Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:04 am
by Louisa Gidney
I've noted the requests for more photos of stock for sale but no-one has yet asked for extended pedigrees. Is the appearance (phenotype) of more importance to potential customers than its pedigree (genotype)? I am surprised at this as I would never buy an animal just on appearance but have happily made a 9 hour journey to buy a bull for his breeding without having seen a photo. He was what I had anticipated from his 5 generation pedigree.
I find this concept of interest with regard to the genome project and the potential purity of the original foundation stock for the first Herd Book. Before breeding was recorded for pedigrees, the phenotype had to be the basis for selection. How important was the short-leg gene in establishing the foundation gene pool for the first herd book and what other breeds/types were masked by the short-leg? If Andrew Sheppy reads this board, I would be interested in his views on the level of "purity" of the late C19th animals before getting concerned that there are no bloodlines without introgression since the 1920's.
As devil's advocate, if people with money wanted the little short-leg cows, wouldn't there have been a temptation to put a short-leg bull to any available cow and swear blind that any short-leg offspring had been pure bred from time immemorial? Or am I being influenced by the horse trading at a recent visit to Appleby Fair, with a high proportion of Irish travelling people (aka tinkers or gypsies if not being PC).
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:41 pm
by marion
Hi Louisa, I have wondered the same thing. Does anyone know how the Genetics Project is progressing? How soon will we have an answer, as to how "pure" the stock was before known "introgression"?...marion
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:26 am
by Martin
Hi Louisa,
many moons ago a friend gave me some advice which was to 'always buy what you like to look at'. As one of the most important tasks within stockmanship is observation, and if you like what you look at you will look for longer, it makes sense.
Although I am a member of the society and my stock are all registered, I am not too picky when it comes to pedigree's, with prices too low to make anything out of selling breeding stock all my surplus is destined for beef, I am even thinking of buying a second bull to use on heifers that my bull is related to, and that may not be a Dexter.
Anyway I'm a man, and as all you ladies know, we are shallow creatures and yes looks do matter!! My problem is that friends always give me funny looks when I describe one of my heifers as good looking!
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:22 pm
by Louisa Gidney
Martin, isn't this the difference between beef - where you can immediately "see" what you're getting - and milk. With a bull or heifer, you cannot "see" udder type & milking potential in the same way, so the background of the animal is more important. I'm particularly interested in maintaining udder type, as my beef is not for wholesale/retail sale. I want good milking cows so the calves don't need supplementary feed, this is not feasible with my set-up.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:07 pm
by Woodmagic
We cannot by-pass genetics
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:13 pm
by Woodmagic
I don’t know whether Andrew Sheppy does take a look at the discussion Board, but I do know he is unable to do so at present, he has had that worst of all scenarios, his computer has gone down, and it looks as if it is a major disaster, not a minor repair.
I was interested in the contributions covering various ways of assessing the value of animals. I would argue that since the bull’s contribution has to be the result of a chance race between 5,000 million sperm, all slightly different, that by the time that was multiplied by a few generations of breeding, pedigrees can give you little reliable information.
The appearance of an animal can hide the second gene, which may be entirely different, and yet be the one passed on to the offspring. Multiply that by the millions of genes that go to make up the animal you are looking at, how many children do you know that are identi-kits of their parents, appearance can hardly be a reliable indicator of the way it will breed. Although I want to keep animals I enjoy looking at.
In the future, assessment will be governed more and more on genetics. In the case of the Dexter, we are benefiting from the inheritance of a little animal that lived for many centuries, surviving with little assistance, on very poor ground.
It is certainly the case, that the early Herd Book entries were on inspection, and would have been judged quite largely on leg length. However, when I first came into the breed in the late ‘40’s, there were many animals of the ‘medium’ non- short, and I believe this is the true early Dexter, but that with the emphasis on the achondroplastic ‘short leg’, they were gradually submerged. The breed would never have survived in the wild with this handicap, and it was probably introduced during the ‘improvement’ undertaken in the 18th century by crossing with the Devon. The average Irish farmer could not afford such fancy cattle; the large numbers introduced into this country would mainly have to be pure. The real introgression occurred when numbers fell dramatically, in the mid last century, because fear of the bulldog persuaded many breeders to cross, or go out of the breed, and the existing number of pure was already small.
