|
Post by kansasdexters on Nov 29, 2012 19:12:34 GMT -5
Kirk,
I understand why heterozygous carrier Dexters offer no financial advantage to a commercial beef producer like Clive and are therefore rejected by him. Clive is paid for his beef animals either by weight (as live animals at the sale barn) or by hanging weight (as carcass at the butcher), and the advantage here goes to the homozygous normal animal that is of a consistent and predictable weight and size. That's what is highly valued in a commercial beef operation. In order to maximize his profit, Clive doesn't register his Dexters and he doesn't pay for testing his Dexters, because both of those costs are not recoverable and do not add any value to his Dexter beef animals or Dexter x Angus crossbreeds. He can't sell them for more because they are registered or tested. He isn't paid based on pounds of meat per pound of carcass. His Angus crossbred animals with a heterozygous carrier Dexter were not better than his crosses with a homozygous normal Dexter. So in Clive's commercial beef operation (as in other commercial beef operations), a chondrodysplasia carrier does not offer any advantage.
The heterozygous Chondrodysplasia carrier offers the greatest advantage to the small land holder that wants to raise a few cows or steers to provide beef for personal use. This is the situation that Gene Bowen has. In that situation, a smaller carcass that takes less input to produce and that yields a sufficient quantity of high quality meat is valued. That is exactly the situation that many Dexter cattle owners in the United States specifically choose chondro-carrier Dexter cattle for.
The Dexter breed is unique in that it can serve well in both of these situations, since we have both homozygous normal Dexters and heterozygous carrier Dexters. However, if there is a successful effort to eliminate the Chondrodysplasia gene from the Dexter breed, we may actually lose the selective advantage and special niche that the heterozygous carrier, registered Dexter cattle have with the small land holders. That may be an unintended consequence of a policy that seeks to prohibit the Chondrodysplasia heterozygous carrier Dexters from registration in the Dexter breed.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 29, 2012 19:38:05 GMT -5
Another excellent post Patti...
Kirk, lets assume that we implement your chondro elimination plan and any chondro calves beyond 2018 can no longer be registered, and that we are commercial (or private) beef producers utilizing carrier cows with a nice registered non-carrier bull. Since 50% of offspring from these carrier cows are non-carriers, and 50% are heifers, how do you propose that any future progeny that are non-carrier heifers be registered out of a chondro cow that has not been allowed into the registry? Do you really believe the highest and best use of these non-carrier heifers is beef only?
That's the problem with your plan, notwithstanding the other comments that have been made on it.
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 29, 2012 20:12:24 GMT -5
You are going to have to check your facts before posting. Where do you get the figures that show Clive is "One of the world's largest Dexter beef producers"? Have you spoken with Clive before using him as an example? Do you have any idea how big his herd is? Are you aware of the preponderence of Angus in Clive's herd? Do you know that Clive does not register Dexter cattle and writes freely of the cross breeding he does. Here's one of Clive's postings in another thread 90 dexters 1 aberdeen angus bull 35 aberdeen angus x dexter crosses 3 jack russell dogs 1 norfolk terrier x jack russell dog 1 border collie sheep dog 20 chickens 350 sheep 450 lambs 2 miniature shetland ponies 4 proper horses 4 indian runner ducks and another posting from 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.
