|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 2, 2013 0:42:52 GMT -5
Gene, you seem to forget that no one knew about E+ in Dexters until I did the color study in 1997. Further, at that time no other E+ tested breed had been phenotypically red. In fact, both Sheila and Kluglund told me flat out it was impossible for Dexter E+ to be red. I had to send Sheila hair and pics, and it wasn't until they themselves proved it to their own satisfaction that my findings were confirmed.
For you to spout off about color, to the person who did the work, when you are a johnnycomelately is pretty brash. You've also completely missed the point. The editor was at the Congress too, and was present when I announced my color findings to the whole audience. She had the material, confirmed by DNA analysis, but did not print it. Instead, she printed Andrew's theories which she knew by that time to be wrong.
Andrew does not have a PhD. His credibility is highest outside England. You and yours, and Andrew have a lot in common, particularly the way information is presented.
And, Outlaw was not the bull of choice for my study. Your statement is presented as though you actually knew what you are talking about. As is frequently the case, this is untrue.
cheers, c.
|
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Sept 2, 2013 10:56:32 GMT -5
Genebo,
Andrew Sheppy had full access to the English herd books, he was doing a study of them in the 1990's to explain the development and significance of the different Dexter pedigree lines. Sheppy reported no "suspect" records in the Shadwell pedigree line or in Cornahir Outlaw's pedigree. Cornahir Outlaw was considered to be purebred Dexter, with many generations of registered, fully pedigreed Dexter ancestors behind his pedigree.
If you have new information that contradicts this, then please provide the reference and source.
Patti
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 2, 2013 11:35:47 GMT -5
Gene, I don't know where you are getting your info, but I did not consult Andrew when importing any semen from England. He had nothing to do with my thoughts, research, selection or subsequent importations. I have no idea what Andrew's opinions were in 1998, as he did not discuss them with me, and they wouldn't have mattered to me, anyway. The pedigrees of the bulls haven't changed and Andrew has always been one of the more rabid 'purist' group. I don't understand why he would have told someone he supported me in the first place, or changed his mind later.
John Potter wasn't involved in the selection or collection of Outlaw, either. This must be another of your assumptions.
For the umpteenth time, I had nothing to do with the importation of Lucifer.
Cobthorn Trust is Andrew's family. The Trust is Andrew. Just like 'legacy' is Judy. Andrew initially represented the DCS during the Cardiff study (the idea for the study was Andrew's; the DCS paid for the work), but was later removed and replaced by others with a less applied research mindset--a good while before publication. Andrew's contributions to the 1st World Congress were not peer reviewed, or even reviewed, prior to presentation. When the DCS learned Andrew intended to include a 'paper' at the 2nd Congress in AU, they sent a letter to the DCAI, asking that it be read out prior to his paper being presented. That letter disclaimed any connection between Andrew's opinions and DCS sanction of them...
I have to recover from laughter here for being considered part of an inner circle. My 'writings' have stood the test of time, and were based on either genetic testing or herd book documentation. Sorry, but I was delighted that Judy sent US samples to the Cardiff Study. I had had similar thoughts almost 10 years earlier with another study at Roslyn, as my correspondence with the researcher there will prove. I ran into the stumbling blocks of having to use blood not hair, and lack of money to pay the various vets to collect it from animals scattered around the country. I seem to remember I'd found 23 at that time.
1. Anyone can have a vet draw hair or blood and have it sent to a lab, or arrange for a straw of semen to be mailed to the lab, and then publish the lab results.
2. Sheila Schmutz and John Potter did the dun study, not I, although I was peripherally involved in discussions and did meet with Sheila in Saskatoon for a full day. I was the person who made the dun presentation at the 2nd Congress, and the title, 'How Now Dun Cow' started with me.
3. I probably have some old copies around in the files. Or, you could ask any of the assn. secretaries for a copy, as it was sent to all known Dexter assns. at the time.
4. Unless the original animals in the study have changed their genetics, then I'd have to say the results remain the same, and therefore I do stand behind my findings.
I think you have misunderstood John's comment which you quote. I won't ask if it's quoted accurately. John used Outlaw as an example of homo E+. I don't see anything in there where John says Outlaw was also the subject of the research. I'm afraid the lie is all in your mind.
cheers, c.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olga on Sept 2, 2013 19:20:12 GMT -5
Gene, this constant bickering is redundant. Qualifications? It is through research that we become experts.
