|
Post by Olga on Nov 30, 2012 20:30:56 GMT -5
Kirk, please don't think I'm trying to shut you up or hush up the subject. But after combined 17 pages of discussion, don't you think it's time for you to get proactive? Why don't you contact the ADCA membership, find out how you can organize a committee to research the general membership's opinion on the subject of changing registration procedure and get a proposal ready for the AGM. The AGM is in June and you might just have enough time to get this thing on the agenda. Haven't we chewed on this subject enough?
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Nov 30, 2012 20:56:52 GMT -5
Kirk, please don't think I'm trying to shut you up or hush up the subject. But after combined 17 pages of discussion, don't you think it's time for you to get proactive? Why don't you contact the ADCA membership, find out how you can organize a committee to research the general membership's opinion on the subject of changing registration procedure and get a proposal ready for the AGM. The AGM is in June and you might just have enough time to get this thing on the agenda. Haven't we chewed on this subject enough? I agree. As far as the ADCA is concerned, I'll discuss it with our new northwest regional director as soon as they are named in coming weeks and then go from there. I hope that other folks in other world-wide associations will do the same with their leadership. With semen being shipped world-wide, this is a breed-wide issue.
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Nov 30, 2012 22:52:30 GMT -5
Kirk I am sorry for the confusion with my post. I'll be more clear. It is so difficult to have a good discussion in just writing. I am a face to face person. I like seeing the other persons expressions and body language. This makes meanings more clear and much fewer misconceptions.
Here goes: At first (from prior post) I thought you were for finding middle ground, working together, getting along, live and let live. (This was from your first response to my post about the two camps we dexter owners seem to find ourselves in.) This was my first impression. My second was when you started with the True Short/Anti-Chondro stance. Please understand you are entitled to your own beliefs and goals. Everyone is. But you seemed pretty heavy handed about it. The arguments became real and you said some very raw remarks to fellow members. Lawn ornaments? Chondro infected? Hmm Still smarts. Points were taken out of context, or just ignored. You are not an easy person to have a true discussion with. You are a good talker but I do question if you are also listening.
People here do not want to continually fight. Strife is not good. It is not good for us as individuals and it is certainly not good for the dexter breed as a whole. The people who have read these threads who were thinking of our breed, many are certainly re-thinking this decision. I know I sure would. (If I did not know better) But see that is the point. I do know better. A friend reminded me today that if people just sit back and allow misinformation and half truths to go out there without rebuttal they will become the "New Truths'. This should be unacceptable to us all. One man's opinion is just that. one man's opinion. We have many on this board. Some right. Some wrong. Personally I think you do have some good ideas, But some pretty bad ones too. Remember though this is one woman's opinion and just like you I have a right to it.
My confusion on this thread is essentially what is the true purpose? Your true purpose? You are the author of the thread. You started this thread and a couple others too. That is why I asked you personally. You have a consensus on many of your points. But this does not seem to please you. You seem to have a sticking point, a must have that everything keeps coming back to. There is agreement among members that some of your points are definitely worthwhile goals. Even essential to building a strong herd. The need for testing and identifying carrier animals, Parentage testing to be sure there are no accidents. A plan should be set in place, a type of protocol for new genetic defects or anomalies so that if they do arise they can be quickly dealt with. Such a protocol could possibly have prevented the PHA we are now dealing with. You say you are concerned with these possible (as yet unknown) new threats and we must all jump in to your whole plan. Some of us are saying, wait, slow down here. This whole plan is not correct. It is not best for the breed. We will accept parts but we will not accept the whole thing.
As I said before, we as a forum, as a membership, as a registry, do not agree that chondroplasia is a genetic defect that should be bred out of dexters. We do NOT agree that chondro carriers should be left out of the registry now or at anytime in the future. We will not allow this and we will fight it to the end. We are Not fighting you or any other members. We will fight this agenda.
So my confusion: Are you going after the future genetic issues? Or is this a veiled attempt to go after Chondroplasia?
