True-Short Dexters vs. Chondro-Short Dexters

[Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk]

Nov 11, 2012 20:05:37 GMT -5 cddexter said:

we keep hearing about how dwarfs are more beefy. I keep posting NO, it just looks more beefy because the muscles are bunched on bones that are about 15% shorter than the muscle is designed to fit on. Next thing, someone else is posting about beefier again.

DWARFS ARE NOT BEEFIER.
Piet Wilke, ex-president of the SA Dex assn, and the retired Dean of Agriculture at orange free state university in Blomfontein did a comparison of two steered brothers, one dwarf, one not. Both raised the same, both fed out the same. The non-dwarf had a higher saleable meat yield.
Wes Patton, ex-Director and ex-president of the ADCA, and retired Head of the Department of Animal Science at UCalChico, did a comparison of two steered brothers, one dwarf, one not. Both raised the same, both fed out the same. The non-dwarf had a higher saleable meat yield.
Veronica Schofield, ex Council Member, ex-president of the DCS, and geneticist, did a comparison study of two steers, one dwarf, one not. Both raised the same, both fed out the same. The non-dwarf had a higher saleable meat yield.
Patti Adams, US Dexter breeder and meticulous stat collector, says her numbers show no real difference in yield.

3 trained professionals say non-dwarfs give a higher yield, one scientifically bent ordinary breeder says it's about the same. That's as close as i can get to a scientific stufy. No matter how you cut it--or the animal--dwarfs are not beefier.

How can we put this one to bed?

Folks who say short animals are "beefier" likely mean that short animals can be THICKER (while having less actual beef).

Go to any gym in the world and you'll see the tall "scrawny" 6 foot 3 inch, 19 year-old boys complain about not being able to have big thick arms, while the 5 foot 7 inch boys of the same age often have big bulging muscles.

Many of the tall "scrawny" boys have just as much muscle (maybe even more) than the short "beefy" boys, but the muscle on the short guys is bunched up on short little bones making them look "beefier", while the same amount (or more) of muscle on the tall boys is stretched out over the long bones.

Short guys almost always do better in body building competitions because they look "Beefier" than the tall guys.

Since we're actually talking about real beef here with Dexters, we probably should say "Shorter and Thicker" instead of "Shorter and Beefier"

[Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk]

Nov 11, 2012 20:05:37 GMT -5 cddexter said:

At first sight, I thought there were six different 'types' of Dexter. However, the really experienced big breeders of the day ALL told me it didn't seem to matter what one looked like, another could be, and often was, different. You couldn't say a clunky really deformed toy Dexter would produce one similar. On the other hand, a really nice relatively proportionate dwarf that just looked 'beefy' was just as likely to produce a tall gangly calf as another nice one, or one of the clunky toy types. No guarantees.

Those who raise heritage breeds of chickens or heritage tomatoes (instead of hybrids), should understand what's going on here with chondro-short dexters.

The reason many folks favor heritage breeds of chickens and tomatoes is that those heritage breeds are homozygous for their traits. Their traits are locked in, and so you can hatch your own eggs out of your heritage breed chickens and expect to get baby chicks nearly exactly like the parents. Same thing with heritage tomatoes (or other non-hybrid vegetables), you can save your own seed and get reliable results year after year.

On the other hand, if you try to breed out of hybrid chickens or hybrid tomatoes, you'll get a mishmash of unreliable results because the parents are heterozygous for their traits.

In a sense, chondro-short (dwarf) dexters are like hybrid chickens or hybrid tomatoes, because they are heterozygous and cannot breed true, so you get a mish-mash of results.

That's why I'll stick with my heritage chickens, heritage tomatoes, and true-breeding dexters

[Clive]

My personal opinion is that chondro is the one and only thing that is wrong with Dexters. Using chondro to create shorter animals from what would otherwise be of true breeding animal is to me, like cheating. It isn't even a unique "feature". I accidentally crossed a couple of chondros with an Angus bull and got two Angus cross shorties. One was OK but the other was a horror. It walked like a 4-legged spider and snorted. I was so ashamed of it I have to say I kept it in a back field out of sight. I was borderline on shooting it but didn't as it seemed to be slowly improving. Eventually after 4-5 months it walked fairly normally and instead of snorting, it just had a loud breathing pattern. Both have been beefed. So you can create a shortie from any breed you like.

