|
Post by kansasdexters on Sept 5, 2013 16:12:47 GMT -5
I believe that the best tool that is currently available is a PHA test, and it costs $25. Buyers can test (or request a test) for PHA in any untested Dexter that they are interested in purchasing as breeding stock for their herd. They can make it a constraint in the sales agreement with the seller. The seller either provides a PHA test report on that animal that shows it is a PHA non-carrier or the Buyer reserves the right to return the animal for a full refund if the Buyer tests it and it comes back as a PHA carrier.
These days, no one has to buy a PHA carrier. It's a simple matter to perform a PHA test prior to purchase. There are also plenty of PHA non-carriers available -- already registered, already tested, and reasonably priced.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by lrininger on Sept 5, 2013 20:09:30 GMT -5
Well, I've read some of this thread. I do take offense to some of the accusing of being unethical breeding. I sold a PHA carrier bull. The buyers were well aware of his status. As soon as I had him tested, when the testing was available, I also informed the ADCA to have it put on his registration. He was a chondro free bull, but PHA carrier. He was too nice of a bull to butcher, so I bred him till I got a replacement that was both chondro & pha free. Then by this time, I also too many of his daughters, so no longer needed him. What is wrong people breeding a PHA carrier, if they want a certain high quality that bloodline offers. In my eyes, it is no different than breeding the chondro carrier animals. The new owners never had another bull dog calf with the bull I sold them, which was 1 thing they were after. It is a shame, that to new owners, there is so much information to sink in, the average person, just thinks these are cute little cows & don't want to get into them seriously, like a full time breeder. Many posters on here have stated the fact about loosing good traits of a certain bloodline. Well I believe it is also true with the PHA carrier animals. I don't know why so many people are seeing things 1 sided. If all people like the same thing, the world would be a boring place, but diversity is what keeps us trying new things.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Sept 5, 2013 20:39:05 GMT -5
I think you have two answers here. If the new owners don't know much, can't see the trait (recessive), like the bull, and are ho hum about testing every calf and passing the info to any future buyer, it's not a good scenario. No matter how good the bull is he is spreading a really serious lethal defect. Will the buyer think about the generations down the road?
If you sold the bull to people who understand it's a recessive trait, it's highly undesirable, and they definitely should be testing for it and only keeping the non-carriers to garner the good traits but control the bad, it's not such a bad scenario.
However, there are really very few bulls out there that can't be replaced with a cousin or brother or uncle who doesn't carry pha, making the keeping of the carrier unnecessary. Some people's idea of an okay deal would have others swooning, and visa versa. I guess it comes down to personal standards.
Rosegay was positive for pha. Of all offspring testable, only one was a carrier: a daughter. I was just lucky. The carrier daughter was sold for a breeding program with a copy of the test result. When evaluated, she scored 92/100. Rare line, top quality, selective culling. In this case, with an experienced buyer with the highest integrity, the pha is being controlled and eradicated in one generation.
cheers, c.
|
|
Gorignak
member
Farm Facebook page is now up. Stop by and say HI !!
Posts: 569
|
Post by Gorignak on Sept 6, 2013 7:09:57 GMT -5
lrininger, your point is both understood and respected. I "personally" cannot imagine a bull too nice to butcher....but I also have never met Sophia Loren... The fact that one, or several have developed the skills to navigate the genetic maze, does not address the status quo's effect on the breed in general. I think that we are sharpening down to a fine point now.....and, as is all too often the case, Carol D has added the final turn of the handle.
It seems that the two camps are divided intellectually, culturally, economically, and socially. I'll make it clear....I fall firmly on the side of the small breeder. PHA is an unwanted scourge that introduces another layer of unnecessary complexity into, what is usually, a casual, pastoral endeavor.
That is why the mention of Joe Stalin and the "Trust". I see a lot of breeders who are pursuing complete elimination of PHA from THEIR herds, falling squarely on the side of impeding its elimination from the breed. And, not to mince words....it serves their greater economic purpose...in MANY simple, and complex ways.
Thank you Carol for the sensibility that your post offers. It is, actually, so measured and far from being "opinionated", that it needs to be re-read and examined by all...." I was lucky" is the best part.....and the, probably wistful, longing for it to not have been so complex. But the strength of "hurdles overcome" ....AND, the unsaid...."others may/should not have to go through this", are the words between the lines.
PHA is new enough to eliminate without undue economic dislocations. It is dangerous enough, that the refusal of a governing body to even table a discussion of its handling, smacks of hidden purposes and even nefarious intent.
Remember, this thread started, not with the questions being addressed now. It started with the question of integrity and honesty. The Craigslist ad poster FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE....HE MET THE STANDARD.....HE FOUND THE ONE SMALL LOOPHOLE..... AND HE EXPLOITED IT TO THE MAXIMUM. Is this the way that you want business conducted ??
