|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 15, 2012 12:31:57 GMT -5
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'. Judy's point was that in two steers (almost certainly NOT brothers) of the SAME HEIGHT, a chondro bull would have more beef than the non-chondro bull and that can be true, but it doesn't mean the chondro gene adds beefiness. Instead, it means that the chondro-gene just cuts inches off the legs of a large beefy animals, making them appear shorter. So you can get 50 inches of beef on a 42 inch (chondro-shortened) frame. In your data from around the world, the chondro and non-chondro brothers would almost certainly have vastly different heights. The brother-studies help isolate the effect of the chondro-gene, proving that the chondro gene doesn't ADD beef, it just scrunches the beef up on shorter bones making the chondro animals LOOK thicker. Further, It would make sense that the non-chondro brother might have even a little more muscle than the chondro bother in some cases, because the non-condro brother would work those muscles harder to move that larger frame around, and using muscles harder makes muscles grow bigger. The primary problem that remains with chondros is that no matter how much you love them, they can't reliably reproduce themselves, and they can hide too-tall genetics so you can't see those tall genes to cull them. |
|
|
|
Post by dexterfarm on Nov 15, 2012 13:38:19 GMT -5
Further, It would make sense that the non-chondro brother might have even a little more muscle than the chondro bother in some cases, because the non-condro brother would work those muscles harder to move that larger frame around, and using muscles harder makes muscles grow bigger. But does working those muscles harder possibly make the meat tougher? Is it possible that size is part of what makes Dexter beef better than large breads. Small mass to move = less strain on the muscle = better meat? |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 15, 2012 13:50:01 GMT -5
Once you've had sufficient progeny out of a chondro carrier you should be able to accurately figure what you're going to end up with in both long and short varieties. As Gene's bull shows and I think most here have agreed, a chondro bull that carries small genetics when mated with a small cow can produce small non-carriers. And I would think that they would produce smaller than average carriers too. So although they may differ between the carrier/non-carrier varieties, I don't see why they would not reliably reproduce themselves when you compare short/short, or long/long.
Last December we had a very small carrier bull out of our smallest cow, who will one day replace our current sire Mike. He is shorter than other carrier (and non carrier of course) bull calves we've had over the past year, but I would attribute that to the cow and not the bull. The cow is due to calve again today or tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if she has a non-carrier this time around how he/she grows. This doesn't mean I'll cull the yearling carrier bull, but if the one due today is a small non carrier bull, we will probably keep it ourselves to use to breed to another small cow or bull, or even back to the mother who is a very nice cow with a beautiful udder. I'll always need both types of bulls since we have a mix of carrier/non-carrier cows.
Kirk, I agree that muscles respond to the workload placed upon them, but I disagree on the non-chondro bull possibly having more muscle. If our 950 lb chondro bull is compared to the 950 lb non-chondro bull, not only are they carrying identical weight, but the chondro carrier that is a little less likely to be running around than his non-chondro counterpart should be more efficient at feed conversion, and therefore somewhat more thrifty to keep and maintain that weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 15, 2012 13:58:08 GMT -5
but if the one due today is a small non carrier bull, we will probably keep it ourselves to use to breed to another small cow or bull, or even back to the mother who is a very nice cow with a beautiful udder. I'll always need both types of bulls since we have a mix of carrier/non-carrier cows. I mean to say if it's a small non carrier of either sex We won't be breeding our non-carrier bull to another bull  |
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 15, 2012 16:43:47 GMT -5
Those who want to make a point claim that Dexters don't breed true, but in fact, if you look at a picture of Trillium Cluny and Windridge Nollaig, you'll see that even after many generations they still look the same. Outstandingly so! I certainly hope no one has ever claimed that dexters can't breed true. What I've been trying to say is that CHONDRO-dexters can never breed true (because they are heterozygous for a key gene). Certainly, without the chondro gene, it's easy to create lines of true-breeding Dexters of most any height (the Woodmagic lines certainly bred true for shortness). Many, many true-breeding Dexters exist. No plant or animal that is heterozygous for a key trait, can breed true. Black baldy cattle cannot breed true because they are heterozygous for their distinctive trait. Cornish-cross chickens cannot breed true because they are heterozygous for key traits. Also I didn't mean to imply that there were 50 inch genetics hiding behind every chondro-dexter. I only meant to say that it's possible to hide 50" genes behind the mask of chondro-shortness. Certainly some chondros carry some excellent true-short genetics, while others can carry some giant genetics. Again, my only issue is that the chondro gene can interfere with your ability to identify and select for truly short genetics. |
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 15, 2012 17:30:07 GMT -5
Gene, was Trillium Cluny a chondro carrier? I haven't been around Dexters long enough to know some of these things.