You are hijacking this thread. Carol offered resources to members of this board, take it or leave it. I haven't received any complaints about this thread yet, so I'll be the first one to complain. Stop, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 3, 2013 12:29:25 GMT -5
Just in case Gene decides to delete his previous posts, I'm copying them here so they won't be 'lost'. Patti, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1998. Since then a lot of old English herdbooks have been opened up and are available for perusal. Information is now available that was not available in 1998. Back in 1998, Andrew Sheppy was supportive of Carol's efforts to bring Platinum, Outlaw and Lucifer to the US. Today he is not. I freely admit to my uneducated status. I have no qualifications as a historian of Dexter cattle nor as a geneticist. Just like the rest of us. I have often asked for anyone who is educated, with qualifications, to step forward. None that freely participate in these discussions have done so. I only recall a single person who had such qualifications, and she has not prticipated. Probably didn't want to mix it up with all of us uneducated types. I still defend Andrew Sheppy's role. He has participated in research about cattle, often focusing on Dexter cattle for quite a long time. He is currently the Director of the Cobthorn Trust www.cobthorn.org/about-cobthorn.htmlCarol was generous in her talk about the Cardiff Project, which deeply involved Andrew Sheppy, up until the final report was released. Now she criticizes Andrew Sheppy. It seemed to turn around when she discovered that the US cattle herd used in the Cardiff study was 8 Legacy Dexters that Judy Sponaugle had contributed. I've repeatedly asked Carol to disclose whether she has any qualifications to be making a "study" in the first place. She has always ignored or side stepped the question, leaving me to assume she has none. I have never been able to find a public copy of any of her "studies". I want to read all the details: How many animals was it based upon, who funded the research, who checked her work, how well has her conclusions stood up to the test of time? All I canb find is a very good relationship with the inner circle of the ADCA, who accepted her writings without question. I have questions. I don't like to accept the presumptions of someone without any proof of veracity. I've seen her words repeated so often as if they were fact, by people who accepted them without question. So, if they won't ask, I will. 1. Carol, what qualifications do you have to present yourself as an expert on Dexter genetics, that would qualify you to perform a study of Dexter genetics? 2. Where can I read a complete copy of your "study" on dun coloration in Dexters? 3. Where can I read a complete copy of your "study" on red color in Dexters? 4. Do you still stand behind the findings you made way back when? I am a johhnycomelately to you, because you predate me in owning Dexters. That does not make you an expert, it just makes you older. Practically all of the readership of this forum falls into the same category of being a johhnycomelately. Upstarts, come-heres, newbys and beginners. We are the Dexter community, the membership of the associations. We are the future of Dexters. We will be the ones to deal with the consequences of what you have done to the Dexter breed. Carol, your parting shot that Outlaw was not the bull of choice for your "study" does not impugn me, it impugns John Potter, whom I quoted from the ADCA article that you so often direct people to read. I read it. Are you now saying it contains a lie? Genebo So no dun study was done by you prior to Sheila Schmutz's research? Excuse me for that misconception. I was sure you had claimed to have studied dun for years prior to Sheila Schmutz's work. In the 1996 May/June Dexter bulletin, page 4, you have an article that tells about how the dun mutation existed before the Woodmagic duns and were always registered as red. Sheila Schmutz's work came 5 years later, in 2001. The article on the ADCA web site that John Potter wrote about the Dexter dun-brown mutation was dated 2003 www.dextercattle.org/adca/adca_article_brown_mutation.html. That's the one where I drew the quote about your red color study and Outlaw. Read it yourself, in full context. However, he actually mentions your color STUDIES (plural) that you conducted in the late 1990's. Those are the ones that come to mind whenever you mention the dun and red studies you performed. That's what I want to see. He stated that, "Carol then assumed that dun Dexters are the result of a dilution mutation similar to the ones that exist in other breeds of cattle such as Simmentals, Highlands, and Galloways." That's what I had in mind when I asked if you still stand behind your findings. Recently I've read where you said that Dexter dun was unique to Dexters, it has always been with us, and that it is not a dilution. Who are we going to believe? You, or you? Anyway, I would be grateful if you would point me to a copy of your red study so I can read it. I have too many questions to be answered here. Oh, and what are your qualifications for performing genetic studies? You still have not answered that. I prefaced an earlier post with the admonition to remember how quickly things have changed with the advent of DNA testing. It’s hardly yesterday, but we all take it for granted, and forget the struggles to understand that took place only a short time ago.