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 29, 2012 21:03:13 GMT -5
Kirk, lets assume that we implement your chondro elimination plan and any chondro calves beyond 2018 can no longer be registered, and that we are commercial (or private) beef producers utilizing carrier cows with a nice registered non-carrier bull. Since 50% of offspring from these carrier cows are non-carriers, and 50% are heifers, how do you propose that any future progeny that are non-carrier heifers be registered out of a chondro cow that has not been allowed into the registry? Do you really believe the highest and best use of these non-carrier heifers is beef only? That's the problem with your plan, notwithstanding the other comments that have been made on it. There are millions of excellent Angus cows in production herds that are NOT registerable for one reason or another. They make excellent brood cows but are not allowed back into the registry. Most of the unregistered girls go for beef, but the very very best are kept as replacement production brood cows. Under the proposal, those who want to breed purebred registerable true-breeding dexters would maintain a registered herd, and those who also want to do production experimentation with chondro would maintain a separate unregistered production herd. Many many folks in the angus world have registered herds and also unregistered production herds where they muck around with hybrid crosses. But why deal with all the complexities of hybridization? Why not just breed for a consistent compact true-breeding dexter herd that's all the same height and style that you prefer? I can tell you that all the hybrid complexity of chondros turns off many beginners. Go to any homesteader forum and ask folks what they think of hybrids.... They'll give you a thumbs down. Chondros are hybrids. True-breeding stock is simple and easy to manage and ALL the offspring are very much like the parents. With true-breeding stock (that's scrubbed of defect genes), you can do quite a bit of inbreeding, with no problems. So you can buy one bull and one cow and use the same bull on daughters and granddaughters and even great granddaughters... You can keep going as long as you're getting good results and eating the poor results, then you can swap your bull for another bull at some point in the future. That's the homesteading way of doing things with all your plants and animals. Most homesteaders want to keep it simple. That's why they prefer true-breeding stock.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Nov 29, 2012 21:39:46 GMT -5
Kirk,
A Chondro-carrier Dexter can produce two body types: a homozygous normal Dexter and a heterozygous Chondro-carrier Dexter. Anyone that desires to produce a uniform same-sized herd can choose to use only homozygous normal Dexters. Anyone that desires to produce both body types in their herd can choose to use heterozygous Chondro-carrier Dexters. Both of these can co-exist within the same breed registry and comprise a recognized breed of cattle. The Dexter breed is already accepted world-wide as a distinct cattle breed, and we really don't have to change this. Dexter breeders can choose what they want to breed from and that's a good thing for the breed.
The Poodle is a breed of dog that comes in three sizes: Standard, Miniature, and Toy. The Poodle is considered to be the same breed, regardless of it's size. It also comes in various colors, and it's still considered to be the same breed, regardless of it's color.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Nov 29, 2012 22:27:43 GMT -5
Kirk, In their fiscal year of 2012 the American Angus Association registered 315,007 head of Angus cattle. Of these, nearly 10% were embryo transfers and almost 160,000 were AI-sired. In contrast, 3.24 million black-hided cattle were accepted for the certified Angus beef brand in 2012. So, the Angus Association actually registered less than 10% of the certified Angus animals in 2012. That means that a vast majority of Angus cattle produced in the United States are not registered. Here is a link to the latest release of info on the Angus breed: www.angus.org/pub/newsroom/releases/102212_AngusBreedRemainsSteadfastinFiscalYear2012.htmlIf the Angus Association implemented a policy to eliminate genetic defects in registered Angus cattle by refusing registrations of animals that test as carriers, that policy only affects a small percentage of the Angus cattle population in the United States. So how effective do you think that approach will be in actually eliminating the undesirable genetic defects from the overall Angus cattle population in the United States? It might be successful in reducing the number of Angus registrations, but I don't see it as being an effective approach to reducing and eliminating any of the genetic defects that are found within the overall Angus cattle population in the United States. If you really want to reduce the number of Dexter cattle registered each year, then just follow the Angus Association's approach. If we truly want to eliminate genetic defects like PHA from the Dexter population, then we want a policy that provides breeder education and that encourages testing, reporting, and registration of carrier animals. Because if we don't test, report, and register our carrier animals, we can't effectively track and eventually reduce genetic defects that may occur within our breed. We can't manage what we don't measure. Rejecting carrier animals from registration doesn't make them go away, it just hides them more effectively. Patti
|
|
jamshundred
member
Help build the Legacy Dexter Cattle "Forever" Genotype database
Posts: 289
|
Post by jamshundred on Nov 29, 2012 23:53:17 GMT -5
PHA was known and publically referenced by the owner of a non-chondro cow who had a "bulldog" calf in 2002 in the USA although there were members of the association ( later in plural) who were fully aware of this new defect but the membership was never advised nor were there any requests for information relating to aborted animals from non-carrier cattle.
The Woodmagic herd and the Doesmead herds in England had very high death rates in the 1970's. There were several instances of "long-leg monsters" reported. The English herd books listed every cow in the herd along with the calving record so the records are there.
It is also reported that an earlier AI bull was a carrier of hydrocephalis. Whether this was actually PHA or a seperate condition I do not know. That animal was from the Canwell herd.