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Dec 1, 2012 0:30:03 GMT -5
You know there is something else bothering me about this thread. Kirk I have another question for you.
Genetic Defect Elimination Policy Sounds good, The name I mean. I mean who wouldn't be behind a policy to help us eliminate genetic defects. You'd have to be crazy not to fall in line and believe that this is a good thing. Not only a good thing but a necessary thing. But Wait..... Don't jump on just yet. Let's stop and think here for a minute.
What got me thinking was the hairless cat comment and what was the other one, mule footed pigs or something like that. A little condescending but let's move on.
Dexters are an established breed, an old breed. The breed characteristics are written down for all to read. Pretty cut and dry really.
You talk about genetic defects. Genes that have copied themselves incorrectly. An accident. A broken gene or perhaps genes. You said bulls make thousands upon thousands of sperm and things happen. Not all are perfect. And the cows too. The ova could be damaged, incorrect as well. Genetic defects happen and in the event they produce viable offspring these defects can be passed on through the generations if not prevented. PHA for example. Cats can be born hairless and pass this on. Pigs with malformed feet. I live in deer country. We occasionally will see white deer here. Some white, some just patchy. I saw one last week. But they are very rare. They are genetic mistakes. A white deer in the wild will not live very long. This genetic anomaly is very detrimental to the deer. They don't blend in well, stick out like a sore thumb. You can see them clear across the mountain. Not good if you are a deer.
You are correct. Genetic defects do happen. We talk of PHA and chondro but others have happened. But they have not been addressed in this discussion. What about polled? Cats being born without fur, dexters being born without horns, pigs being born with misshapen feet etc. It all fits together.
Now please everyone please do not be offended or become angry with me. I am not putting down polled dexters. This is not the intention of my posting. I am trying to make a point. Please have patience and hear me out to the end. It is not my aim to bring any further strife into this discussion it is to make people think so they can make a true informed decision on this subject.
Dexters historically are horned cattle. When I was doing my research before I decided on dexters I read this everywhere. In all the publications everywhere. I was very surprised to find naturally polled dexters existed. Here me out.
Polled dexters are a recent event. I learned that a bull named Saltaire Platinum was imported by Fred Chasterley. The polled dexters in this country are his decedents. I was interested and read more. From Dexter4U..... The bull's grand dam is believed to represent a fresh mutation. A fresh mutation is a term used to describe an animal who carries a genetic variation not found in his parents. Platinum's grandmother had two horned parents but had no horns. This is impossible except in the instance of a fresh mutation in the animal's DNA.
This is a genetic defect. A broken gene. Just what we are describing and discussing. Now this particular broken gene caused a mutation. The offspring was viable and passed this new genetic code to its offspring. Naturally Polled Dexter's. It does not matter what your personal views are on polled dexters they are the result of a genetic mistake. A broken gene. This particular broken gene (hornlessness) found favor with many dexter breeders and was perpetuated. Others looked on it as a terrible defect that should not be included in a horned cattle breed.
Whatever your personal views polled dexter cattle are here and seem to be here to stay. They have a very strong following and are loved by many. They do have some good attributes for the farmer, but in the wild would be a definite disadvantage to the animal. Just like the white deer they would not survive and thrive near as well as their horned ancestors.
I wonder, Let's move forward a few decades. If we institute the wrong Genetic Defect Elimination Policy and enforce it. What would happen if this scenario had not happened then but happened now. In this new time frame. Horned mama cow drops hornless calf. First ever. We have a genetic defect!!!!
So by this reasoning (not mine - just facts) we are now perpetuating a genetic mistake in our dexter cattle. We are not just perpetuating we are promoting. Think of the AI bull selection we have. Look for yourselves. Who will meet the criteria. If we do as Kirk proposes all polled cattle in the dexter breed are now labeled genetic defects. The same as PHA carriers, Chondro carriers, Polled carriers.....Labeled as Undesirables. Do you see what I mean. The breeding and registering restrictions will be for genetic defective cattle. You will be in the same unwanted boat. Crazy HUH!! You see guys. This is what we are talking about here.