I can’t figure out how to get super and subscripts, so you’ll just have to live with the result.
ITGOD To know if your black animal carried red, there were only two sure tests: a red parent (guarantee of at least one red gene in the offspring), and a red calf (guarantee that both parents carried a red gene). Beyond that, it was all guesswork and wishful thinking.
We knew that black was dominant, and red recessive, but only because that’s how the calves turned out when from different color combination matings.
In 1995 Dr. Klugland found the locus for base coat color SMHR. He astonished the scientific community by finding not two, as had always been thought, but THREE different alleles at the locus. I heard about the finding, learned one lab in the US was dong color testing, and embarked on a program to find out what Dexters carried. I knew we had three colors. It made sense to me to think the third color might be from the third (hitherto unknown) allele. I fully expected duns to be homo for this newly discovered allele.
Not to be. Duns tested either homo black or hetero black/red, and NOT the ‘wild’ third allele. Here's the difference between applied and pure research. In the former, you do whatever it takes to make the facts fit the theory; in the latter, you take what you get and change the theory to fit the facts.
In 1997, when I did this work, Dr. Phil Sponenberg at the Virginia Technical Institute had been the internationally recognized color guru for years. Since the DNA locus was something very new, no one had really spent any time on it. Until then, Dr. Sponenberg had used the same tools everyone else had available to them: statistics. I’d visited him for an afternoon several years previously, and so naturally contacted him with my findings. At that time, the scientific world ‘knew’ that brown was never found in cattle. Thus, any even vague suggestion that we had a brown gene was simply not possible; we must have either a dilute gene or a modifier gene.
Later, I asked Sheila Schmutz about the distinction. Her reply will follow later. The gist was modifier gene was a traditional term, pre-dna. Sheila’s poster on Dexter brown uses both modifier and dilute interchangeably, even though I’d been told (because of the recessive nature of our TYRP1) that it wasn’t a ‘true’ dilute. In my correspondence with Dr. Sponenberg, I asked him if I was mistaken in referring to whatever caused dun coloration as a dilute, and should I have called it a modifier instead? “I thought we had discussed dilutes and I know the boffin at Genetic Visions talked dilute genes. If I got it wrong, I need to make a public correction, and soon. Best regards, etc.’. All dilute genes had been dominant, so our recessive didn’t fit the description. Back to square one for the right label.
A lot of what follows will seem 'old hat' to everyone now. At the time, it was brand spanking new, and required clear definitions and explanation. You may notice that I couldn't provide any info about the dun locus. That's because we didn't know it at that time. I had asked Sheila Schmutz about our dun, but I wasn't breeding for it and couldn't provide personal pedigrees and photos, and the international scientific community had no knowledge of a recessive dilute or modifier, or brown, so my claim was discounted. It took two years and copious documentation from John Potter, coupled with photos and hair samples before anything was done. The rest is history.
Here’s the detailed report I sent to the various breed associations:
COAT COLOUR IN DEXTERS: A DNA Study
Objective:
This study had two aims: to provide a definitive answer to the question ‘what colour is it?’ when distinguishing between dun and red, and to help breeders to predict the statistical outcome when breeding for colour.
Procedure:
An American company, using research done in Norway and Switzerland, and their own research, has perfected a test for bovine coat colour identification. Because this testing procedure looks directly at the DNA of a specific gene, it is very accurate. There is a lot of highly technical information available, but here it is sufficient to note that a total of three different coat colour gene types exist.
The first type is a dominant gene and is scientifically described as ED. It is associated with black coat colour. The second type is a recessive gene and is scientifically described as e. It is associated with red coat colour. The third type is another dominant gene, and is scientifically described as E+. It is referred to as a ‘wild’ type because the colour expression is consistent within a breed but changes between breeds. It has been identified as black in Simmentals, brown in Brown Swiss and a form of red in Holsteins.