Mike has a lot of Brendan O'Briar Hill in him on his sire's side, who I assume was a carrier (we have a lot of Brendan genetics in our herd), but from what I've heard from Pat Mitchell and another person the really small genetics came from his mother Flo's Gracie and the Tak Sca Du Hav lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamboru on Nov 15, 2012 18:05:50 GMT -5
Trillium Cluny was non-carrier (long-leg) so of course he would always breed true when joined to a non-carrier cow. I might be misunderstanding the implication but it does comes across as though Cluny has been included within this conversation stream as a short-leg in the sense that means dwarf. He may have had non-chondro short statured legs, as did his son whom we owned and loved for many years, but he was not short-legged in the sense that is being used here. No "stake", just fact!
Fran
|
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 15, 2012 19:01:33 GMT -5
Using the phrase "breed true" is dependent upon what the writer intends it to mean. Yes, the term could be used for various meanings. For the purpose of this discussion, I meant "breeding true" to mean the animal could reliably pass a particular phenotype to all, or most all of his offspring. That's one of the more typical uses of the term "breeding true" in genetics. I CAN create a true-breeding herd of black dexters where they ONLY have black offspring (setting aside rare random mutations). I can create a true-breeding herd of true-red (ee) dexters where they ONLY have true red offspring. I can create a true-breeding herd of E+E+ dexters I can create a true-breeding herd of Dun dexters that ONLY throw dun calves I can create a true-breeding herd of horned dexters I can create a true-breeding herd of polled dexters that only have polled calves I could create a true-breeding herd of tall dexters that reliable throw larger animals nearly every time (I don't want that). I can create a true-breeding herd of true-short-statured dexters that reliably throw small animals nearly every time (Woodmagic did it) BUT I CAN'T create a true-breeding herd of chondro-short dexters because chondro-short dexters can't be homozygous. Chondro-shorts are a blend of two heterozygous co-dominant genes. In genetics, a common cited example of this occurs in certain Pink flowers. Those pinks are the result of a heterozygous pair of co-dominant genes where one gene is Red and one is White. The co-dominance allows them to both exhibit at the same time, so a blend of red and white = pink. But pink flowers can't breed true (by my stated definition). If you breed two pink flowers together, you'll get 25% whites, 25% reds, and only 50% pinks. So if you love these pink flowers, then you better be prepared to also live with whites and reds (or cull them) because you can't just have pink. Similar to the color pink in flowers, Chondro-shorts are the result of a heterozygous blending of two co-dominant genes, so they can only throw their own phenotype 50% of the time. The entire point of this thread is that if you want a true-breeding herd of ALL true-shorts (with no ongoing chondro testing required), it's relatively easy to accomplish this over time, such that all (or nearly all) of your calves are rather short in stature. PS. Hope everyone is enjoying the healthy, friendly discussion |
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Nov 15, 2012 21:04:00 GMT -5
I guess sometimes it's easy to forget to put two and two together. Trillium Cluny was 100% woodmagic. Woodmagic were free of the chondro gene. Therefore by definition Cluny couldn't be a dwarf. I guess big G Gene forgot his little g genes there for a bit ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 15, 2012 21:17:36 GMT -5
All that talk of creating raises the hackles on my neck. I'm a preservationist when it comes to Dexters. I want them to stay just like they were when I chose them. They were a rare breed then. Now that they have become more readily available, people aren't as focused on preserving the breed as they used to be, but they should be. Every time we choose a cow and bull and allow their mating, we are 'creating' a calf. According to the ADCA peds, you bred your first around 2004; that's not a very long time. I'm sure in 2004 there were just as many variations in Dexters as we see today. I tend to think that with the increasing Dexter population, availability of really good information on the breed and more owner/breeders, that the future of the breed is secure. "Used to be" ?? Sure wouldn't want any like the first two I started out with waaay back in 1999! Careful breeding and access to superior bulls has given me small black dual-purpose calm friendly animals that are the joy of my heart. Oh yes...those first two were all 'old' breeding too. |
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Nov 15, 2012 22:45:31 GMT -5
Genebo,
Trillium Cluny was a non-carrier of Chondrodysplasia. I paid to test him (semen) for PHA and to genotype him (so that his genotype could be "on file" at Texas A&M). I guess that I can pay to test him (semen) for Chondrodysplasia and settle this once and for all.
We AI-bred River Bend Fancy (a Chondro-carrier) to Trillium Cluny and produced Wakarusa Nutmeg Cluny (a Chondro-carrier).
We AI-bred Oleo Mistletoe (Chondro non-carrier) to Trillium Cluny and produced Wakarusa Mick Cluny (Chondro non-carrier), Wakarusa Mack Cluny (Chondro non-carrier), and Wakarusa Molly Cluny (Chondro non-carrier).
