Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am
by helen salmon
Hi,
From my reading on the subject I understood that mating non-short to non-short could only produce non-short.
Our last years calf is only 36" at the shoulder at 17 months, much smaller than the previous years calf at that age.
Is this a normal size for a non-short?
She was produced from a non-short cow using AI and semen from a non-short bull.
Other than not being very tall she is very stocky and healthy, certainly not a runt.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:00 am
by Broomcroft
If you mate a short (i.e. one carrying the dwarf gene) with a non-short, you will get 50% short and 50% non-short offspring. That's on average of course, so you may get a run of shorts and a run of non-shorts in reality. If you cross a short with a short, you get 1 long, 2 shorts, and 1 dead bulldog calf, on average agan. If you cross non-shorts only, you get 100% non-shorts and the dwarf gene can never re-appear unless you re-introduce a short again.
If you cross dexters that are actually short, i.e. not because they carry the dwarf gene, you will get 100% short animals other than the odd throwback.
Edited By Broomcroft on 1277633085
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:08 am
by Broomcroft
PS. Can you get a photo posted of the youngster?
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:50 am
by helen salmon
I'll try.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:34 pm
by helen salmon
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:36 pm
by helen salmon
These were taken a few weeks ago, before she cast her winter coat. The second one is to give an idea of ger height, my husband is about 6ft tall.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:19 pm
by Broomcroft
Well she's a non-short no doubt, so she must be just the stocky sort. Her head looks broad like some of mine which are squat but non-short. Some people think they are shorts but they aren't.
She can't be pregnant can she? I just had a non-short heifer that was not growing like the rest, she was in calf and it wasn't obvious till quite late on. She's had the calf now and she is still not much taller than heifers at 10 months of age stood next to her!
Is 36" at 17 months that short, don't know, I'll shall go and get approx measurement of some of mine later.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:06 am
by Denise
Helen, if youre in doubt, have you tested for the Chondro gene? Then you will KNOW, not just guess.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:50 pm
by ann
She looks fine to me and definitely not short, who is her sire? 
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:34 am
by helen salmon
Hi,
Betty's sire is Brambledel Redberry Prince. Her dam is also on the shorter side, but not this short.
I'm not that bothered about her lack of height though, she has the most wonderful temperament, and I wasn't planning on using a short bull on her anyway. I was just curious. There is so much to learn...
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:26 pm
by graham wiseman
When I started with Dexters, there were I think I can recall correctly, three catagories of Dexter described for sale. "Short"(Chondro dwarf) exept I don't recall Chondro being referred to then, "non-short" (short animal but not a Chondro dwarf) and Long (tall animal).
At some stage the "non short" nomenclature has ceased to be used . I don't know why.
We started with "non-short" and "Long" and then purchased "short" (they look so cute) but now are concentrating on short non-Chondro animals (also quite cute) to try and produce a herd that breeds consistant short stocky animals. I guess yours is either a "non-short" or in calf resulting in restricted growth.Doe's anyone know why "non-short" stopped being used?
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:12 pm
by Broomcroft
graham wiseman wrote:Does anyone know why "non-short" stopped being used?
I didn't know it had. "Non-short" just means an animal that does not carry the chondrodysplasia gene, to me anyway. It's a silly title as you can have short non-shorts, I've got plenty, but I call them "non-talls", which I think makes it clearer :D.
Edited By Broomcroft on 1283714115
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:55 pm
by graham wiseman
Sorry you are quite correct "non-short" is used to denote a non-Chondro animal. the differentiation between tall non-Chondro and short non-Chondro has been lost by all non-Chondro animals bieng called non-short . Presumably the original Dexters did not suffer from the Chondro gene, so is the short non-Chondro the true form Dexter?
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:24 pm
by Denise
Hmm,
Pity Beryl isnt around to answer that!
We found, when the research was being done by Sydney Uni, that just a few very small animals were NOT chondro carriers, and a few that were quite tall WERE chondo carriers .
- so it became bleedingly obvious, it you REALLY WANTED to know the status of an ainimal, when the tests were available - YOU TESTED animals.
Now we have herds who are Chondro free by ineheritance in Australia. NO dbouts, no query, no question - just either tested or not tested positive or negative!
And, if you have tested clear animals and dont use chondro carriers, the progeny will be clear of the chondro gene. Mated clear to carrier, you would test the progeny to find out if the progeny inherited the gene from the chodro carrier parent, or if it hinerited the gene from the clear parent.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:33 am
by Broomcroft
Hi Denise,
I've never seen or heard of a chondro animal being born from a "tall" dexter. I thought chondro had to display itself? Although you can quite often see borderline cases.
Aren't there two forms of chondro in Oz, is this something to do with it?
Has anyone had a tall dexter in the UK tested and found to be a carrier? Don't know?