Results:
1. Animals whose phenotype (appearance) was black tested ED/ED (black/black) or ED/e (black/red), or Ed/E+ (black/wild).
2. Animals whose phenotype was NOT BLACK tested either as #1 above, OR as ee (red/red), E+/E+ (wild/wild) or e/E+ (red/wild).
a] These non-black Dexters testing as black appeared faded brown or dark brown or rich dark brown (what is known as light or dark ‘dun’).
b] These non-black Dexters testing as red and/or ‘wild’ appeared carrot red or auburn (Irish Setter red).
Conclusions:
Dexters can carry dominant black genes, recessive red genes and/or dominant ‘wild’-type genes.
Code Genetic colour Appears as
ED/ED dominant black black or dun
ED/E+ black and wild black or dun
e/e recessive red red
e/E+ red and wild red
E+/E+ dominant wild red
The black gene is the dominant gene in Dexter coat colour. It overrides both of the other colour genes.
The recessive red gene is only expressed (is visible) when it is paired with another recessive red gene. Based on the animals tested, the recessive red appears in Dexters to be the orange or ‘carrot’ red.
In Dexters, the ‘wild’ gene is expressed as red also. Based on the animals tested, the dominant ‘wild’ red appears to be the darker, rich ‘old-fashioned’ red. When paired with black, the black dominates; with recessive red, it dominates
Carol’s note added: further testing showed that all tones of red could be expressed by either little e or wild E+.
Dun Dexters tested genetically pure black or black with a red or ‘wild’ gene. For duns to be genetically black, dilute genes must be present. That black animals can have both black and dun offspring and duns (when bred together) produce duns are clear indicators that the dilute gene is a simple single recessive. If a pair of dilute genes is present with either of the two black/red combinations then that animal will also be dun, because black is dominant over both reds and dilute black is dun.
Dilute genes are another whole topic; it is sufficient for this paper to note that a dilute gene exists and that in Dexters, so far, appears to be recessive. The pair of dilute genes must be homozygous (the same) for the dilution to be expressed (just like recessive red). Because the location for the dilute gene is not yet identified, its presence cannot be tested for.
NB:
Until quite recently, it has been assumed and accepted that red and dun were somehow mutually exclusive, that both were a form of recessive, and that if one bred a red and dun together, one ALWAYS got black. As duns became more popular there were more red/dun matings, and in a few of these, the offspring were dun or red instead of black. This caused breeders to go back to the drawing board, and all sorts of fancy theories arose to account for these new colour results. The most popular theory to account for dun has been that it comes from mis-registered Jersey crosses or from Appendix upgrades from Jersey cows. It is now proven that this is not the case; in fact, the Jersey coat colour gene bears no genetic relation to Dexter dun whatsoever.
Test Data:
The samples used were in two sets. The first was a closely linebred herd with both red and dun, showing direct inheritance where all three colors were produced from the same two animals; the second was offspring of a father/son combo where the father was red, the son dun and both bulls were on AI with several hundred calves between them.
Since I was dealing with DNA, as long as I had the genetic combos, the quantity was immaterial. For instance, all e/e x ED/ED matings would always produce an e/Ed result.
POSTSCRIPT: For years, Americans were registering dun as red. It wasn't until I went to England and saw all three colors and the various shades, and came back with questions and comments about our registering practices that the registered coat color was anything but black or red. Since there was no test, and most either couldn't tell the colors apart (or didn't want to "looks red to me' said one Director of her dun Dexters as she continued to register them as red), the Bod started using the red or dun, or red/dun label. It's great that now we have a DNA test for all colors, and the guesswork is a thing of the past.
cheers, c.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dahdo on Sept 3, 2013 14:39:11 GMT -5
Bravo c. I spent 32 years doing research for a Federal science agency, and in my book, the primary qualifications for a researcher are curiosity, and a meticulous analytical approach to problem solving. You obviously qualify. Letters after your name do not make you a researcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 5, 2013 0:28:59 GMT -5
quite frankly, Gene, you've been so disgustingly rude time and time again---and far too frequently wrong, and when you get called on it, or are blown out of the water, there is never an apology, you just go to some other thread and post pics or a 'cute' story, or 'helpful' advice as though everything is just fine. I'm tired of it. You certainly haven't earned the right to ask me for anything.
