Dexters and Beef - Where do we go from here

[Duncan MacIntyre]

With regard to Charity status, I think that what matters is that the charitable body itself should not be seeking to make a profit. It is I think quite in order for it to do things for the benfit of members or others as per the objectives. But if a charity was piling up profits in bank accounts and investments then that is not acceptable. So I do not think that there is problem with the DCS acitvities benefiting Dexter owners.

The benefit to DCS amongst other things is that we can have donors sign a gift aid declaration if they are tax payers and then the society can claim back the income on the donation at basic rate. I think this has the effect of reducing the donors tax paid at the higher rate if they are fortunate enough to be in the higher income bracket. There are probably numerous other financial benefits which at this time of night I am not the best person to try to list. We do have some higher fliers in the accounting world on list, maybe they will comment.

Duncan, (gained "O" level Principles of Accounts in 1968, probably not the next chancellor of the exchequer.)

[Jo Kemp]

I have a dexterxhereford cow- this because her dam had not taken with the dexter semen so to get her in pod I used hereford so ID would be easy. Excellent cow, very beefy and she throws an early maturing, dumpy calf and I expect to kill the first one in the next 6 weeks or so at under 24 months. Will let you know the result. At 3/4 dexter the dexter traits will predominate.
Last year I killed a four year old Dexter x Belgian blue heifer... and all the customers have remarked on the flavour as usual. Owing to her age and the fact she hung for only 4 weeks, the meat, eg rump steak is not as tender but IS as tender as people are used to in steak houses! Next time the butcher will probably hang it for another week, if the carcase is as good.
Incidently, the butcher was a very large firm in Paisley and he was very impressed with the quality of the meat - the marbling etc. He said he looked forward to seeing a pure bred from me as he had always thought dexters were 'toys' ...... get the butchers on side and farmers will follow?

[Woodmagic]

Duncan, I am an ignoramus in accounting and am sure you understand it far better than I do. For me, the logic of taking cash out of one column and put it in another is a closed book, I also prefer to have as little to do with the law and lawyers as possible. However when I became a trustee (council member) I found some guidance in the Commission’s literature to ensure I didnt make a pig’s ear of it. The folowing extracts might help:

A charity does not normally have to pay income/corporation tax.
A charity excludes clubs set up to benefit their members or purposes which include arrangements where people running the organisation get significant personal benefit.
Those who run the charity should not financially benefit from it, but can enjoy the benefits of that charity as a member of the public.
The income and property of the charity must be used or applied for the purposes set out in the governing document and for no other purpose, and this document must be approved by the Charity Commission.
If an organisation is to be recognised as a charity it must have exclusively charitable objects, and demonstrate sufficient public benefit.

The emphasis time and again is on ‘public benefit’
The recent gain in ‘donors gift aid’ has I believe amounted to £5000 and is ongoing. I too, hope we can have some expertise from somebody much more knowledgeable than I. However, I would echo your remark on another subject ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’!





·



·

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Thanks Beryl for putting on the last post, I must have had that booklet at one time too, my filing system leaves a lot to be desired. I am sure I will still have it since I almost never tidy anything or throw anything out!

The wording may be reason why some things like selling merchandise etc are sometimes done by legally separate companies for charities such as DCS and RBST.

Maybe we need a charity law expert as well as an accountant, but I would have thought running eg beef certification scheme to allow official "Dexter" labelling would be a benefit open to anyone with Dexter beef to market so would come inside the remit. Maybe I am too hopefull.

Duncan

[Peter thornton]

I think that anyone looking at a minirity breed society would believe that the primary purpose of the society was to ensure the long term future of the breed. When the animal concerned is a farm animal then it follows that the best way of ensuring this is to help to stimulate the market for that breed.

I wouldn't have thought that any of the normal activities of a Breed Society would infringe upon the rules as set down by the Charity Commission.

Looking back at the things that various members have been requesting, I don't think that any of these would cause a problem for this reason.

[Broomcroft]

Jo

Very interesting about your corossing xperinces. That is much the same as other people have said to me about the beef from crosses.

