineered feeds go to the grocery stores and pay for the health risks of their food. We and those who wish for a better quality and choice can get their Dexter Beef and Dairy from those of us willing to provide them.
When it comes to size, I don't think we need to breed for bigger animals nor do animals smaller than the guidelines seem to fit anything but the pet market or carnival attraction crowd. If we want to breed smaller non-carrier type then there are genetics available to meet that end. There are genetics available to improve the udders which increases the overall productive life of the animals. Indiscriminate breeding without an overall plan or goal can do more harm through producing cull quality animals that are used as breeders, but we need to keep the overall qualities of our Dexters in mind or else we will no longer have a breed that one can look at and determine it is a Dexter. Breeds like Hereford, Angus, Holstien, Jersey and others have a distinct look to identify them. If we breed away from the accepted Dexter guidelines we are eliminating a recognizable cohesive breed.
|
|
Honeycreek Dexters
member
All Natural Drug Free Grass Fed Beef, From Our Herd Sire Phoenix
Posts: 362
|
Post by Honeycreek Dexters on Feb 13, 2010 16:21:42 GMT -5
wdd, you have made some of my points for me but in the statement "Commercial Beef/Dairy products filled with antibiotics, hormones, and genetic engineered feeds " you are equating the word "commercial" with all the other stuff in your statement. Is there some reason "commercial" cant be " Dexters and the great qualities they offer to we who appreciate them." why does it have to be one or the other why cant it be the good things you speak of? There is no reason that has been demonstrated to me, {other than the ingrained idea that the two things Commercial and Dexters are mutually exclusive} that makes it true.
Now we are getting off of the original post about calf size and I would continue this in another thread but I am done in this one. Now what about calf size got an opinion on that.
|
|
|
Post by wdd on Feb 13, 2010 16:51:42 GMT -5
I too have strayed from the topic of the thread so will start a new one to respond to your observations regarding commercial.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 14, 2010 0:00:41 GMT -5
I just went to the ADCA AI Bulls page and counted. There are 28 bulls listed there for AI. Ten (10) of them are taller than the breed guidelines, with the tallest a whopping 50"!!! Genebo, this just tells me that there are other attributes to these animal besides them being several inches taller Offering a bull for AI provides that bull an opportunity to spread his genes far and wide. You can track how widely a bull can spread by tracing Aldebaren Priapus, who is blamed for giving us PHA. Genebo, aren't you the only person who has an AI bull listed that is a chondro carrier? The finger even points at some of our association officials, who discussed raising the height in the breed description last year. Thank goodness that didn't take place. My previous post about the Dexter/Kerry cow that was over 44 inches tall, published in a book dated 1906 was what started this. "Finger pointing" oh my gosh, isn't there a better discription than that? finger-pointing definition noun the act of assigning blame as for a harmful policy or unwise decision to another or others, often in an effort to deflect blame from oneself. Well I know you think it's harmful, however bringing a 42 inch cow to 44 inches, which they apparetly had over 100 years ago doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. I am even wondering about the pictures Patti attached and wonder about the size of those animals. Barb
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 14, 2010 1:32:58 GMT -5
Genebo,
Everything I was addressing is in quotes with my response below the quote. When you mentioned height of AI bulls, I mentioned other attributes. So when you mentioned AI bulls and PHA, I mentioned chondro along with part of your quote "Offering a bull for AI provides that bull an opportunity to spread his genes far and wide" and you bull. Both PHA & Chondro are genetic defects.
No anger here, I was just trying to state that we have had Dexter cows over 44 inches in height for over 100 years. I didn't care for your comment about finger pointing.
You tell me, if you could only choose between two cows, one that is 44 inches tall, great structure, good udder, good temperament etc. or a 42 inch chondro carrier, good structure, bad udder suspension, good temperament, etc.
Which one would you choose?
I'll go for the 44 inch cow ever time. Is that what I would prefer? No. but a few inches isn't going to break the deal. Most of my girls range from probably 40-44 inches. I just bought another cow who is probably 44 inches maybe more, I haven't measured her yet. She is one heck of a beefer with a real nice udder & temperament. I can hardly wait to use her on one of my own home grown bulls.
Barb
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Feb 14, 2010 8:43:57 GMT -5
A point that some breeders have made over the years, is that Dexters are not clearcut and defined, as are Angus, Hereford etc, and that is because they have been owned by all sorts of people with no particular controls and in fact, that is what a Dexter is, i.e. a genetically very wide breed and maybe it should stay like that.