Please disabuse yourself of the idea that I (finally) posted the short version because you demanded it of me. I did so because I thought others might find it interesting.
I'm off for three weeks, no computer (weight restriction), no electricity (Amazon basin), out of touch (eight hours upriver on a minor tributary) and no ipad or cel phone. Feel free to have at'er because I won't be replying. There is a chance that the side trip to Cuzco and Machu Picchu will include a hotel with internet service, but maybe not.
Cheers, c.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dahdo on Sept 5, 2013 15:49:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 6, 2013 8:36:47 GMT -5
In case you aren't aware, the Dexter bulletins were just made available on-line in 2013. Either they were not searchable prior to now, or I didn't do a good enough job of searching for it. I didn't find it. Goodness knows I tried. Would you explain to me how I could have gotten a copy of the 1999 Dexter Bulletin, and how I would have known to get one? And yet gene, while you were in 'confrontational' mode you had no trouble referencing an article by carol d. in an earlier post on this thread, from June 1996 May/June issue of the Bulletin, page 4, re dun. What parts of what you post can be believed? marion |
|
|
|
Post by Dahdo on Sept 6, 2013 14:39:00 GMT -5
My last post did have an edge. I am usually able to suppress that...not this time, my bad.
Carol started this thread as an offer to share some valuable notes and papers from her collection. That warrants our gratitude, not a confrontation and renewal of old feuds. And over what? Here is the clue from your earlier post:
"We are the future of Dexters. We will be the ones to deal with the consequences of what you have done to the Dexter breed."
With that statement you offended not just Carol, but me, and scores of others who are grateful for her work on behalf of the Dexter breed. And if you doubt it, look at the list of Talisman Award winners.
I wasn't trying to trick you about where I found the article. Of course I found in in the bulletin archive. As Marion pointed out, when you cited an article from a 1996 bulletin, I assumed you had access to the 1999 bulletins. Again, my bad.
Finally, I didn't ask for your qualifications, but since you offered them. Yes, we did both work for Federal science agencies, but that is as far as the similarity goes. I designed studies, carried them out, and authored or coauthored dozens of peer reviewed reports. I also peer reviewed dozens of ports for others in my field. And while I am tooting my horn, I still consult too, most recently reviewing the groundwater science agency of India for the World Bank. Yeah for me. So, bottom line, I appreciate the work that Carol reported on color in Dexters. It is over fourteen years old and still a valuable resource. There are very few scientific papers that can make that claim.
Ok, that's it. This takes more energy than it is worth. I am out.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 6, 2013 20:36:18 GMT -5
This is dated Sept. 29, 2008, from Beryl on running a closed herd:
The advantage of a closed herd is the ability to breed for homozygous pairs, the disadvantage is that if a gene is absent from the restricted population it is impossible to select for it. Ideally one sets up two founder populations to provide for a greater diversity, and a fall back if it becomes necessary. It would be unwise when closing a herd not to try and ensure you already had those attributes that you were aware would be wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Sept 6, 2013 21:32:20 GMT -5
What a treasure trove you have accumulated! If you want to have anything scanned and put into PDF format, please send it to me. We can add it to the Archive files and save it as a resource for the Dexter owner/breeders of the future.
Patti
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Oct 11, 2013 15:05:55 GMT -5
Thanks, Patti. For a lot of this stuff, it's not worth 'recording'. I figure if it gets aired here, that's good enough.
Cardiff Study into the background of and current genetics compared to old genetics, of Dexter Cattle: Here's my notes from the 2007 DCS AGM in Devon, where Michael Bruford and Tim Brady made their preliminary findings public. Dr. Bruford is a high level scientist with credibility plus, currently working at Cardiff University, Wales. Tim was a Ph.D. student doing the work under Mike's direction. These notes were written on the fly, so were very cryptic. They are misc. bits that struck my fancy as the two were describing the project and its progress. Please don't read into them any attempt on my part to define or present findings. And, the study was in its early stages, some findings may have changed or been modified by the time it was complete. For those newer members, I believe Judy Sponaugle has a copy of the final report available from her person 'Legacy' website.