Let's go further... Genetic Defective animals (if we buy into this plan) will no longer be registered. OK. But don't worry you will be given a period of time to breed out this unwanted genetic defect. A period of time to breed out exactly what you wanted. To breed out what you love in YOUR dexters. Hopefully in that time period you will be able to breed replacements for your affected animals. Their registrations will not be revoked but you will not be able to register any offspring carrying this defect. Only those animals found clear will be eligible for registration. The rest will be good for beef. After all that is what they are worth now that they are "genetic defects" Those with heterozygous polled animals will have a chance to breed replacements, but those unlucky to own the homozygous animals will find their animals only good for beef. No better than grades. Only usable as beef producers since they cannot reproduce unaffected offspring. These owner/breeders will be hit the hardest. But I believe if I remember correctly reading that there is no compensation for genetically defective animals.
OK So here we are. Now what!!!!
Kirk, I was on your web site. You breed animals that will be labeled genetic defects. Just think those animals you were so proud of this morning, loved and cared for are now labeled defective. Smarts a bit.
Perhaps for the good of everyone we should stop and breathe, tone down the language and rethink this whole thing before we open a whole mess of worms we can't close up. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Dec 1, 2012 6:06:22 GMT -5
Thank you wvdexters, very well articulated. I recall you have some chondro-carrier Dexters. Everybody else, do we really want to lose wvdexters (and many others like her) from posting either on this forum, or from the Dexter community? What will we have left if that happens?
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 1, 2012 6:27:24 GMT -5
You know there is something else bothering me about this thread. Kirk I have another question for you. Genetic Defect Elimination Policy Sounds good, The name I mean. I mean who wouldn't be behind a policy to help us eliminate genetic defects. You'd have to be crazy not to fall in line and believe that this is a good thing. Not only a good thing but a necessary thing. But Wait..... Don't jump on just yet. Let's stop and think here for a minute. You talk about genetic defects. Genes that have copied themselves incorrectly. An accident. A broken gene or perhaps genes. You said bulls make thousands upon thousands of sperm and things happen. Not all are perfect. And the cows too. They are genetic mistakes. That's true, in fact most domestic breeds of plants and animals are made from lots of "defects". Most domestic plants and animals would die in the wild (or change back to their wild forms). Did you know the color black in Dexters is a defect of the original E+ (wildtype red) color found in all original cattle? Dun too is a defect. But we're not talking about cosmetic defects in this thread.... Here's where we discussed this above: I hate to continue this BUT....Where do you draw the line when it comes to genetic defects/mutations.. There are people out there that would take that and run with it in an attempt to remove any condition they feel has or had been brought about by a genetic defect/mutation. Just wondering where the line in the sand would be? ?? The list of serious genetic defects usually contains ALL lethal genes and any genes that interfere with important biological functions that cause deformity and pain and illness. This list has links to information about each defect. It's interesting to note that they list Double Muscling as a "defect". But it's because the calves are so large that the mothers cannot give birth without exceptional assistance. www.cdnangus.ca/breed/Genetic_Defects.htm
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 1, 2012 6:57:49 GMT -5
Thank you wvdexters, very well articulated. I recall you have some chondro-carrier Dexters. Everybody else, do we really want to lose wvdexters (and many others like her) from posting either on this forum, or from the Dexter community? What will we have left if that happens? It would be a real shame to lose anyone. Any policy changes need to occur very slowly and with lots of time and education and assistance to help breeders gradually wean themselves off of lethal genes and move toward the short kind of dexters that they love, but without the lethal/arthritic/problematic genetics. Are you proposing that we exclude ALL forms of lethal dwarfism, from a Defect Elimination Policy? There will be an ENDLESS accumulating list of dwarfism gene variants over time, some more hideous than others. We could see 6 additional forms of chondrodsyplasia and 20 forms of other lethal dwarfism types in coming decades. Do we embrace them all simply because they have dwarfing effects that a few folks might want to experiment with? Would we exclude (from the policy) any defect that was related to dwarfism at all? How would you propose we word such an exclusion? Would the exclusion be fair to others who want exclusions for their serious defect of choice? Give it a shot, propose some exclusion wording.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Dec 1, 2012 7:17:40 GMT -5
Kirk, I think as Olga has said that at some point this thread has run it's course. You've made your points, others happen to disagree, some agree. Take it up with the ADCA if you so choose, but I'd prefer you didn't waste their time as you've wasted ours, since you're so intractable that you can't accept anything less than 100% of your own opinion.
