|
Post by marion on Sept 5, 2013 8:08:33 GMT -5
With respect Hans.."two or three bulldogs later, we finally got a small dun carrier heifer". How many others who got a few Dexters and knowing nothing about the breed, have looked forward to their first calves and had the bulldog experience, and decided Dexters weren't worth the heartbreak? I have no doubt that chondro (unfortunately imo), will be part of the breed forever, but we surely MUST eliminate PHA before it becomes even more widespread. Four years have gone by with a lot of breeders deciding it is OK to 'manage', and a long-lived cow can have just as many offspring as many bulls show on the registry..marion
|
|
|
Post by Olga on Sept 5, 2013 8:10:00 GMT -5
Attention: I am not attempting to censor the subject of chondro as a defect. This thread is a discussion of PHA. Anyone is free to start a similar discussion under Chondro and find out for themselves how much support the idea of eliminating chondro has.
|
|
|
Post by Olga on Sept 5, 2013 8:17:09 GMT -5
Here’s a paraphrased version of the ADCA’s response: (1) this motion should be presented in person at the next AGM (June 2012, 8 months in the future) but we considered it anyway; (2) the motion received no second; (3) testing is voluntary and confidential and cannot be enforced; (3) we will rely on the Code of Ethics to assist breeders; (4) thanks for your concern. Charles, this is why I strongly advise for transparency and sharing information publicly. Unless we plaster our concerns all over for all to see, we're just a fish in the sea to the leadership. On our own, our voices are small, we can be shooed away, and the leadership can complain about the membership's low involvement... The value of this forum is in our ability to share thoughts and confirm that there are others like-minded out there.
|
|
|
Post by wvdexters on Sept 5, 2013 8:44:00 GMT -5
We need to stay on task here and stick with our original issue. If we can't how can we blame the assoc for failing to do so. The subject is PHA. The issue is Mike's original post. Bulls being sold as breeding herd bulls without disclosing status as PHA carrier. I believe everyone here believes this to be wrong perhaps even unethical.
We agree that PHA itself brings nothing to the dexter herd. There are no attributes associated with PHA carrier status in itself. It seems to be fairly spread throughout the dexter herd in the US and in other countries as well, namely Australia. Some favor eradication of affected animals while others favor responsible management within affected herds.
My take on this: Can we find a consensus? An idea? A way of dealing with issues such as this?
Perhaps a starting point. Something we can all agree upon. A move in the right direction?
Eradication is not going to happen at this time. Look for common ground and move forward. Or else we will have status quo, no changes, nothing at all done. And we'll all stay in this boat another year.
|
|
Gorignak
member
Farm Facebook page is now up. Stop by and say HI !!
Posts: 569
|
Post by Gorignak on Sept 5, 2013 8:57:55 GMT -5
Don't do that to me too often, Olga.....WHAT A PICTURE...
GET IT FOLKS.... Don't wander off into the chondro morass right now....you actually have several people who are willing to champion a re-think.....AND YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK IT IS THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING
I want to make clear...distraction can come from opponents...and it can come from like minded people DON'T GET DISTRACTED FROM THE FOCUS HERE.
I've bit my tongue long enough on the story that I will ask a far better authority to relate to you.
Olga....How about you, or I, tell them about good old Joe Stalin's creation of the "Trust". A super well organized opposition to Stalin and his policies that was funded and run by.....Yep, Joe Stalin.
Is it possible that agreement could be more distracting than disagreement.....Well, DUH...Of Course.
FOCUS...... ALL YOU LITTLE FISHES.....
I want one of those decals, Olga....