One historical archeoligist (not the correct term I'm sure!)) over here says that all breeds used to be like Dexters, variable. Are they the only breed that is like this now. Hone them down to a particular type nationally or globally and we might loose genes we didn't know they had.
PS. We wanted bigger, beefier animals, so we have crossed our bigger dexters with an AA, and we have retained a nice little non-chondro bull for heifers and our pure side. I've done that (a) cause of the heifers and (b) because I THINK that the beef from the smaller ones has more flavour, or a more powerful flavour. I also THINK, but I don't actually know for certain, that when they get too big, like carcasses heading for 275kg plus, then it may be great beef, but it's not the real Dexter flavour, so you are better off crossing to get what you want. I'd love to see a taste test regarding size sometime, but it's so complicated to do, probably just best to ask people's opinions. Angus Prime beef has a max carcass weight.
|
|
|
Post by wileycoyote1 on Feb 14, 2010 9:34:36 GMT -5
Thanks; I've often wondered why people crossed Dexters with everything from Angus to Simmentals and everything in between. One Dexter owner I met said that he actually preferred Dexters with more white than allowed by the standard; he had a black (he said she was 100% Dexter) cow that had large white areas on her face and underside. I don't understand personally why anyone would WANT to purposely breed a Dexter with a larger breed except for butchering weight, but it does seem that one would lose something in the compactness, meat quality and flavor, as well as the fattening costs and pasture efficiency. Although if the truth were told, I imagine that many consumers don't know the difference between their steaks' and hamburgers' taste and quality. Plus having worked in food processing areas, I've seen what is done to 'tenderize' beef for the consumer, instead of giving them naturally tender beef.
Still trying to weigh out the pros and cons in my head. But I am perfectly happy not to tamper with the geneology of my Dexters, although I can see why some would. Of course it is kind of like a 'race' discussion - who knows how far back we all go to say definitively that we are not all of mixed race at some point? With people as with cows, there is all too often an unclaimed Angus in the woodpile somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Feb 14, 2010 10:25:04 GMT -5
There are environmental factors that also affect the ultimate size of each animal. When Dexter and Kerry cattle were grazed on the moors and mountains in Ireland, the lack of food favored the smaller animals and limited the size (stunted the growth) of animals that had the biological potential to get bigger. When these animals (or their descendents) were exported and put on better pastures -- some of them grew larger and depending on what was bred to what, their offspring also grew larger. This phenomena was observed a number of times over the decades in several countries and it was noted in various publications.
There seems to be a curious relationship between soil pH and the protein content in pasture grasses. The more acid the soil (pH less than 7), the lower the protein content in the plant materials that grow on it. When there is a limiting factor such as this, the animals grazing on these pastures may be smaller than they would have been if they'd grown up on better quality (higher protein) forage. Thus, their mature size does not reflect their biological potential (as controlled by their genetics) and trying to select for size from such animals may not produce the desired size when their descendents are moved to "better pastures".
We live in northeastern Kansas and our pastures are primarily on limestone hills -- the soil pH is greater than 7, and the grasses have adequate protein content compared with many other locations in the United States. The vast Flinthills of Kansas are well-known for their superior grazing quality and large herds of commercial beef are raised on the Flinthill pastures before being sent off to feed lots for finishing.
In order to be able to select for genetically small animals, a breeder must provide abundant high quality food during the animal's growth period so that the animal can reach its biological potential for size. Only then can a breeder know which animals are genetically small and which ones are not.
The Chondrodysplasia gene, is one gene that significantly affects the mature size of an animal. Because it occurs in Chondro-carrier animals in a gene pair with a normal gene, the animals that carry the Chondrodysplasia gene can produce offspring that do not carry it (50/50 chance). In most cases, the mature size of the non-carrier offspring will be larger than the Chondro-carrier parent. Thus, the absence of the chondro gene in non-carrier male offspring, may result in a mature size that is 6 to 8 inches greater than the Chondro-carrier male parent.
That is why it makes absolutely no sense to me to argue size of bulls when the Dexter breed guideline range is only 40 to 44 inches (a 4-inch range). A 40-inch Chondro-carrier bull can produce a 48-inch non-carrier son; and a 48-inch non-carrier bull bred to a Chondro-carrier cow can produce a 40-inch Chondro-carrier son. That is the potential result of the expression of only one gene. Good or bad, that is the consequence of retaining the Chondrodysplasia gene in our breed.