Regarding the language for the multitude of genetic defects and untold forms of dwarfism that will express themselves over the course of however many years, I'm not going to perpetuate this thread any longer, for there is no answer that I would give that you would find acceptable (see above paragraph).
The problem is that you are trying to play God.
There, I said it. Hopefully Olga doesn't ban me, for I generally like most everybody here.
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Dec 1, 2012 13:26:45 GMT -5
Kirk, interesting reply to my post and questions. You agreed with what I had restated from your prior posts. Well I guess this is a start. But let's discuss.
You had no comment on my point that Polled Dexter Cattle will be labeled as Genetic Defects and therefore must be eradicated from the Dexter Herd if your plan is implemented.
You have painted a scary future for us with unknown genetic problems lurking around the corner. You brought hairless cats, and mule footed pigs into this discussion as examples of possible genetic defects we should guard against in the dexter gene pool. You even had pictures of the affected animals to bring your point home. Very impressive. But.......
Your earlier post on this thread:
"We will find all sorts of interesting defects in the future and some breeders might choose to capitalize on them. The hairless defect has been capitalized on by many breeders in other species. (the pictured cat above is a show winner). The mulefoot defect has an entire pig breed based on it (mule foot hogs). Our standards say nothing about disallowing defects. Will we allow them, or not? Will we (all dexter registries) work on a policy that addresses defects or not?'
Hmm........ Hairless Cats & Hornless Dexters..... Both are genetic defects by your definition. That is IF we all buy into YOUR definitions and follow Your posts. Remembers YOURS, NOT MINE!!! Facts are facts. No emotion here...
This slope does get slipperier by the moment.
My questions are still here. What do we do??? I for one do not want to see these fine dexters in all our herds labeled defective and unwanted. What a loss.
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 1, 2012 15:58:23 GMT -5
Kirk, interesting reply to my post and questions. You agreed with what I had restated from your prior posts. Well I guess this is a start. But let's discuss. You had no comment on my point that Polled Dexter Cattle will be labeled as Genetic Defects and therefore must be eradicated from the Dexter Herd if your plan is implemented. My questions are still here. What do we do??? As Olga suggested, I'm ready (a page or two ago) to close this thread and to take proposals to leadership of registries, but feel I should respond to any lingering DIRECT questions. Again, regarding any mostly cosmetic mutated genes like the color "Black" which is a "defect" of the E+ wildtype coloration gene, or "Dun" which is a defect of "Full Black", or "polled" which is a defect of the wild-type horned condition..... they are considered mostly cosmetic mutant variations that have no serious negative side effects. A serious Genetic Defect Elimination Policy would not impact those cosmetic mutations (but the standards/breed description may choose to address cosmetic mutations). Again, the list of serious genetic defects usually contains ALL lethal genes and any other genes that interfere with important biological functions that cause deformity and pain and illness and dysfunction. This below link has links to information about each serious defect tracked by the largest cattle registries on earth. I'd propose (to all Dexter registries) that we SLOWLY follow the lead of the LARGEST cattle registries on earth, who have already done extensive work on this. www.cdnangus.ca/breed/Genetic_Defects.htm