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Sept 5, 2013 9:32:03 GMT -5
Marion, I agree, and our experience is probably one of the reasons we're so particular about the education of new owners who may be unfamiliar with both chondro and PHA. We rely heavily on word of mouth and repeat sales. It is also a good reason for those new to the breed to seek out and purchase Dexters from a responsible breeder who tests and provides support both during and after the purchase, AND performs and pays for the transfer so the record is up to date and accurate. Had the prior owner(s) of Mike and Cedar done the transfer for us, with our first years membership free (which I think is a great thing to encourage membership) back in 2005 rather than 2009 this would have encouraged us to be more involved with the association at an earlier date, we likely would have had a better understanding of both chondro/PHA by looking at the information on the ADCA website or had contact with the district representative (assuming it existed in 2005) and then made breeding choices that could have avoided what we experienced. I would like to see the district representatives make contact with new members when they join, just to check in and ask if there is anything that they may be able to help out the new member with, just in case the Dexters were purchased from somebody who doesn't provide a lot of support. Maybe the ADCA could send an informational packet with the membership certificate. The Dexter bulletin is nice but it may not always have relevant information or arrive in a timely manner. For a while I've advocated what Rezz has also said in this thread, a "Gold" or premium registration level for those animals that are fully tested and reported. It is a way the ADCA could support and encourage more owners to test their herds at very little cost (registration and transfer fees would be no different for these Dexters). I understand the reluctance to insist upon some of these things by the association...the goal is growth, and registration fees and dues no doubt drive some of the decision making. If "too much" is demanded of the membership, there are going to possibly be fewer of them and less revenue. But it seems that the owners who do all the right things are not recognized and appreciated enough. Show some appreciation for them, and provide some incentive for those who are considering testing their herds. Check out the costs for Highland cattle, which we also own... www.highlandcattleusa.org/content/Registrations%20and%20Transfers.pdfAnd the membership dues are $80.00/year. We're not members, but it would be interesting to see what their annual budget is. They sure have an attractive website.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Sept 5, 2013 10:09:39 GMT -5
In order to really assess how the ADCA registered Dexters stack up in regards to PHA (and Chondro), I believe it is helpful to examine what has been reported and recorded. As of today's date, this is where we are:
3,037 animals in the ADCA registry recorded as Chondro Non-carrier, PHA Non-carrier 5 animals in the ADCA registry recorded as Chondro Carrier, PHA Carrier 230 animals in the ADCA registry recorded as Chondro Carrier, PHA Non-carrier 131 animals in the ADCA registry recorded as Chondro Non-carrier, PHA Carrier
If we look at only the bulls registered and recorded as PHA Carrier, the ADCA registry shows the following (the PHA test became available in 2009):
2 PHA-carrier (tested and reported) bulls born in 2009 were registered 0 PHA-carrier (tested and reported) bulls born in 2010 were registered 1 PHA-carrier (tested and reported) bull born in 2011 was registered 1 PHA-carrier (tested and reported) bull born in 2012 was registered 0 PHA-carrier (tested and reported) bulls born in 2013 has been registered to date 9/5/2013
Is the PHA issue actually being addressed with regards to ADCA registered breeding bulls? I believe that it is when people are educated about the need for testing for PHA and avoiding PHA-carriers when they select registered breeding stock or retain replacement animals in their herd. Many breeders of registered stock have realized that there is virtually no demand or market for PHA-carriers as registered breeding stock. Those animals do have value as beef and they can be removed from the breeding herd and replaced with PHA non-carriers (sons or daughters, or other replacements).
In our herd, we are on a 5-year plan to eliminate PHA, using exactly the approach that Louise described. We don't sell PHA-carriers. We test the offspring of PHA-carriers, and only sell the PHA non-carrier offspring as breeding stock or keep as replacements. Once we have a replacement, the PHA-carrier is processed for beef. This is a very do-able approach and it is an effective approach to remove the undesirable PHA allele (and any other undesirable allele) from a Dexter herd. But people have to be willing to test their animals in order to use this approach.
Is the PHA issue being addressed in unregistered, grade, or cross-bred Dexter cattle? Nope. It probably won't be either, because there doesn't appear to be any financial incentive or market demand for it to be done. The majority of people that want to buy the cheapest animals available don't typically want to spend any money on testing or see any need or value in testing. That means PHA (and other undesirable alleles) will continue to be propagated in Dexter cattle for years to come.