If a breeder wants to produce offspring of uniform size, then they have to take the Chondrodysplasia gene out of the equation and breed only chondro-free animals.
If a breeder wants to produce offspring of variable size, the "historical" Dexter type, then they will want to keep the Chondrodysplasia gene in the equation and breed Chondro-carriers to non-carrier animals. That is how the Irish cattle breeders did it in the olden days.
As far as calf size goes, W.R. Thrower (Parndon Herd) noted in his book, "The Dexter Cow and Cattle Keeping on a Small Scale", published in 1954, that Dexter calves weigh about 50 pounds at birth (p. 15). He goes on to say that Dexters weigh something between 600 and 800 pounds and stand about 39 inches to the back of their necks. So his small cows were producing calves that weighed about 50 pounds. That is exactly the middle of the range in calf weight that we typically get from our own Dexter cows, because our Dexter calves normally range in birth weight from 45 to 55 pounds (and we actually weigh them, we don't just look at them and guess).
Our registered, purebred Kerry cows produce calves that weigh around 65 pounds at birth. These cows have excellent calving ease. The mature weight of a Kerry cow is 900 to 1100 pounds. The mature hip height on our Kerry cows ranges between 48 and 52 inches. Kerry bulls are larger than the cows and a mature hip height between 52 and 56 inches is typical for a Kerry bull. Compared with a Kerry bull, a Dexter bull with a 50 inch (or smaller) hip height looks small.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by wileycoyote1 on Feb 14, 2010 11:23:15 GMT -5
Patti and Gene, the reasons you give are exactly why I wanted Dexters. I wanted forage animals that can survive on not-so-much pasture, and multi-purpose creatures that would give me milk and good beef. I like the purity of the breed, and wouldn't think of crossing them. All around me Angus are bred - for the most part - strictly to Angus, for massive quantities of beef production, on land measured in sections and hectares, not acres. There are some who experiment, but they have more money than time - Ted Turner and his government-sponsored-and-paid-for beefalo ranch are 40 miles from me (PAUGH and a pox on him).
On another thread herein I note that the Dexters are descended from an extinct species that scientists are determined to regenerate. The purpose of that species becoming extinct speaks to me that they were unable to accommodate change - and therefore should not be regenerated, because they will need twice as much care and attention (not to mention government money) to prosper.
Animals - and humans, for that matter - should be able to change to accommodate area, food requirements, climate changes. I feel that Dexters are appropriate for my relatively small acreage; they will prosper well where a single Angus needs 12 acres to fatten and produce. Crossbreeding my Dexter with Angus would give me larger and heavier animals - but would also involve more acreage which I do not have and cannot expand. Then we get into personal fiscal irresponsibility; i.e., renting pasture, etc. Those who have money to spend, extra people to deal with larger cattle and their expanded needs, or property going to waste, can take those chances with crossbreeding; I cannot. I have milked Holsteins and Guernseys and dealt with them as owned by others, and the animals do not have the temperament that a short little old lady wants or needs. So I am happy that the Dexter breed provides what I need in size, production, feed consumption, and tractability. To crossbreed the Dexter out of existence, to accommodate others' needs and desires, would put many small acreage farmers at a disadvantage. So I totally support the smaller breed standards to remain in place; 40 years from now when other little old ladies are looking for their small-acre sustainable cow, I would hope that they would be able to still find the Dexter breed, with the herds expanded and qualified.
|
|
|
Post by Olga on Feb 17, 2010 0:24:19 GMT -5
What a good discussion, guys. Very interesting and informative. Just keep your cool, please.
And on a side note, about Gene's bull being a chondro carrier and being on AI list. I understood the parallele you made, Barb. But here is a different perspective. Until chondro carriers are outlawed, some people will want to own and to breed for chondro carriers. And for that purpose I am glad that such a nice high-quality chondro bull is available for AI. It is a whole lot better than them picking up a half-price-special cull-quality chondro bull at the "I breed for calves" farm.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 17, 2010 19:43:46 GMT -5
Olga, The complaint was made by Genebo about bulls on the AI page " Ten (10) of them are taller than the breed guidelines, with the tallest a whopping 50". In my opinion I feel that 6 inches is far less threatening than a genetic defect. To each their own. I don't think carriers of either defect will be outlawed. This will ruffle some feathers but I believe that AI bulls should be the "best of the best" with no genetic defects. There are some non-carriers on the list I would remove also. If a person chooses to collect semen from a carrier bull, they can advertise the semen on their website or this forum or anywhere else, just not on either associations websites.