Question: We the calvings from any of the crosses especially difficult and were the calves too big at birth in your opinion. Espceially the Belgium Blue cross. I am assuming a normal feeding regime prior to birth because otherwise you can easily have dexter calves that are too big.

Clive

[Broomcroft]

Re: Charity Status
--------------------------

Regarding this element of the discussion, I have been a businessman for well over 40 years, running small and not so small outfits. It is my opinion that the way the society is set up (as I understand it) simply cannot work in terms of really promoting the beef or any other product. The society does not think commercially.

When I say commercial, that means getting reviews, doing a professional web site, and possibly advertising (not my favourite) and paying people to do the work involved. Nothing should be done for free, because it doesn't work other than to get things started maybe. People will work for free, or costs only (same thing) in certain functions (research, charity), but not when it's commercial. Reason - you have people working for nothing in order to help others make money.

I think that the role the Society has taken and should continue to take is akin to the role that Universities take in industry, except more so. They help, advise, research (basically all the interesting stuff!) and are invaluable. The Society should stay independent from truly commercial aspects of selling beef.

However, the Society should, in my opinion, MASSIVELY increase it's emphasis on beef from somewhere near zero (one para on the web site I think) and bring it right to the front page in every respects, web site, bulletins, everything.

It seems clear that there are a lot of members out there, especially the ones with bigger herds producing beef that want a big change, soon. It certainly applies to the ones I speak to.

I hope this makes sense. I am not sure I've explained myself well enough.

Clive

[Peter thornton]

Clive

A Pedigree cattle society has a of heirachy of breeders, as does any other Pedigree society. The ones "at the top" are the ones that get the high prices for their animals. If you are getting, say, £2,000 for a cow then the whole economics of your business will change. How do you get to this top level? You win rosettes at shows. How do you win these prizes? By breeding the animals that conform to the standards required and that will lead to the judges awarding the rosettes.
Now if you go to the premier show in the UK, The Royal Show at Stoneleigh, you will find the Dexters in the dairy class. Their suitability as a beef animal simply doesn't come into the equation.

To move forward as a beef breed would mean either a change in the traditional Dexter or the creating of a second standard and eventually the development of a different type of Dexter.
This is a big step for any society, but is something that I think the DCS needs at least to consider.

There is an added complication in that commercial cattle societies encourage the development of the breed. In other words, the breed changes to suit the needs of the market. The DCS sees a responsibility to preserve the breed rather than to change it.

I don't think there are any easy answers here. I can see both points of view. The Dexter is never going to be a mainstream beef animal unless we develop it into something that is then not a Dexter. And there's really no point in doing that when you could simply swap to Aberdeen Angus or similar, instead.

As with any business, it's critical that we define our purpose and our aims. I feel that the society needs to begin a process of debate and of consultation. To take stock of where we, and the breed, are - in the 21st century. When we have done this then we can move forward.

[Woodmagic]

The Charity Commission are at present undertaking an extensive review, to date we have managed to expand our numbers in a very satisfactory way and yet work within their confines, and I feel sure we can continue to do so, but it would be unwise to assume we could change our direction without expert advice.
My next-door neighbour keeps Holsteins, a breed that is undoubtedly the result of man’s desire to fashion the beast according to his needs, in this case as a milking machine. Many of the animals are unlikely to survive more than two lactations, the breed suffers badly from lameness, most of the BSE could be tracked back to Holsteins, and their crosses. Watching them going out to pasture one day after milking, I was horrified to see them reacting as if they were heavily drugged. I compared them to the lively little animals on my side of the hedge, and felt it didn’t say much for man’s selection.
When you breed something into an animal, you have to sacrifice something else. In many cases it may remain unseen, it is probable that we still carry the gene that provides the breed with immunity to BSE. Your first cross may retain the flavour of pure Dexter beef, but how long before you discover you have lost the supremacy, a bit further down the line.
I am an ardent supporter of the RBST and its concepts. The Dexter carries the qualities it does, precisely because it has not been bred for the latest commercial objectives. I worked on Council not because it was a Charity, but because I love and admire the Dexter. One of my worries for the RBST is precisely the fear that having had the facilities to gather the whole flock in under one umbrella, it may now wipe the lot out, in its desire to prove that the animals can be commercial.
The Dexter developed its own immunities to many hazards over thousands of years, and these columns often eulogise on those many qualities. By all means take the Dexter and create a new breed if you wish, but don’t call it a Dexter, and don’t try to eliminate them in the process.
According to Professor Bruford the breed has retained a wide diversity, partly I suspect attributable to the high ratio of owners to animals, and I would like to see the smaller owner allowed to keep their own bulls without the penalty of heavy registration fees. If we identify the best bulls from bigger herds by DNA typing we can use them to retain the best of what we have within the breed.

