|
Post by cddexter on Dec 1, 2012 21:40:31 GMT -5
please see new thread under General: Judy. cheeers, c.
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 1, 2012 22:30:51 GMT -5
So, if Kirk gets his way, who's going to tell Wikipedia? Dexter cattle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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] Most of that statement will always be true "Dexters come in two different types: short-legged and long-legged."If you divide dexters into two groups, you'll find that half are below average in leg-length and half are above average in leg-length. So there will always be dexters with shorter than average legs and dexters with longer than average legs. Further, that's true in humans and all other animals as well. It's sort of a nonsense statement since it applies to all animals with legs. "Short-legged animals are more likely to be carriers of the chondrodysplasia, or "bulldog" mutation"This will always be 100% true in ALL animals with legs. EVEN if we wiped out Chondrodysplasia, the above statement would still be true because the mutation can arise again, and indeed, animals with short legs are always "more likely" to be carrying the mutation than animals with long legs. "Long-legged Dexters are less likely to carry the mutation."Yep, that statement will ALWAYS be true. Dexters with long legs are less likely to carry the mutation than Dexters with shorter legs. "carriers of the chondrodysplasia, or "bulldog" mutation should not be bred with another short-legged Dexter"That statement is incomplete. Up above, they said that both short-legged dexters and long-legged dexters MAY carry the mutant gene. So this statement needs to be fixed immediately to read "carriers of the chondrodysplasia, or "bulldog" mutation should not be bred with another carrier regardless of the length of their legs" After this breeding advice part of the statement is fixed, then the entire statement is appropriate forever, because even if we wipe the gene out, it can arise again.
|
|
|
Post by Dahdo on Dec 2, 2012 0:53:30 GMT -5
Kind of ironic if you ask me. Dexters are the friendliest little cow you’ll ever meet….it’s the owners you have to watch out for. Good thing they don’t cull us for bad temperament ;-)
Seriously. I will be very disappointed if this thread just fizzles. Amid all the sound and fury a very important issue has been raised here: how will we deal with new genetic diseases in our breed?
But I get the feeling that people are getting tired and shaking their heads and walking away—with nothing being accomplished except a bunch of feuds being renewed. What a waste.
I would like to see us give the leadership of the associations some clear indications of what we think is needed and would be willing to do to track and eliminate PHA and future genetic diseases. I believe that there are large number of people reading this thread who have opinions, but are reluctant to post. We need their input to provide any meaningful information to the associations.
I suggest that we do some polling on potential measures that we can take. We had a start on a list before we got sidetracked again on chondro. Maybe that list could be the basis for some polling questions. For example: Do you believe that new genetic diseases pose a threat to the breed? Would you like your breed association to have a policy on tracking and eliminating new genetic diseases? Would you be willing to provide DNA parentage verification for all registered animals? And so on. Because the poll questions themselves can bias the results, I suggest we nominate a small group of the cooler heads to prepare the questions. Perhaps our moderator could make the selections.
For the record, I would take chondro off the table for elimination. Identifying carriers, yes. Eliminating them, no. It’s a special case.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Cascade Meadows Farm - Kirk on Dec 2, 2012 3:12:02 GMT -5
I will be very disappointed if this thread just fizzles. Amid all the sound and fury a very important issue has been raised here: how will we deal with new genetic diseases in our breed? For the record, I would take chondro off the table for elimination. Identifying carriers, yes. Eliminating them, no. It�s a special case. Dave Dave, Olga challenged me to push something up through ADCA leadership and I said I'd take the issues to the regional director to get things started. I'd see us putting together a draft proposal of some sort and see if a regional director would be willing to sponsor it into leadership discussion. I see the proposal being laid out into 4 major policy groupings 1. Existing Defect Tracking = A policy to REQUIRE tracking of existing defects (no more hiding test results, and no registration of suspected carrying calves - until they are proven to be either carriers or non-carriers). Both carrying and non-carrying calves will be allowed to be registered (for now), but suspect calves CAN'T be registered, until proven one way or the other. Also, a policy REQUIRING ALL disease tests be submitted to the registrar. 2. AI Bull Testing Requirements = A policy that addresses appropriate procedures to attempt to find any sign of genetic defects before the bulls are used widely. This might include sire/daughter test breedings. 3. Defect Reporting = A policy to REQUIRE that defective animals be reported with photos and DNA samples - this will help find new defects. 4. Defect Elimination = A policy stating how long we allow registrations of carrying calves, until we finally stop allowing registration (3 years? 