Answer that...then proceed to your solution.... MY solution.....eliminate PHA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
The increase in Dexter breeding and expansion of their numbers is due entirely to small-medium breeders entering the market. The continuation of the status quo with PHA serves to marginalize and pigeonhole their ability to participate fully. There are entities who. through the continuation of the status quo, advance THEIR economic advantage. These entities ARE NOT the small and smaller breeder. It is up to all of the small holders to decide if their "one man, one vote" power CAN and will be exercised.
|
|
|
Post by lakeportfarms on Sept 6, 2013 15:45:42 GMT -5
Linda,
I recognize that you have been responsible about testing the calves and publishing the results and you are to be commended for that. My concern lies with the CL post and the lack of information on the bull with the current owner. They've been at it a while themselves and certainly know about PHA, yet they haven't published the results of their breeding(s) and are selling the bull now. I would hope they'll fully disclose the PHA status and the steps that should be taken with anything else he sires, but there is no assurance that they would and to date they obviously haven't. At some point in time it's best move on and put a PHA bull in the freezer rather than selling him on to the next person.
|
|
|
Post by copperhead on Sept 11, 2013 8:12:36 GMT -5
I do think the PHA issue should be of more importance than the genotyping of heifers, it is an issue that seems to keep flying under the ADCA radar. We talked a lot about it a few years ago and then it kind of went away, just left up to everyone to "do the right thing". I have a pha positive cow, I kept her because she is a good cow, and always had bull calves, who were promptly steered. She had her first heifer this year and she was tested, negative, thankfully. P.J.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 17:01:22 GMT -5
Hi there
Did you ever test any of the bull calves she produced? Or just didn’t feel it was worth the persisting with the stigma of a PHA negative bull from a positive cow?
Cheers Donna
|
|
|
Post by tarsallat on Sept 12, 2013 8:50:31 GMT -5
Maybe I'm dumb but I don't see what stigma there is with a PHA negative bull from a PHA positive cow. A negative bull can't pass it on to calves.
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Sept 12, 2013 17:15:23 GMT -5
Hi Genebo, here in Australia there is no stigma to PHA. When it first became apparent in 2003 it certainly caused a lot of heartache for many breeders who had used Trillium Chabotte and his descendents, and a lot of discussion amongst breeders. Our DCAI documented on the herd database those animals that could be at risk, to help those not good on pedigrees whether their cattle were at risk or not. Australians must be a bit different to you guys, basicly the attitude was that all Dexter breeders were in it together, and we as a collective had to deal with the problem.
It isn't really talked about a lot, and no real fuss is made about it, I think that we Australians have moved on from that point. Been there, done that, got the photos to show. We have 4 ways of showing PHA negative status on our herd database. 1.Tested free, 2.free by inheritance, 3.not tested (at risk of PHA with Trillium Chabotte in the background of the animals pedigree but no results for PHA) and 4.no mention at all of PHA, not at risk of PHA and no test results.
Mind you, not everyone puts their results in to DCAI to go on the data base. Who knows why? reasons of their own, some political, some privacy, some silly. Most people do, even those with positive results. DCAI encourages both PHA and chondro results to be put on the database. Nowadays you get a $5 discount( off the top of my head $35 nowadays per test) if you put the results on the database.
Have a look at our DCAI website and you will see what I mean, google DCAI (Dexter Cattle Australia Inc) You can do an animal enquiry to see what it looks like, just a hint, you have to click on any, otherwise you will only get active animals ( ie not dead ones, deregistered or sold to non members) Don't forget that we DNA and PV every registered animal, so the PHA test results in the database are accurate. Some here in here Australia still don't test for PHA or chondro, but most breeders who are in the market for new bloodlines know who they are and steer clear of those lines.
It certainly doesn't do a breed a lot of good if there are stigmas attached to genetic deformities such as PHA, breeders need to deal with the problem and move on. regards Louise
|
|
|
Post by wagradexters on Sept 12, 2013 21:33:40 GMT -5
Hi Louise, a note to add:-
From DCAI Herdbook Regulations (Scedule A) 6.1.9 All bulls being registered must be free of the Pulmonary Hypoplasia and Anasarca (PHA) gene either through testing or by being Free by Inheritance.
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Sept 12, 2013 21:56:19 GMT -5
From DCAI Herdbook Regulations (Scedule A) 6.1.9 All bulls being registered must be free of the Pulmonary Hypoplasia and Anasarca (PHA) gene either through testing or by being Free by Inheritance. Bravo to the DCAI for taking a stand. Barb
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Sept 12, 2013 22:53:19 GMT -5
Hi Margaret, thanks, yes I should have added it to this post. I had previously mentioned it in an earlier post on this thread, but should have added it here again for completeness. Thanks for reminding me and for adding it. regards Louise
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Sept 12, 2013 22:57:20 GMT -5
Hi Barb, it wasn't the DCAI as such who made the stand, it was the members. It was voted on, and the majority member vote was in favour of the motion. "Bravo to the DCAI members for taking a stand" LOL regards Louise
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Sept 12, 2013 23:03:49 GMT -5
Louise, that impresses me even more! They should be congratulated.
Barb
|
|
|
Post by djdewetsa on Dec 26, 2013 4:29:52 GMT -5
Hi We dont get PHA here in SA. Hopefully never. What I have read - certainly a cull for me - no matter how a bull looks. a Stud Bull must never have a defect Cheers Danie
|
|