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Dec 1, 2012 17:17:07 GMT -5
Kirk, I found the following link to the American Angus Association Policy on Genetic Defects: www.angus.org/Pub/brg_part3.pdf(see page 58) Apparently, the Angus Association likes the double muscling "defective gene", as long as it occurs in the heterozygous form and not in the homozygous form. They will register carriers of this defect, both male and female, and their carrier offspring (even without testing). It is only the offspring that are homozygous for the double muscling defect that are ineligible for registration. Apparently, if the offspring from carriers are homozygous for this trait, it's easy to identify them, and deny them registration as purebred Angus. (Dexters that are homozygous for Chondrodysplasia are born dead, so they don't need a pedigree certificate either.) The Angus Association's genetic defect elimination policy is a "work in progress". It's already been amended twice, in less than two years. The success of their approach to actually eliminating any genetic defects from their breed has yet to be determined. It does appear that they initiated their efforts in this area by testing, reporting, and registering carrier animals. That first baby step was crucial, in order for the information to be included on the pedigrees in the first place. It is very interesting to see that they are giving special consideration to the double muscling mutation, perhaps it offers a selective advantage in the heterozygous form, so it's okay with the Angus folks to register those carrier cows and carrier bulls. I found a 1970's article from UC-Davis that indicates a 10% to 20% greater yield on carcass from heterozygotes of the double muscle gene. Hmmmmm, guess if it makes money for the Angus folks, a defective gene is peachy keen! They don't want to "purify" the Angus breed of that gene! Patti
|
|
|
Post by rhonda on Dec 1, 2012 18:08:54 GMT -5
There is some confusion between a "registered Angus" and a "Certified Angus". The Certified Angus program is the runaway success. It involves cattle that are 50% Angus, have black hides and are polled. Except that black baldies are also included. My friend with the Dangus calves sells them as Certified Angus if he doesn;t have a direct sale. Using Angus as a pattern to model Dexters after is bad. Angus cattle have suffered greatly since they went away from the Aberdeen Angus that was originally imported to the US. The first Angus I ever saw was very similar to a Dexter in temperament and size. The almighty dollar molded them to into the ill-tempered oversized grain eaters that they are today. If we put our mind to it, we can manage to keep our Dexters as the very best choice for a small landowner. You are not going to do it by tweaking and changing and using a committee's brain to replace what a horde of Irish peasants created. Dexters are the best because they were selected from every type and manner of cattle available, then standardized. They've been nearly constant for a hundred years. Introducing even a single change now could ruin the work of all those people and deny our gentle little cattle to all the potential owners. What will you be able to tell a prospective new owner that has been drawn by the glowing descriptions of Dexter cattle? That you don't do it that way any more? That you have decided that they should do it a different way? That your new and improved Dexters are really best for them and they are idiots for thinking otherwise? I don't think so. I think the people know what they want. You don't. Don't monkey around with the best little breed of cattle available to smallholders. Go mess with Angus, if you must. You can't do them much harm. I so agree with you on this Gene!!