I am TRULY not trying to be argumentative, just stating my feelings.
It's bad enough that some people don't test their animals or if they test they don't let results be known. I respect Genebo for putting his information out.
Barb
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 17, 2010 22:43:26 GMT -5
I need to ask Barb if she has had her Dexters tested to see if they carry the genetic defect that causes them to produce milk with A1 beta casein in it, and culled all those which did? Surely you wouldn't sell a Dexter that carried such a genetic defect, would you? One that might cause health problems in people who drink the milk? Or are you selective about which traits you label a genetic defect. When I first was able to test Dexters for the A2 and A1, for a long time every homozygous positive A2 carrier was also a short legged chondro carrier. We began to suspect that the two were linked. Eventually, we did find two long legged bulls out of 26 Dexters that were homozygous. So most likely the two are not related, but who knows? Well in the beginning when you "pulled your strings" to have your animals tested for A2 along with whoever you selected to have tested. Than brazenly reported your results, while the rest of us waited. At the AGM in Texas I spoke with Dr. Cothran about the possibilities of testing for A2. The next thing I knew our director was working with Dr. Cothran, and low and behold we had a test. Not long after that the test was pulled. So I was still waiting. Recently there has been several other companies outside of the U.S. able to test for A2 I have all the permits and forms set to go, just waiting to see how the first groups reports go. One other point I would like to report, there are polled Dexters that are homozygous for the A2 gene. Barb
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 17, 2010 22:55:07 GMT -5
So a defective gene is one that causes a high tailset, or that causes sickle hocks, or that causes poor udder suspension, among others. I will ask you, are those mutated genes "L" (dare I use the "L" word). What are the possibilities of having a none viable calf from those "high tailset, or that causes sickle hocks, or that causes poor udder suspension" animals? Barb
|
|
|
Post by marion on Feb 17, 2010 23:46:55 GMT -5
Genebo, I believe the 50 inch AI bull you are complaining about, is or was owned by a long time breeder who values traditional bloodlines, surely a person who knows and cares a great deal about the breed and has a lot more experience making breeding decisions than those of us with a mere handful of animals. I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, that some AI bulls are measured long before they have reached their mature height, and that advertised height never revised. And, as has already been mentioned, when you introduce the chondro gene, you can have a carrier within the height guideline that cannot but help produce offspring outside of the guideline. It is obvious, that as long as chondro remains in the breed, there will be this problem with height. Whereas with non-chondro carriers, selection can be made for true height, not taller height masked by the chondro gene. Now, we've got A2 to select for as well, and it's all very interesting. But I'd bet that if those breeders who happen to prefer a herd of chondro-free, red or polled had been the first to start testing, they would have been jumped on and accused by some of wanting to change the breed..marion
|
|
|
Post by wdd on Feb 18, 2010 0:58:51 GMT -5
I think as long as we have breeders like Barb, Gene and others, with different tastes and breeding 'ideals' we will have a rich diversity within the Dexter Breed. If we convince everyone to breed for one color, one type and/or one body style of Dexter, then I believe we will be losing some of the uniqueness that makes so many individuals love their Dexters. IMHO I think those that are into showing are pushed more towards the taller beefy animals since that is what the judges are looking for. Even if we try to educate the judges regarding ideal Dexter qualities, they come with beef or dairy backgrounds that are pushing the 'bigger is better' mentality. My A.I. Tech was telling me about a Jersey owner that was thrilled with some very tall animals he had. They show well and win the ribbons, but he admitted they were not cost effective as a milking animal due to high input costs for what he gets out of them. As long as everyone doesn't jump on the bigger animal bandwagon we will survive. These are genetic lines, after all, that naturally occur in the Dexter Breed. Just like there are naturally better milkers like those that provided the milk for the Woodmagic Dairy Operation. If a Dexter Breeder chooses to select Dexter genetics for breeding based on udder qualities and milk production then the offspring would still be Dexters only with concentrated genes for the attributes that person wishes to have. If someone wishes to breed Chondro type animals they are still breeding a Dexter using Dexter genetics to do so, whether others like them or not. There are enough that choose different breeding 'ideals' currently to keep the diversity of the breed alive and well. We just need to remember our 'ideal' isn't everyone elses 'ideal' and its best if it stays that way. I too have my preferences and speak out for them at times without proper regard for others who don't share my 'ideals' and I am sorry if I have offended any of you.
|
|