I haven't had many shorties, maybe 30-40?, but the last ones I kept were all put down fairly young because they couldn't walk. One in particular at 11 years of age would stay in the field whilst the whole herd left. Made it hard to work with. I have had the problem with udders too close to the ground on many occasions with shorties, and also once with a fairly short non-shortie.

Certainly around by us, in the normal farming community Dexters are something of an embarrassment because of chondro. Almost every farmer I have ever met who has spoken to me about it, thinks that all Dexters carry chondro even if they are non-short (something which they never understand) or it might throw it's head up at any time, so they just avoid them. Dexters by us sell for peanuts in the livestock markets.

To me, a breed should not be an island and you should not have to be an expert in genetics, or have genetic testing done to use a particular breed in a cross-breeding program. What you see is what you should get.

I once read in European law that their definition of pedigree, or their requirements for a recognised breed society, can't recall which (note: you can't have multiple recognised societies for one breed over here) is that the animals should breed true.

[Olga]

Thanks for the answer to my question. To be specific, I wasn't so much concerned with the shortie cow being able to deliver a calf by a long-leg bull. I'm more concerned about the effect of bull's weight on the cow's spine and hips and legs. At a year-old +, a l.l. dexter heifer is probably 500 lbs +. A shortie heifer is less. What would an extreme shortie heifer weigh? Would she be able to support the bull? I wonder what the long-term effects of live cover by a heavy bull would be for an extreme shortie. I wonder if it has anything with later predisposition to arthritis (expressed as pain when walking).
I would like to point out that I don't have anything against shorties and the right to breed them. I just worry about health ramifications for the shortest of the shortie females.

[cddexter]

Olga: "15 months seems to be the number most use. Live service is just fine. A lot of English have always bred short to short. This is slowly changing as more people understand the genetics, and more people are breeding for true height, rather than genetically doctored height. "

Sorry, I thought I was clear. Mind you, a lot of the bulls are only 2 years themselves. If I was breeding a small dwarf to a fully mature bull, I'd probably want to wait until she was 18-24 months. As you say, you are definitely at risk of spine damage.

Gene seems to have abandoned this thread...but I think Kirk and Clive have answered his questions about bowlegged. c.

[lakeportfarms]

Nov 13, 2012 6:26:51 GMT -5 Clive said:

I accidentally crossed a couple of chondros with an Angus bull and got two Angus cross shorties. One was OK but the other was a horror. It walked like a 4-legged spider and snorted. I was so ashamed of it I have to say I kept it in a back field out of sight. I was borderline on shooting it but didn't as it seemed to be slowly improving. Eventually after 4-5 months it walked fairly normally and instead of snorting, it just had a loud breathing pattern. Both have been beefed. So you can create a shortie from any breed you like.

Clive, Both the Angus and Hereford breeds were known to have a form of dwarfism (slightly different than the Dexters) in the 50's and 60's that was not uncommon. They called these calves "snorters".

It was a much more severe form than what is in the Dexter breed. It is not so common today, but my guess is that there are still some of those genetics hanging around and when mixed with the chondrodysplasia of the Dexters it triggers the dwarfism in the Angus similar to the "snorters".

Prior to moving to all Dexters, we crossed our chondro bull with Angus cows, and we had a mother and daughter cow who both had extremely small heifers out of the bull, even smaller than our Dexter heifers have been (one was 21 lbs). Last I heard they are both doing well and living pampered lives as family cows. Clearly there were some genetics with the mother/daughter that led to that.

[cddexter]

Have to check Ensminger, but I believe the snorter dwarfism is hereford. In any case, I seem to remember they don't live, so maybe that's not the issue here, hans.

off to work (gahhhhh), will check when I get home. cheers, c.

[jamshundred]

I do not believe there was sufficient examples to determine the meat stats.. There are too many variables. I feel confident that if you butcher a carrier and a non-carrier of the same size and age you are going to get more and better meat from the carrier. However, if you take a 54" Lucifer and my 41" Tomorrow and butcher them on the same date - then you are talking different stats aren't you?