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 1, 2012 19:14:02 GMT -5
Kirk, I found the following link to the American Angus Association Policy on Genetic Defects: www.angus.org/Pub/brg_part3.pdf(see page 58) Apparently, the Angus Association likes the double muscling "defective gene", as long as it occurs in the heterozygous form and not in the homozygous form. They will register carriers of this defect, both male and female, and their carrier offspring (even without testing). It is only the offspring that are homozygous for the double muscling defect that are ineligible for registration. Apparently, if the offspring from carriers are homozygous for this trait, it's easy to identify them, and deny them registration as purebred Angus. (Dexters that are homozygous for Chondrodysplasia are born dead, so they don't need a pedigree certificate either.) The Angus Association's genetic defect elimination policy is a "work in progress". It's already been amended twice, in less than two years. The success of their approach to actually eliminating any genetic defects from their breed has yet to be determined. It does appear that they initiated their efforts in this area by testing, reporting, and registering carrier animals. That first baby step was crucial, in order for the information to be included on the pedigrees in the first place. It is very interesting to see that they are giving special consideration to the double muscling mutation, perhaps it offers a selective advantage in the heterozygous form, so it's okay with the Angus folks to register those carrier cows and carrier bulls. I found a 1970's article from UC-Davis that indicates a 10% to 20% greater yield on carcass from heterozygotes of the double muscle gene. Hmmmmm, guess if it makes money for the Angus folks, a defective gene is peachy keen! They don't want to "purify" the Angus breed of that gene! Patti Sure, double muscling is one of the border-line defects. The Canadian's have excluded double muscling because it leads to a much HIGHER rate of calving difficulties (killing moms and calves). For the American Angus herd, most all heifers need a great deal of assistance in calving anyway, so the Americans may be willing to put up with more calving difficulties to get just a little more meat. One of the things I LOVE about dexters, is that you DON'T REALLY need all the high-tech modern stuff like liquid-nitrogen for AI, nor high-tech DNA testing, nor calf-pulling equipment, nor chemical wormers, nor shots, nor vets. I don't even bother with heavy handling equipment. All I need is a rope halter for the most part and a gun for culling, and a knife for removing meat from a carcass. Dexter bulls are VERY easy to keep and heifers easily have calves with almost zero problems. You could randomly pick any cows and any bull from my herd, take them to a new homestead in the wilderness, let them breed for 60 years in a closed herd and expect 99% live thriving calves (keeping the best and and eating the rest). When you throw double muscling or chondro into the mix, it hugely complicates things for homesteaders. Homesteaders HATE hybrid plants and hybrid animals because they don't breed true. You can get all sorts of data showing the benefits of hybrid corn, and hybrid tomatoes, and hybrid chickens, but homesteaders don't want them because they don't breed true and they are too high-tech. Dexters are the BEST homestead cow, because they are simple and easy and true-breeding (unless you complicate them with potentially lethal genes with complex hybrid breeding rules, and DNA testing). I agree that we should move slowly in implementing a genetic defect policy (but we may want to implement some parts (like defect reporting) sooner, than later.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Dec 1, 2012 20:59:53 GMT -5
So, if Kirk gets his way, who's going to tell Wikipedia?
Dexter cattle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dexter cattle are the smallest of the European cattle breeds, being about half the size of a traditional Hereford and about one third the size of a Friesian (Holstein) milking cow. They were considered a rare breed of cattle, until recently, but are now considered a recovering breed by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. The Dexter breed originated in Ireland.[1] Contents [hide] 1 History and description 2 Traits 3 Growing popularity 4 See also 5 References 6 External links [edit]History and description
The Dexter breed originated in southwestern Ireland from which it was brought to England in 1882. The breed virtually disappeared in Ireland, but was still maintained as a pure breed in a number of small herds in England. The Dexter is a small breed with mature cows weighing between 600–700 pounds (270–320 kg) and mature bulls weighing about 1,000 pounds (450 kg). Considering their small size, the body is wide and deep with a well-rounded hindquarter. Although usually black, a dark-red or dun Dexter is sometimes found. All animals are always solid, with only very minor white marking on the udder or behind the navel. Horns are rather small and thick and grow outward with a forward curve on the male and upward on the cow. The breed is typically a dual-purpose type, although individual herd owners often concentrated on growing either a beef or a milk animal.[2] [edit]Traits