[Broomcroft]

Peter / Woodmagic

One can always quote a disaster to make a point. I would have used Hereford's as an example. I totally agree about Holstein's and others.

My only desire is to produce delicious and healthy beef and to tell people about it instead of hiding it away.

Can't believe you don't rate the beef Peter.

Will respond properly soon. Damaged my finger, can't type much.

Clive

[Peter thornton]

Clive
I think that you've missunderstood my point.
I keep Dexters for beef, and it's excellent beef. The point is that if I select my animals on the basis of what is best in a beef animal then I'm probably not going to breed show winners. The show standard is built around the characteristics of a dairy animal.

Of course there is a sense in which any development of a breed goes against the intention of the RBST. Development of a breed involves selecting animals which show certain characteristics whilst rejecting others. This eventually leads to the loss of some characteristics.
The thing about Dexters is that they are appreciated because they are Dexters and there's no point in changing them into something else.

[moomin]

Clive, I am completely puzzled about the objectives you have quoted. They are not the D.C.S. objectives as set out in our constitution. Please would you let me know where you got them from? I think something is wrong somewhere.
Our objects are:-

"To advance the education of the public at large by registering, monitoring and exhibiting Dexter Cattle, and investigating and encouraging efficient breeding of Dexter Cattle with a view to improving and increasing the numbers of the breed."

Copies of the constitution are available from the office if anybody has lost theirs.

[Martin]

Peter,
Maybe we should create a second standard for a 'Beef Type'. I would be happy with the present size of my non shorts if I could hang more beef on the back end (where the money is). As most dexters are kept for beef I cannot see too many complaints arising if it where a different herd book. Those wanting the dairy aspect could use a dairy type bull, and when beef was required use a beef type bull.
I know the above sounds simplistic, and I know someone will give reasons why it can't or shouldn't be done, we should at least investigate the possibility. We may already have the 'beef' within the present herd, we may have to import some outside blood, until we research fully we won't know.
In my veiw we become pro-active concerning the future or we are reactive to changes that will surely happen. Reactive may be too late.
Martin.

[Duncan MacIntyre]

In my opinion there is no such thing as a dairy type and beef type Dexter. They are a dual purpose animal, three if you like to count draught. There is a misconception that many short legs are beefier than long legs. This is just becaus the muscle mass is the same but on shorter limbs. Within the breed there is obviously some variation in beefiness. If you want beefy dexters select within the breed, there is no need whatsoever to introduce anything different. The most distinctive feature of all Dexters, be they long, short, BDN1-N or BDN1-C, whatever you want to call them, they are small. If you want a larger carcase either change to a larger breed, or use dexter cows crossed with a larger breed bull. There is no problem with crossing with larger breeds provided you select the cows carefully and have them in fit but not fat condition, and select your bull for easy calving. Most of the breed schemes for marketing such as AA allow for marketing first cross calves, and we should be looking at setting up a marketing scheme for Dexters on a similar basis. Those who wish to breed pure have nothing to fear and everything to gain from those who want to cross, as pure bred replacements will always be needed for such herds. The Dexter breed really is very versatile and there is room in the Dexter world for a multitude of different systems, none of which threaten the others in any way, we just need the confidence to all work together.

Duncan

[Penny]

Wow, Duncan,

so many words of wisdom. Well done! Congratulations to Beryl too, for starting this subject, as it has aired so many opinions and allowed us to see different points of views regarding beef production.