There may be another defect resembling chondro and/or PHA currently as there are reports in the UK of calves believed to be waterbabies that did not confirm PHA.
The one thing that is little understood in the US as to the UK herd is the significant amoung of upgrading that took place there from the mid 40's until just a few years ago. Some of those records I have published on my website and lots more have been compiled I just have not uploaded them. ANY breed of cattle could be bred to a Dexter and the female offspring recorded in the English herdbook as appendix A. And ALL breeds wereused. Imported semen to the US from the English herd could be carrying defects found in Angus, Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey, Ayeshire, and others because these are all animals that were used in the upgrading registry and those records, to the best of my knowledge, have only been compiled by me so there is little knowledge of the pedigree ancestry of modern animals unless it is charted backwards.
Clive, when you discuss the various issues in your herd, this is something you should consider as well as the outcrossing you do for the meat market. The Dexters you are using likely have other breeds in their bloodlines.
Judy
Judy
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 30, 2012 4:57:35 GMT -5
Exactly.
And Kirk, some of us don't want to simultaneously run registered and non-registered herds. Furthermore, it wouldn't be accurate unless there is a requirement for both sire and dam genotyping, because the opportunity for mischief is too great due to the differrence in value and marketability between registered and non-registered animals, especially females.
You've just opened up a can of worms, and an even bigger and more immediate threat to the breed.
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 30, 2012 5:23:19 GMT -5
Kirk, So, the Angus Association actually registered less than 10% of the certified Angus animals in 2012. That means that a vast majority of Angus cattle produced in the United States are not registered. If the Angus Association implemented a policy to eliminate genetic defects in registered Angus cattle by refusing registrations of animals that test as carriers, that policy only affects a small percentage of the Angus cattle population in the United States. So how effective do you think that approach will be in actually eliminating the undesirable genetic defects from the overall Angus cattle population in the United States? If you really want to reduce the number of Dexter cattle registered each year, then just follow the Angus Association's approach. If we truly want to eliminate genetic defects like PHA from the Dexter population, then we want a policy that provides breeder education and that encourages testing, reporting, and registration of carrier animals. Because if we don't test, report, and register our carrier animals, we can't effectively track and eventually reduce genetic defects that may occur within our breed. We can't manage what we don't measure. Rejecting carrier animals from registration doesn't make them go away, it just hides them more effectively. Patti A PURE-BREED cattle registry serves an important purpose as the keeper of the PURIFIED seedstock. Production herds, on the other hand, serve a purpose of maximizing pounds of beef. Most production herds don't want to worry about DNA testing, nor registration. Most production herds have a mishmash of genetics. The majority of the cows that are creating "certified angus beef" calves are only a smallish percentage of Angus and many moms aren't Angus at all. CAB requires that the slaughter beef cattle be 50% or more Back Angus... It also REQUIRES that the sire be a REGISTERED Black Angus. A PURE breed isn't just a bunch of mutts with papers and messy genetics, and PURE doesn't necessarily mean never having had another breed in the pedigree for 500 years. PURE means purified, and that should mean purified of genetic disease, and pure also means containing MANY MANY MANY homozygous pairs of desirable genes. Being heterozygous for important features is a NO-NO in a PURE breed. It's NOT pure if it has too much heterozygosity (that's why chondro's can never be part of a truly PURE breed - they CAN'T be homozygous). The number one most important role of a pure-breed is to create defect/disease-free, homozygously excellent bulls to be used by the production herds. If the bull has been sire/daughter progeny tested as defect/disease free, then it doesn't matter if the production herd is swimming in recessive disease genes or not. A stunning, homozygously pure, defect free bull can breed huge herds with nearly a zero percentage chance of having defective calves (regardless of the Moms' status), while at the same time, stamping his homozygously prepotent excellence on the entire calf crop. So the Angus folks just need to remove diseases from the registered herd. The non-registered herd doesn't need to worry about it as long as they use clean, registered bulls (which is a requirement of CAB). If we were to implement a policy of no-new-registrations for dexter defect carrying calves, I actually agree that we might not want to move quickly on that. I'd propose that we pick a future date like 2018 or 2020 or 2022 to start rejecting carrier calves and that would help us gather information and educate breeders concerning the carriers and give everyone PLENTY of time to learn and prepare. But, if we really want a PURE breed, then we've got to do some purification sooner or later. Pretty pedigrees alone, doesn't mean they're purified.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 30, 2012 6:11:24 GMT -5
Kirk, go start your own registry then and take all your polled red Dexters with you for your "pure" breed. We'll see if in 10 years I'll be begging you to let me in to your exclusive club.