5 years?) I'd be happy to draft a set of policy outlines and let you all take some swings at it. Association(s) leadership could then review it and see if they want to form a committee to further polish it and prepare it for a vote (or if they just want to kill it). PS. If we treat chondro as a special case, does that mean that breeders are free to import the other existing form of chondro that's already been found elsewhere, into the US so we can have 2 different chondro types here in the US? AND when the 3rd and 4th forms of chondro are found, can we import/spread those around too? The problem with treating lethal/harmful dwarfism as a special case is that there could be 20 forms/variations of it in the long haul... some nastier than others. With the certainty that other forms of chondro/dwarfism are coming our way, how do you word an exception? It could a VERY long list of exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Dec 2, 2012 6:08:24 GMT -5
Dave, you make perfect sense. I think people are reluctant to post because they don't see any point in it when we keep coming back to chondrodysplasia, which is a major sticking point with many. I sense that perhaps people who personally wouldn't have them in their own herd are getting tired of the attack to eliminate them. They see the cogent posts by Patti, yourself, and WVDexters, and believe that as an existing (and defining) characteristic of the Dexter breed, it would not serve the breed (or the popularity of the breed) well.
Kirk, nobody is talking about importing the other form of chondro from NZ. Nobody is talking about deliberately selecting for hairless cows or other NEW genetic defects that will occur in the future. Drop it.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Dec 2, 2012 9:26:35 GMT -5
We can make this complicated or we can keep it simple. I vote for keeping it simple. The ADCA already has a "policy" that can address the current genetic defect, PHA, that is of primary concern and considered as a threat to our breed. It is found in the Code of Ethics and it reads as follows: "Represent my animals honestly to prospective buyers and give such advice or assistance to the buyer as may be reasonably requested."
To address the issue of PHA, the Board can take the following action: Require a PHA test and report before any untested registered Dexter cow or bull can be transferred to another breeder. The PHA report would have to be submitted with every transfer application and the status of that animal noted in the ADCA Online Pedigree. The cost of the PHA test is now only $20 at Texas A&M. The cost of having a PHA and Chondro test done at the same time for an individual animal is only $30. If the Board wanted to keep the cost of transfer at $20, it could waive the transfer fee in lieu of receiving the PHA test report. If the Board wanted to increase the transfer fee to $30, it could waive the transfer fee in lieu of receiving both a PHA and a Chondro test report. In this manner, every Dexter cow and bull sold and transferred after a specified date would be represented honestly as a carrier or non-carrier.
I hope that the Board will consider this approach. It is do-able, it rewards those who have already tested and those who are willing to test, and it represents an honest and practical solution that most people can understand and follow through on.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Dec 2, 2012 9:33:48 GMT -5
Dave, I like what you have to say. This is a Good Idea I think we can all get behind. We are a GROUP an ASSOCIATION. EVERYONE, ALL OF US. Kirk, Again.... interesting.... You are going to do this for all of us because Olga challenged you to.... Really? Kirk's quote: [I'd be happy to draft a set of policy outlines and let you all take some swings at it. Association(s) leadership could then review it and see if they want to form a committee to further polish and prepare it for a vote (or if they just want to kill it). What? Hasn't that been going on for pages and pages......and more pages. We all have seen your ideas, your lists, your points, your restating of these points. Again, WE DO NOT ACCEPT your views on the subject of chondroplasia. WE AS A MEMBERSHIP DO NOT AGREE THAT CHONDROPLASIA IS A DEFECT THAT MUST BE CLEANED FROM THE DEXTER HERD. YOUR views of the perfect Dexter, YOUR goal to eliminate animals that do not meet YOUR views, and the steps YOU would like to see taken to reach YOUR goals are all well documented by YOU. Again one man's opinion. I see nothing new here. Just the same rhetoric again. As I said before you are an excellent talker, but listening is another story. It is my opinion that Your proposal requires far more than just a good polish. Let's give some other people a chance. Let's hear some other views and goals. Now as for those numbers you keep stating. May I ask where are you getting them? What is your source of this scientific information? I went to bed one night there were two forms of chondro out there. One we all know about and the other a very rare form not even present in this country. A few nights later we were up to the POSSIBLE THREAT of 6 new forms. Now this morning I read that number has now shot up to 20!! Who knows what it may be tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Dec 2, 2012 9:51:44 GMT -5
Patti, Good Ideas. Do-able and well thought out. IMO workable for everyone involved. The owner, buyer, and the associations. Everyone is fully informed, a good, workable plan.