We AI-bred Hammer's Lacy (Chondro non-carrier) to Trillium Cluny and produced Wakarusa George Cluny (Chondro non-carrier).
Trillium Cluny was (and still is) a non-carrier of Chondrodysplasia and a non-carrier of PHA.
Patti
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Nov 16, 2012 11:00:36 GMT -5
Gene: her term wasn't bulldog free, it was non-carrier. And, yes, she was right. In fact, a whole lot of English breeders bought bulls from her specifically to breed to their dwarf cows so they could evade having bulldogs.
Your sentence specificially included Cluny with KNOWN dwarfs, thus implying by association that Cluny was also a known dwarf, not status unknown because he wasn't tested. Now it sounds like you are trying to weasel your way around the mistake by bringing up oblique issues and playing with words to obscure what really went on.
Is this another case like 'dun' coming in from angus and guernsey, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, that we had the go around about just a few days ago?
cheers, c.
PS: I suppose I should come back and modify this. Beryl told buyers they could use her bulls and be bulldog free, in as much as since her animals were non carriers, they could be used over dwarfs with impunity, and owners of shortlegs would never get a bulldog calf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Nov 16, 2012 14:14:27 GMT -5
Clive, My neighbor bought a pedigreed Angus herd that produced 3 dwarf calves. Two were of the type that had a skeleton that didn't grow and they died of suffocation when they could no longer expand their lungs. The third calf was tiny, but uniformly so. It lived at least 3 years, when I lost track of the lady that bought it. Oklahoma State lists 9 different forms of dwarfism for Angus. There may be more. To date, there is only one for Dexters. Mixing genetics from Dexter and shorthorn for a couple of linebred generations produced a bull that was only 27" tall on his 3rd birthday. No breed makes bulls that small. It had to be the result of mixed genetics. As Hans pointed out, the snorter dwarf was quite common at one time. It was crossed from Hereford to Angus on purpose for a while. Later it was supposedly wiped out, but there surely must have been some still around. Snorter dwarf is unlike Dexter chondro. It is recessive, like almost all cattle dwarfing genes except for Dexter chondro. It sounds to me as if you rediscovered a snorter gene. If calves like you describe were common in Dexters, there most likely would never have been a Dexter breed. At one time, all of the short legged ones, what we now are calling chondro carriers, were called Dexters and the long legged ones were called Kerry type. Using that definition, all of the early Dexters were chondro carriers. Yet calves such as you had were not mentioned. It's sad that you had such a bad experience. I don't think you can expect to have it again, since the genetics that caused it most likely reside in both the bull and the cow. Breeding the cow to bulls other than short legged Dexters probably won't trigger it. Snorter dwarfism was recessive. It took two genes to make it express itself. The American Angus Association offers a test for snorter dwarfism, in case you want to have your cow tested. www.angusjournal.com/ArticlePDF/dwarfismtestavail.pdfBut why when I have bred over 100 Angus-Dexters I only get a snorter when the Dexter is a shortie? It surely has to be to do with the chondro Dexter cow! All other calves from non-shorts are really nice and completely normal. |
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Nov 16, 2012 14:50:40 GMT -5
Just had to make a correction or clarification on the below statement. Oklahoma State lists 9 different forms of dwarfism for Angus. There may be more. To date, there is only one for Dexters. Australia and New Zealand have two mutations for chondrodysplasia, type 1 and type 2. sydney.edu.au/vetscience/reprogen/downloads/Chondrodysplasia_info.pdfAs far as I know we do not have type 2 here in the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Nov 17, 2012 7:34:43 GMT -5
However, we do have a test for Dexter dwarfism, the chondrodysplasia form. It's inexpensive, too. I'm interested in what is going on with your Angus/Dexter cross. If you will send me tail hairs from the calf, I will have it tested for Dexter chondrodysplasia and give you the result. Then you will know if the bull was involved. All beefed I'm afraid including the bull. No, I've never tested any cows (but have my Dexter bulls) because I have so many calves. I rely on looks, calves and statistics. And all my cows are old and haven't changed much. But yes, it is possible that I could have a chondro that doesn't look like one, or vice-versa, but I really don't think so. All calves, without a single exception out of nearly 250, completely normal in every way with the single exception of this snorter calf, except of course the few that I have had out of cows that are clearly chondro, and with chondro in their breeding, i.e. known / tested carrier bulls. Bear in mind, I am using the word snorter without ever having seen or heard a snorter. I say snorter, because it sort of snorted, i.e. couldn't breath without making a sound a bit like someone snoring. Here's a fairly typical cow of the type I use. Not tested, and I know it's possible for her to be chondro, but how likely is that in reality?  |
|