|
|
|
Post by marion on Nov 30, 2012 8:22:30 GMT -5
Leaving the dwarfism issues aside for now ;D ...observe how in the three years we have known about PHA, breeders have divided into two camps: those who wish to eliminate PHA and those who have decided that PHA can be 'managed' and thereby perpetuated in the breed. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Nov 30, 2012 8:36:49 GMT -5
Posted by lakeportfarms on Today at 4:11am Kirk, go start your own registry then and take all your polled red Dexters with you for your "pure" breed. We'll see if in 10 years I'll be begging you to let me in to your exclusive club.
Lakeportfrms, This was meant to be a informational thread. I have learned more in the past few weeks, then I ever have in the years since I started reading this board. I have every right to read it without the constant back handed comments that are frequenting here. Is there some reason you just cant seem to help youself from being RUDE? Its getting really OLD.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Nov 30, 2012 8:43:09 GMT -5
Marion,
I believe that you are making some incorrect assumptions. Because by testing, reporting and registering PHA-carriers, I believe that we have the best chance of eliminating PHA from the breed. I am following that course and my herd will be PHA-free within 5 years. Since I have tested, reported, and registered my herd, it could actually be PHA-free in 1 year, but I would lose some valuable genetics that I think are worth salvaging. I don't sell PHA-carriers, but I do test, report, and register them and I will breed them for a limited period in order to keep what is worth keeping. That is not "sad" and that is not perpetuating a genetic defect, it is an honest and practical approach to the problem.
Hiyu Rosegay is a PHA-carrier (but she was not reported to the registry), and her son, Brightlea Benjamin (one of Kirk's favorites) is PHA non-carrier. If Hiyu Rosegay had been denied registration for being a PHA-carrier, then Brightlea Benjamin would not have been eligible for registration (since his dam would not have been registered). So ask yourself, is the Dexter breed better off with him or without him? Would denying Hiyu Rosegay's registration have benefited the Dexter breed? Hiyu Rosegay is Carol Davidson's best-ever, never to be sold, Dexter cow. She is the dam of several outstanding PHA-free registered Dexter bulls. None of those animals would have been eligible for registration if Hiyu Rosegay had been denied registration.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by Olga on Nov 30, 2012 9:05:07 GMT -5
I don't think this kind of set-up would work in the US at this time. US production herds keep shrinking to the smallest size they've ever been due to droughts and high feed prices. My guess is that the majority of present small Dexter herds is operating on a nearly zero profit basis and possibly in the negative. In other words, many Dexter owners keep their Dexters for the love of the breed and not much else. Not to mention that Dexters aren't recognized as a beef breed by any meat buyers and cannot be sold for profit at any cattle auction. None of this mainstream approach to Dexters would work here and now.
I agree with Patti on the value of carrier animals. Thinking about the past of the Dexter breed, can you imagine how many excellent animals have descended from carrier animals? For generations, none of the animals were tested for anything. And if you look at all n-thousands of Dexters here in the US now and find some really good ones - chances are they have carriers of some "defect" in their background. It is just that the modern tools of genetic testing give us an advantage now, so we can make informed decisions about breeding.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Nov 30, 2012 9:06:13 GMT -5
Elemental,
It's not an informational thread. If you want information, read Patti's (and Gary's) posts over and over again. If you want to participate in the constant bad-mouthing of chondro Dexters under the guise of "Genetic Defect Elimination Policy" then by all means take Kirk's position and breed your herd accordingly, while leaving the rest of us free to choose the REGISTERED Dexters we wish to breed without the threat of elimination from the herd book, whether it's 5, 10, or 50 years from now.
Every single one (11) of our chondro carriers is in the list of 327 or so in the entire registry. We also are responsible for 11 out of 174 results when searching for PHA negative/Chondro positive in the registry. I'm not hiding anything.
Every single one of our herd has been tested for both chodrodysplasia AND PHA.
|
|