The genome project has only reached the half way mark. At the time when Andrew contributed his rather pessimistic article; the work had been confined to establishing the genetics of the animals sampled, and their pedigrees, with no molecular work on introgression of other breeds. I am still optimistic that the project could give us the opportunity to identify and breed a Dexter that carries the vigour acquired over many centuries, and which their bigger cousins have lost to a far greater degree.
Now that we are embarking on the 21st century, we cannot by-pass genetics.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:25 pm
by Penny
Marion,
I hope I am giving the correct information, as there are huge implications. This is what I have been told, and I am fairly sure that I have it right:
the "original population" dexters have been found to be barely more pure than the " common or garden" dexter, in that all contain genes of several breeds but that the "original" dexters have approx 6 breeds in their makeup, and our everyday dexter has 7.
I personally think this is a good thing as a big difference could have split dexter owners. The "purity" of horned versus polled must now be buried for ever, as horned dexters can still contain as many different breeds as polled, just different ratios.
If I have inaccurately portrayed the results in any way, many apologies!
Penny
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:48 pm
by Penny
Beryl,
we are obviously replying at the same time!
Maybe I am behind the times with this information? I would be interested to know how your lovely cattle were. My herd is gradually becoming " medium" and more uniform in height, very similar to the short legs when stood side by side,but depth of body less. There are many breeders following your lead and eliminating the chrodroplasia gene whilst retaining the diminuitive size of the original???? dexter. Genetics are everything, and as you point out, you only have to look at humans to see that looks alone won't predict the offspring, you have to look at the extended pedigrees, which is why I used to get told as a child that I looked just like my GT Aunt Alice at a similar age!!
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:17 pm
by marion
Thanks Beryl and Penny for your answers. We are lucky to have the blood of the original Woodmagic imports in Canada. I also have non-dwarfs and breeding for small, sound and true dual-purpose Dexters. I'll let you know when I breed that "tiny perfect" cow :D ..marion
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:03 am
by Liz D
It's funny Martin; I was actually advised by an older farmer around here, not to look at the 'looks' of a bull or ram, but rather, to look at their respective offspring. I think that my Dad would say the 'proof is in the pudding'! The question of 'value' and Dexters is one that we are collectively dealing with in Canada, I think. Particularily when 'bigger is thought to be better', in my part of the world, anyway! I hope and think that the 'virtue' of the Dexter here will be in the true dual purpose of the breed. Small, beefy cows who milk for their weight, comparitivley, like a Jersey or Shorthorn used to. For me the pedigree of an animal is everything. It does not assure you of the future offspring, there will be always those that are culls, but it does assure you of a very good chance at the future offsprings' inherited qualities. And you know what?...I will have sooo much fun finding those qualities in my girls' offspring! For that, thank you Beryl for your work and your girls, and m and cd too! Liz cdn :;):
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:33 am
by Martin
I would never suggest that looks where everything, that would be shallow wouldn't it! I would also look at offspring if that is possible, parents and any brothers and sisters. Pedigree to me is another matter which I leave to the purists amongst us. Its down to personal choice, I know a lot of people spend a lot of time researching pedigree's and looking for animals that they believe will enhance their own herd. I have no problem with that and I applaud those that try to enhance the breed especially those like Beryl who we all owe a big thank you for her efforts over the years, as no one has done more for the breed than her.
I am more into the suckled beef side of things and unless I can find a non short very beefy bull I will probably end up with a bull of a different breed as a final cross, but keeping my cows pure (because I like them).
A word of warning to the purists though, don't look for something that was never there, and don't forget that there is something called evolution that we can do little about.
Whatever floats your boat, carry on with my best wishes, I hope you achieve your 'tiny perfect' cow Marion and anything else anybody thinks they need from the Dexter breed. I just hope its what other people want and not a blind alley.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:21 pm
by marion
Hi Martin, Well, not too tiny, 40 to 42 inches, big enough to fit the milk bucket between udder and floor! In our part of the world there seems to be more interest lately in milking Dexters. I'm not into "pedigree worship" but doing all I can to find out what traits come from particular lines, by looking at others' cows and photos and any other info I can sleuth from the internet and print..marion
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:53 pm
by Woodmagic
Firstly, Penny, I haven’t met you, but may I add my good wishes for your speedy and complete recovery. I am always thrilled when I hear of any breeder aiming for small Dexters, bulldog free. I was overwhelmed by all the compliments, I think you should be thanking the Dexter for being such a charming worthwhile animal, that one is pushed into giving it that extra chance to shine.