Maybe we could consider adding a PHA testing requirement for registration of all new animals suspected of being carriers. My definition of suspected carriers would be: Any descendant of Wheatear that has not been formally tested and cleared. Obligate status is given only to those animals who have been parentage verified and both parents found clear of PHA.
What do you think? Everyone join in. BE heard. It's important.
|
|
|
Post by wanette on Dec 2, 2012 10:01:18 GMT -5
Patti, I think you have a good idea, one that is simple and gives the info needed.
|
|
|
Post by rezzfullacres on Dec 2, 2012 10:50:11 GMT -5
Patti; You idea has merit however I don't think the board is going to waive fees and give up the income stream that new registrations bring. What I could see is a tiered registration fee system such as $50 for an untested calf, $30 if tested for PHA and $10 if tested for both PHA & Chondro....The association still has income, and with the lab pricing the breeder is not thrown under the bus and having to absorb lots of new testing fees...These numbers are just examples and would need to be looked at extensively along with the association budget to ensure the $$$$ work in keeping the association in very sound financial condition.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Dec 2, 2012 11:34:50 GMT -5
Hi Rezz,
I'm not asking for the registration fee to be waived. It can be whatever is needed to meet the expense of maintaining the registry. The transfer fee is a separate fee from the registration fee. The transfer fee occurs when the registered animal is passed from one owner to a new owner. It is the ideal time to ask for any required testing because it is when the owner of a registered animal gets paid for that animal. For many owners, an animal actually gets registered when it is sold and transferred. At that time, the registry gets paid $20 for the registration and another $20 for the transfer. It doesn't cost more to do a registration and transfer simultaneously. Waiving the $20 transfer fee in lieu of receiving a PHA report at the time of transfer would not necessarily create a financial burden to the Association or adversely affect its financial condition.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by rezzfullacres on Dec 2, 2012 11:45:45 GMT -5
Waiving the $20 transfer fee in lieu of receiving a PHA report at the time of transfer would not necessarily create a financial burden to the Association or adversely affect its financial condition. Patti This is the part I would need more information on, I am not really sure of the financial situation and the complexities of it, and how it would affect the bottom line. I know there is a sizable balance and the Assoc. seems to be run well but that is as far as I have looked, and I would say that is as far as many others have looked. .... It is a good jumping off point and a great way to start the discussion...Off to work......
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Dec 2, 2012 12:08:42 GMT -5
Rezz,
This would be a simple approach to budget for. For example, if the Board decided to do the first 1,000 transfers each year in this manner, the "cost" of the "lost" revenue would be $20 x 1,000 = $20,000. Each animal would only receive a "waived" transfer fee one time, so additional transfers of the same registered animal would still generate the $20 transfer fee that they do now.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by rezzfullacres on Dec 2, 2012 12:19:02 GMT -5
Rezz, This would be a simple approach to budget for. For example, if the Board decided to do the first 1,000 transfers each year in this manner, the "cost" of the "lost" revenue would be $20 x 1,000 = $20,000. Each animal would only receive a "waived" transfer fee one time, so additional transfers of the same registered animal would still generate the $20 transfer fee that they do now. Patti Could the Assoc. afford the loss of $20,000 over the next several or more years without it adversely affecting the day to day operations or the long term solvency of the assoc? How many years would this policy be in effect or is it permanent? I like the idea, it is the loss of revenue that concerns me and I do not want to see the ADCA go down the road of some others and it all goes to he.. in a handbasket..... Still going to work just haven't made it yet!!!!
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Dec 2, 2012 12:20:57 GMT -5
Here's another thought: For obligate PHA-free animals, a genotype showing that it's sire and dam qualified would be required in order to have the transfer fee waived and for the animal to be given PHA-free status in the registry.
|
|