Number of microsatellites used to determine outcome: 23
Number of animals in study:
108 everyday (modern) Dexters
14 old line Dexters (Carol’s note: not Judy pure, just without recent crossing)
21 woodmagic Dexters (one specific linebred herd)
13 Ypsitty Dexters (one specific linebred herd)
12 US Dexters from the herd of Judy Sponaugle (ref ** below)
20 Kerry
20 Beef Devons
32 Milking Devons
The Devons, Ypsittty and US animals were new data. They had been looking at Red Poll and Angus but discarded them at this point.*
Lab phase over.
The results were as originally thought.
Kerry was the most dominant source.
All statistical methods show no specific ancestry for woodmagic, ypsitty and US. (I.e. not specifically Kerry, or Jersey, or Red Poll, or any individual breed. A true mix of genes from everywhere.**)
Genetic diversity much lower for woodmangic and ypsitty than the national herd.
The U.S. animals showed low diversity. The level of inbreeding was very high. This created an impact on viability of animals, and is damaging to the breed.
Old English Dexter lines had high diversity.
The results were distorted through inbreeding. The same animals but loss of genetic diversity makes them hard to determine lineage.
Current work addressing statistics of inbred groups. Computer software development is in progress.
Low diversity (because of inbreeding) makes those animals susceptible to changes to environment, i.e. they have nowhere to go, no genes available to handle environmental change, so adapted to ONLY current conditions.
Most Dexters fell into two basic genetic groups, not related to all other groups.
Research did not find anything that would point to a special gene in Dexters vs. other meat sources that breeders could use to market beef as 'Dexter'. This was because of the genetic diversity.
Research did not find any special gene that would make Dexters unique. (They were not looking at the chondro gene.)
Because of politics, woodmagic perceived as not desirable because of low diversity.***
Population structure: Woodmagic splits off even before the Kerry****. This is an example of how line breeding can divide or influence the breed.
* According to the Appendix records, the two most popular choices for upgrading were Angus and Jersey. After that the next most common was either unregistered Dexter or unknown Dexter (calf appeared, didn't know who the sire was, probably another Dexter in the field). Then the numbers dropped off into the teens and covered Hereford, Friesian, Shorthorn, etc. Then the numbers dropped again, down to less than 10, and included Red Poll (6), continental beef breeds, and various combination crosses. Devons were focused on initially because early records indicate that red Devon cattle were exported from the west of England to Ireland early on, and formed much of the genetic basis for Irish animals (because of its remoteness and poor grazing, few imports made it to the Kerry area). Red Poll were looked at, despite the very low number, from personal preference by the DCS liaison person. Jerseys were not, ditto.
**This is particularly interesting relating to the U.S. animals as they came from three sources. Colorado herd (closed for 50 years at that point), P-Bar (another long standing herd with some Woodmagic additions), and a few miscellaneous animals from no particular herd. That all three subgroups had similar genetic backgrounds is a true indication of just how inbred the US national herd had become. I say similar, because while they were not identical, no traits stood out to distinguish one group from another, which one would expect from animals isolated for so long.
***Much like a few of the purists in the US, England has her obsessive rare breeds people, too. One of these had been telling anyone who’d listen that Woodmagic were so highly inbred that they could no longer be considered Dexters. I well remember at this very AGM meeting, one new owner stood, and with concern, asked the Council about the cows she had just recently bought. She said they were Woodmagic based, and she’d been pleased to be able to get them. However, lately she’d been told they weren't real Dexters. Now she was worried any offspring couldn’t be registered, because in her mind, from the info she'd received, they wouldn't qualify. Council assured her, her animals were just as Dexter as any other, she was indeed lucky to have them, and there would be no problem with registration. It’s amazing how much damage can be done to newer owners by those with an agenda...
****Michael had made a ‘family tree’ of inheritance, based on genetic markers. His point was that the Woodmagic herd had been isolated and then line-bred for so long, it actually had less Kerry influence than the national herd.