The update on Woodmagic is that after mainly bulls last year, the first three early this year were also bulls, but I have followed that with five heifers in a row, and I certainly didn’t deserve the last.
Muscovy born last February, her picture appears at the end of ‘My Love Affair’ with Murrelet her dam, was running later than she should when her dam went to the bull last year. A fortnight ago, I realised with horror she was in calf, a week ago she produced a heifer calf, a week after her mother had done so. She needed the vet to help, as it was a tight fit, but both she and her calf are doing well. She will obviously need TLC, and was hardly an ad for my stockmanship, since she is only 15 months, but they are both full of beans, and happily running out in the calving paddock, mother dotes on her baby.. Whooisit gave me a parting gift of a heifer calf last year, and she will be pensioned off, as she is beginning to show her age.
If you are going to cross yours Martin, to have a more sizeable lump of beef, it is a job the Dexter will do very well, but you have to hope someone is going to breed your Dexter replacements.
Looking at pedigrees needs a good deal of optimism, I always think that if there is ancestor you are anxious to contribute to your calf it wont be there, but if there is one you would hope to avoid, it will have provided umpteen genes. I have a Dexter running with mine at the moment, I have just seen her pedigree which has 19 Woodmagic animals in the first four generations back, yet that animal sticks out from my herd as completely different.
As far as the project goes Penny, the information I have, does not add up to your briefing, I am trying to get an update. As you know, I have never felt polling indicates lack of purity against a pair of horns. Have you offered samples from some of your polls for the experimental work; they could include something very worthwhile.
I am delighted that milk seems to be looming larger in breeder’s estimation, it was always a strong point for the breed, and whether you want to milk your cow, or ask it to rear good calf it is unwise to ignore it, many beef breeds have lived to regret doing so.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:40 pm
by John C
Still hardly any photos with any' For Sale' adverts
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:21 pm
by ann
Pedigrees versus looks is a very interesting subject, along with breeding dexters for the last 18yrs I have also bred pedigree dogs for the last 30yrs and in both cases I combine the two virtues and 99% of the time I end up with what I am attempting to achieve with the dogs as I personally know most of the ancestors behind the dogs ancestors.
However although Beryl and other breeders who have bred dexters for the last 40 yrs will know a lot of the old pedigrees, and will also know the faults behind these animals.
I have only learnt of some of these faults though using semen from older animals and I have introduced some faults that where probably acceptable when the gene pool became very low, but when you start of with cattle with very good udders and use semen which is considered of high quality and produce poor udders, on very nice looking cows this can be rather
disheartening. I have never been impressed with the small dexter from the knee’s downwards and have strode very hard to produce cattle which walk soundly, so its very disappointing when on doing some research into semen I was given by an old breeder I discover that most of it should go in the bin, yet these are animals that will be in most peoples pedigrees if they trace them back to 9 or 10 generation. And believe me when I say that these animals if they occur several times in the ped this far back can still have considerable influence.
So many people, who breed Dexters, do not have a breeding plan. I know, because I have several bulls and most people who wish to produce a calf, just want a bull, some are particular in the colour, never mind if it is the right bull for that particular cow, but most have not looked at the animal’s pedigree since they brought it.
So although a few of us are trying very hard to breed sound animals of a medium size, which look like dexters, (not Aberdeen Angus, which I think the polled ones look like (got my flame proof jacket on now) with good udders, producing lots of milk, and are easy to milk, (how many people know if their cow is an easy milkier I wonder) and this can make a difference especially if you buy a cow with the intention of milking her for the house.
Walk nicely and breed a good calf and feed it well. At the end of the day, if dexters are to survive all the problems that are being thrown at us in the U.K I think they must at least, for a lot of people be nice to look at, produce a good carcase on the male animals and probably some of the females which may have to, in some cases finish before 24mths as I just can not see the Dexter population being able to sustain its self if all the female dexters are sold for breeding, prices will become so low that it will not be worth rearing anything but the best. But maybe that’s a good thing?