If we can focus on getting breeders to test their breeding stock (cows and bulls) for PHA, I believe that we can make measurable progress in eliminating this undesirable PHA allele from the registered Dexter breeding stock in the United States. This is something that the ADCA membership and leadership can set goals, take action on, and measure its progress on.
Patti
|
|
Gorignak
member
Farm Facebook page is now up. Stop by and say HI !!
Posts: 569
|
Post by Gorignak on Sept 5, 2013 10:34:50 GMT -5
To be relevant, doesn't that table of yearly PHA registration need 2 other numbers?
The total number of bulls registered each year The total number of those bulls with known PHA carriers in their pedigrees registered in each year. Sorry, am I missing something....the table shows the paucity of test/registrations. Is it possible that some LARGE percentage of the bulls registered each of these years are in fact PHA positive and either not tested or tested and not included on the registration.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Sept 5, 2013 10:40:03 GMT -5
Hans, my post was not meant to pick on you. I realize the expense you and others including myself have put into testing their animals. I can say thousands. Many times I have come on this forum and mentioned that I applaud breeders that do test. That however in my opinion is not enough. I would like to see all results posted. I have harped on this subject for years. Our breed associations have to step up to the plate and do the right thing. otherwise we will continue to have a multitude of problems. When you become vocal about a subject, people will of course look take a look at who is talking, which is exactly what I did.
My main question to you was this:
Here is my question to you. Hypothetically speaking let's say you sold and animal that carried a genetic defect, you informed the new buyer how to breed responsibly. Times have now changed, the cow has been resold, not once but twice.. Was any or all information past on about the genetic defects to the several other new owners? The best any of us can do in this case is to test all of our animals and have all the results posted
Louise...very well said.
Barb
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 5, 2013 10:45:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the stats Patti. Isn't it telling, that the one bull born on 2012, tested PHA carrier and reported, is the very one, subject that started this thread, that the owner is attempting to sell on Craigslist...by giving ALL the bull's details but not disclosing his carrier status in the ad. Perhaps this is a hopeful sign that buyers are becoming more educated and checking the online peds. when Reg. Dexters come up for sale..marion
|
|
|
Post by littlecowfl on Sept 5, 2013 10:47:37 GMT -5
I like the idea of a time limit set when no more PHA positive animals will be registered. That way, people can keep their nice PHA bulls and breed them to get negative animals with desirable traits, then cull them. It should be eliminated eventually. I believe most breed organizations struggle with this at some point. Horse associations have several issues that the are working through. Just be thankful that a homozygous PHA animal is lethal.
Some traits that are bad for a breed of animal allow the animal to survive long enough to be breed. THAT is a hot mess to sort out.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Sept 5, 2013 11:45:35 GMT -5
Barb,
That is the reason I suggested a couple of things...initial contact of all new members by the district rep, following the mailing of the membership certificate with an informational packet about Dexters in general including information about PHA and Chondro. I think existing members and owners of registered Dexters should probably know about it by now, perhaps some don't or don't care.
And then as Rezz and I have proposed before, a more comprehensive and "premium" registration certificate and status for those animals who are tested for both PLUS genotyped. I have suggested a "limited" registration for non-tested, and a "full" registration for those tested. "Limited" is a word that I think would prompt questions from a prospective purchaser. The definition of the reasons for the limited registration could be right on the certificate. No Dexters would be lost from the registry, and an upgrade is available following the testing/reporting of the results and genotype to the association. Those of us who put value in the testing would be able to use it as a sales tool, and hopefully be able to sell our Dexters for more money in order to at least recover the costs of the testing. Right now it takes a lot of explanation to people on why we undertake what they might think is an unnecessary expense. I can point out the difference to them between most chondro and non-chondro heifers or bulls...so they wonder why did I spend all that money when I already knew what it was? The answer is for possible subsequent owners to also know. But if I can point to the "Premium" registration vs. the limited one, then they get it more easily.