|
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Apr 9, 2014 20:26:49 GMT -5
ah, found my old reference book, thought I'd lost it in the big cleanup I did about a year ago. Thought this might be of interest I may have missed a cross or two, but this should be fairly accurate. I did this table as part of the color work I did back in 1997, which is why it only goes to '96. I found 25 different 'crosses' to produce Appendix animals from the time Appendix started until 1996. These will be the first crosses, or Appendix A animals. What I found really interesting, especially when trying to talk sense to the rare,purity types, is the number of crosses in total. England started keeping stats differently once the EEC took effect. To get the requisite number of generations to keep the registry happy, the NEW Appendix started with the second cross, which has skewed results. The last year of the old A, B, C Appendix was 1987. Remember only remales were eligible for entry. At that time, there had been a total of 489 A registrations (1/2 Dexter) a total of 399 B registrations (3/4 Dexter) a total of 314 C registrations (7/8 Dexter) the next generation became purebred and transfered over into the full registry. Notice the pyramid is upsidedown. By the time the cross gets to the third level, the numbers are lower than the starting numbers. This is contrary to what a lot of people assume, and I think it's important to point it out. In 1987, 314 animals made it to the third level, but there had been a totoal of just under 14,000 head registered as purebred. That's 2.2% upgrades (not upgrading). At the time I didn't check the upgrade offsrping that became purebred, and I'll do that next and let you know. However, I think it's safe to say the outcross genetics hasn't had a lot of influence in the nation herd in England, despite all the hoopla over mongrel mutts. By 1996 the numbers were 569 and 21,295, or consistantly still the same. I checked my custom records, and between 1945 when the three tier appendix started and 1987, 112 appendix C cows were listed as dams of fully registered offspring. That's only about 1/3 of the number actually registered in the C appendix. The total number of calves registered was 208. The vast majority of cows only had one calf registered (58), 31 had 2, 12 had 3, 5 had 4, 4 had 5, and 2 had 6. 208 out of 14,000 is about 1.5% outcrossing a minimun of four generations back at the first generation pure. Meanwhile, there's the stats: (everything is registered Dexter x xxxxx) for the Appendix A registry For the years 45 to 87: x Dexter = 21 x unknown dexter = 133 x dex/eng dairy cross = 3 x eng dairy =3 x jersey = 47 x Guernsey = 7 x ayrshire = 5 x friesian = 10 x unknown - 115 x dex/eng beef cross = 3 x eng beef = 1 x shorthorn = 8 x angus or murray grey = 48 x red poll = 6 x misc continental and multiple crosses of beef and dairy = 22 If you break this down, it's 157 animals that are probably pure dexter, just not sure who, 115 could be anything (in this case more likely to be Dexter unless something jumped the fence), and 84 definitely some other breed. That's 157 all-Dexter, and 199 genuinely 1/2 somethig else (except that big 115 where it could be anything. I'll be the actual number of upgraded animals is closer to100, and unknown but likely to be dexter closer to 250. I know I'm beating this to death but I really want you to SEE how the numbers work. It's impossible to calculate an accurate % of influence, because it changes with every registration, and with every generation. You'd have to take current offspring, as (for example) you can't add generations together becaue it would critically skew the results. a 50% cow with two offspring of 25% isn't 100%. I picked these years because thats the beginning of the appendix system as we know it, and took it until I ran out of records. I do have numbers for 88 - 96, mostly unknown and unknown dexter and jersey and angus. There were also 30 animals from the experimental (anti-dwarf program) with calves registered to them in the same time. those calves totaled 50. To get the real %, I'd have to trace every one of those 112 App. C and 50 Exp offspring to the present, through all the generations, and then figure out each animal's not dexter percentage based on the number of generations, and add the bits up. Not going to happen  And, anyway, the genetic differences between breeds has been calculated anywhere between 3 and 7% See where this is going? cheers, c. |
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Apr 10, 2014 10:38:41 GMT -5
Looking through my color notes, I see 2 Rob Roy (AI) calves that are black to red cows. Rob Roy was red. Oops. And, of course back then, the dun color locus wasn't known, so we had to wait for John and Sheila to do the dun stuff. I see another note that an English breeder had a dun offspring from two red parents. Another oops? Nope, the bull was registered as red, but was actually dun, so they changed the bulls registration color. Oh yes, and someone had a bulldog from a bull later known to be nondwarf...this one gets me thinking: wrong bull? some other birth defect? ......pha?  if I lived in Egnland, I'd be all over that one, on the chance it was pha and it was an opportunity to track the gene. Not earth shaking, but fun non the less. cheers, c. |
|
And, anyway, the genetic differences between breeds has been calculated anywhere between 3 and 7% See where this is going?