As to waddling, bow-legged carriers. What a crock! I've never seen one - and if you want to ask someone with experience than ask ME! I have been breeding carrier Dexters for 20 years and for most of that time I breed them together! I can tell you there have been no deformed carriers in my herd waddling around on bowed legs. The worse example of a carrier I ever owned was Alice of Old Orchard. She was short and squat and pot bellied but she didn't knock knees or walk like a duck. Good grief. And I've never had a carrier dragging their udder on the ground. Some of the ugliest Dexters I have ever seen were non-carrier cattle. AND. . . . the statistics and fear-mongering about bulldog calves is also crock. The percentage is not nearly as high as suggested IF you breed "proportionate" carriers. And yes. . . . . there are two types of carriers. The ones you have to guess about and the ones of which you have no doubt. Breed two no--doubts together and hold your breath for the death of the fetus . . in the more proportionate body types the percentages are less. There also seem to be some animals that throw higher percentages. I don't know why that is.

I will also confirm that carrier cattle ARE different. They are different in personality, they are different in hardiness, they are different in how they forage and they are different in how they process that forage.

If it were not for carrier cattle there would be NO viable Dexter breed and if you don't keep the small carrier cattle you WILL discover in time you HAVE lost the breed. Right now we are experiencing ( and hopefully existing) a frenzied feeding period - but that won't be sustained over time. Non-carrier cattle used to be considered "Kerry" type and Kerry cattle in the US almost became extinct. In general ( there are a few exceptions as we have been shown) they had no curb appeal and were not competitive functionally with other breeds. Keep increasing the size of the Dexters and they will no longer have their niche and as soon as the fad dies, ( and they always die, i.e. $20,000-50,000 llamas), this breed is going to be filling the stalls at sale barns. Perhaps it has begun already because I understand the prices at the MDBA show and sale were tragically low except for a couple show animals. ( Homesteaders rarely trot their animals out on the show circuit. Dexters are homestead cows. ( I'sn't that what the brochure has always published).

And finally, the definition of a breed. A group of animals that " breed true". My question - true what? I can look at a field of Holsteins, or Angus, or Jersey or even Guernsey or Hereford. I do not see a field of duplicates. I see different colors and different sizes and different horns or polls and I see different markings and for sure there are lots more defects in other breeds than ours. Do you suppose that could have anything to do with several centuries of interference by man trying to produce a perfect speciman?

The very basis of the Dexter breed is/was carrier Dexter cattle. Look at all the available early photos. They survived and thrived because they were an IDEAL cow for man and home. That has begun to change with the interference of humans. What will be left behind will NOT be the Dexter that served and sustained our ancestors.

Judy Sponaugle
Jams Hundred herd

[lakeportfarms]

Nov 14, 2012 11:18:15 GMT -5 jamshundred said:

And yes. . . . . there are two types of carriers. The ones you have to guess about and the ones of which you have no doubt. Breed two no--doubts together and hold your breath for the death of the fetus . . in the more proportionate body types the percentages are less. There also seem to be some animals that throw higher percentages. I don't know why that is.

Judy,

I believe that there are different types of carriers as well, and the more obvious ones are more likely to throw carriers, or bulldogs if two are bred together.
When we got our first Dexter bull and cow, we didn't know about chondrodysplasia. Both had been sold off by the widow of the prior owner, to a family that didn't know about about it and never even transferred the registration. We always seemed to be waiting for a calf out of those two even though Cedar's udder seemed to grow to beach ball proportions every few months. At the same time we were getting calves every 10-11 months out of the Angus we were crossing the bull with. One day I saw Cedar with her huge udder with afterbirth hanging out. I tracked down the bulldog in the pasture when I saw the turkey vultures hovering. A month or two later, I found out about chondrodysplasia after she had been bred again. That one fortunately resulted in a successful full term short leg heifer.

This is the bull, and the cow (about the ugliest picture of her I have...lol) Pretty obvious to me now, but at the time I thought that all Dexters were like this. I never officially measured Cedar, but she was no more than 35" based on where she came up to my waist. Mike's not much taller. I think you could classify them both as obvious carriers.

[cddexter]

hans, I'm wrong. checked Ensminger and the hereford achondro is not lethal. There is a compressed form that comes with shorthorn, hereford and angus. cheers, c.

[legendrockranch]

Below is a link if you care to read about the snorter form of dwarfism in Herefords. They also have a picture of an adult bull
in the Hereford breed which is a carrier. It is a recessive gene in the Hereford breed.

When I first got interested in Dexters I did quite a bit of research on all breeds of cattle and the dwarfing gene. Even went so far as to interlibrary loan a book called "The Battle of Bull Runts". Which is mentioned in the article I just linked to you.

www.ag.ndsu.edu/williamscountyextension/agriculture/livestock/genetic-defects-in-cattle

[Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk]

Nov 14, 2012 11:18:15 GMT -5 jamshundred said:

I do not believe there was sufficient examples to determine the meat stats.. There are too many variables. I feel confident that if you butcher a carrier and a non-carrier of the same size and age you are going to get more and better meat from the carrier.