Regarding the online posting of our herd, as I said they're all tested, but getting the information online can be a bit cumbersome. You'll see the results show up when I have the opportunity to follow up. Right now I have to prepare for the upcoming winter, Sheril is back teaching so I don't have my best partner as much, and I have my business to attend to which is typically the busiest in the fall. I have 15 calves to register, with another 10 or so calves due in the next couple months. I shouldn't be here.
|
|
|
Post by midhilldexters on Sept 5, 2013 12:57:09 GMT -5
The FOCUS should be on the breed and not having any lethal genes to pass on at all. We already have two, what are we going to do when more show up? Just keep accepting them? Time for everyone to get in touch with their Directors, or write to the whole Board and tell them you want mandatory testing, if that's what you want? See how far it goes, but most Directors were not even willing to vote to genotype cows so wonder how that will go. Mike now is the time for you to FOCUS and become a member of the ADCA so you to can voice your opinion.
Carol K
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Sept 5, 2013 13:07:59 GMT -5
There has been some encouraging progress in the percentage of PHA non-carrier bulls (obligate non-carrier and/or tested) being registered in the ADCA. Here are the stats:
2009 - 139 PHA Non-carrier bulls born and registered out of 277 total bulls born and registered = 50.2% 2010 - 162 PHA Non-carrier bulls born and registered out of 311 total bulls born and registered = 52.1% 2011 - 191 PHA Non-carrier bulls born and registered out of 335 total bulls born and registered = 57.0% 2012 - 255 PHA Non-carrier bulls born and registered out of 337 total bulls born and registered = 75.7%
2013, as of 9/5/2013: 78 PHA Non-carrier bulls born and registered out of 87 total bulls born and registered = 89.7%
The trend is definitely in the right direction for eliminating PHA in ADCA registered bulls. The next challenge will be to achieve a similar trend with ADCA registered cows.
Patti
|
|
Gorignak
member
Farm Facebook page is now up. Stop by and say HI !!
Posts: 569
|
Post by Gorignak on Sept 5, 2013 14:41:27 GMT -5
OK....2013 can be considered an outlier until the numbers approximate the previous years. The other 4 years numbers show progress on their face.....BUT
An AVERAGE of 58.75% of 1260 bulls registered being certified free of PHA leaves 532 Bulls UNCERTIFIED free of PHA.......in their breeding prime. I do not know how many of those have pedigrees that would clear them. Doctor...the patients blood loss has dropped to 4 pints a minute, and we are replacing nearly 2.5 pints per minute....the patient should stabilize in about 10 minutes.....call the Morgue.
Improvement does not stave off disaster. IF ALL BULLS WERE REQUIRED TO BE TESTED.....the numbers could not be used to obfuscate the dire situation. AND...all the improving numbers in the world won't pull some poor chump back from disaster if he is in the UNKNOWN side of the equation.
I have 3 more months to watch the ebb and flow. As of now, I regard the organization as nothing more that a Registration garage. I guess a letter to the PDCA will at least answer or ignore pertinent questions. I hold little hope that they control some reservoir of enlightenment either. The ADCA looks to be the better of two choices ...and then on my own. I'll register them all at the start of the new year..... I do agree with Patti, this is in the hands of "honest" individuals right now. Rather than disassemble her argument point by point, I would suggest that a person who wants to judge whether to trust the conclusion as to the trend...count the number of times "IF" is used in the post. Her behavior has been a beacon of honesty and fairness..... Since she called me out in my criticism of the poster of the Craigslist Ad, whom I talked to, I can't say as I trust her friends. Personally, "if" is way, way down on my trust meter.....It is certainly not included in the "due diligence" handbook. Organization and pressure are the only tools available to you.
|
|