Dexters are classified as a dual-purpose breed; used for milk and beef. However they are often listed as a triple-purpose breed, since they are also used for oxen. Management practices vary by breeder and by country. Their versatility is one of their greatest assets, and probably has something to do with the number of countries Dexter cattle are found, including North America, South Africa, Australia, and much of Europe. In the U.K., Dexters are often reared on a purely grass diet to about 3 years of age. However, as a result of concerns over BSE, the British government introduced legislation effectively banning the sale and use of animals over 30 months in age. This has meant that in some cases, steers (castrated male cattle) may need some supplement feeding to "finish" them before the 30 months are up. An animal that is not properly "finished" tends to not have enough fat on the carcass. Beef animals in the U.S. are expected to mature in 18 months and result in small cuts of high quality lean meat, graded US Choice, with little waste. The expectable average dress out is 50 to 70 percent. The beef produced by Dexters is well marbled and tends to be darker.[3] Dexters produce a rich milk, relatively high in butterfat (4%) and the quality of the milk overall is similar to that of the Jersey. Some claim the milk is more naturally homogenised than other milk due to the smaller fat globules. Dexters can reasonably be expected to produce 2 to 2.5 gallons (7.6 to 9.5 liters) per day. The cows are exceptionally good mothers, hiding their calves almost from birth if there is any cover for them to hide. They will produce enough milk to feed 2-3 calves, and often will willingly nurse calves from other cows. They are known for easy calving. This trait, along with the small size of the calf, has produced a small but growing market in the United States for Dexter bulls to breed to first calf heifers among the larger beef breeds to eliminate problems at parturition. Dexters come in two different types: short-legged and long-legged. Short-legged animals are more likely to be carriers of the chondrodysplasia, or "bulldog" mutation and should not be bred with another short-legged Dexter. Long-legged Dexters are less likely to carry the mutation.[4] Dexters are typically horned, however a polled strain was developed in the 1990s.[5] [edit]Growing popularity
Once very rare in both the U.K. and the U.S., Dexters have been enjoying a resurgence in both countries, with over 4,100 Dexter cows registered in 2007 by the Dexter Cattle Society in the U.K. - double the figure for 2000.[6] "With high food prices, they are actually quite an attractive option if you like producing your own food,” said Sue Farrant, owner of four Dexters.[6] "Both my husband and I have full-time jobs so we’re keeping them on the side as an interest. They do largely look after themselves and they’ve been hugely popular with the children." [6] The popularity of Dexters has been fueled by a desire for organic food, health concerns over factory farming, and soaring food prices.[6] "The government has no interest in where our food comes from or how it tastes, so it’s nice to set your own welfare and quality standards,” said poet and songwriter Pam Ayres, who has a small herd of Dexters on her 20-acre (81,000 m2) Cotswolds property.[6] "If you’ve got a bit of land, a breed like the Dexter can work out a lot cheaper than the supermarket, plus they do a pretty good job of mowing the lawn."[7] [edit]See also
|
|
jamshundred
member
Help build the Legacy Dexter Cattle "Forever" Genotype database
Posts: 289
|
Post by jamshundred on Dec 1, 2012 21:25:00 GMT -5
<<Judy posts pretty obsesive stuff about pro-chondro. She boasts about breeding chondro carriers together. Not one of her animals regsitered in the ADCA has a carrier status listed. just spent the time to check her Legacy database, and her animals don't have chondro status there, either....<<
You bet. I AM pretty obsessive when it comes to adoring the chondro carriers. I have 20 years living with them, so I speak from knowledge and experience when I say they are the best all around Dexters. How about you? What backs up your commentary? As to listing carrier status. I will if I want to or feel a need to or even decide to test. I'm pretty up front. I tell everyone to consider every animal in my herd to be carriers. Period. Even the non-carriers. If some one wants a test, I am happy to test. If i want to know for sure and there is a doubt I will test. So, let me reiterate so it is clear for you. Consider EVERY animal in my herd a carrier, then you don't have to look any of them up. Kind of amusing that you did though. Talk about obsessive. LOL - I think even in this point you are not accurate. Pretty sure a couple at least are marked carriers. The only people who need to be concerned would be a potential buyer and since I am famous for giving too much information rather than too little or selling someone else's cows instead of my own. . . you need not fret.
I guess it's all about saying but not doing.
Show me the "saying". Bout time you had to pony up some documentation. Leave out DNA. That I encourage with every fiber of my being. Now if I was a real meanie I would go back in your face and ask some very pointed questions regarding an animal of yours that raises a lot of questions in "my" thinking. But I am not a meanie. At least not tonight.
If that's what you want to breed, it's not going to be me that stops you. Darn right. Kinda slow on the uptake though. 8 years to figure that out?
Judy
|
|