That would be correct that a 42" chondro-steer would have more meat than a 42" non-chondro, because the 42"chondro likely has 50" tall parentage hiding behind him. So the 42" chondro has 50" worth of beef on a 42" frame. Where the 42" non-chondro has 42" of meat on a 42" frame (with 42" true-breeding parents).

But if you took two brothers out of the same parents and one brother got the chondro gene, and the other brother didn't, at 30 months the chondro-brother might be 39" tall while the non-chondro brother would be perhaps 46" tall. The 46" tall non-chondro brother would likely have the same amount (or a little more) of meat as his 39" tall chondro-brother. So the effect of the chondro gene does NOT add more pounds of beef, it just scrunches the beef up on shorter bones.

Concerning "quality" of beef, some folks consider lean meat to be better "quality" than fatty, for health reasons. So let's just talk about fattiness. A chondro-dexter brother could be a little more fatty than his non-chondro bother at the same age, the same way that shorter people sometimes struggle more with their weight than their lankier siblings. Shorter animals usually gain fat easier and sooner than tall long-boned animals.

[Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk]

Nov 14, 2012 11:18:15 GMT -5 jamshundred said:

Keep increasing the size of the Dexters and they will no longer have their niche and as soon as the fad dies, ( and they always die, i.e. $20,000-50,000 llamas), this breed is going to be filling the stalls at sale barns.

I actually agree strongly with this statement and that's one of the main points I'm making in starting this thread. I believe that by bending our breeding programs toward true-short dexters, instead of chondro-short dexters, we actually help bring down the size of the entire Dexter breed (over time) and you eliminate the too-tall dexters (over time).

The chondro-gene interferes with your ability to see what you really have. With chondo, your shortest animals might really be the tallest (hidden by dwarfism). Without chondro, it's easy to see and cull your too-tall animals (over time). Chondro just temporarily hides the too-tall genes and allows them to be passed to the next generation. The longest legs I've ever seen come from chondro-herds.

That's why I'd hope that everyone who has excellent chondro-short dexters, would try to create true-breeding short dexters (getting rid of the too-tall genes).

It seems ironic, but it's true that by setting aside the chondro gene, you can better bring down the size of the too-tall dexters.


PS. I do hope some folks keep the chondro gene around for historical purposes, but I certainly hope they don't use it to falsely shorten too-tall dexters.

PPS. My true-short-ish almost-too-friendly non-chondro "Lucifer/Platinum" primary bull for the past couple of years is a very thick 43" tall at nearly 5 years. He's throwing a lot of shorter and thicker and super friendly calves. If he gets any friendlier, I'll have to lock the doors at night to keep him from sneaking into the house to hang out with me. I'm seeing our herd gradually lose a couple of inches with continuous selection for more compact animals. The chondro gene would absolutely interfere with my ability to select for shorter cows because it wouldn't let me see what I really have.

[hollydzie]

Kirk, you have made perfect sense and a complete truth. Our first 2 Dexters were full brothers(steers). One a chondro carrier the other a long leg. The chondro carrier was so short and looked so beefy. His full brother the long leg was almost as tall as a full size breed of cattle. The taller one appeared to stay thin compared to the brother. I wish I could figure out how to make my pictures small enough to post. I have a very good picture of them together that would show the gross difference.

They are pets and will not be slaughtered so I could not tell you about weight, but when they left our farm the tall ones back was well above our 4ft field fence. So it is clear that they do not breed true, I have seen it with my own 2 eyes. They were 5 yrs old at the time.

[cddexter]

Sorry Kirk: I should have added that in the three cases I mentioned from SA, US and Eng, all were brothers. This was a consistent result from literally 'around the world'. If Holly had eaten her two instead, I think her stats would follow the others. I know three examples don't a stat make, but given the experience and qualifications of the owners, and the care with which they recorded their data, it has to count for more than just an unsupported opinion from someone with an agenda.

I simply can't figure out why the dwarf supporters won't understand about height. Being able to see accurately what genes you are working with, vs. trying to work with hidden genes HAS to be easier and more likely to produce a positive result in the end. Just my thoughts, tho. c.