Dexter Cattle For Sale Discussion Board

I was going to add this on to an earlier thread but thought, although it's related, perhaps a separate thread would be more appropriate.

In Robin's earlier thread one of his concerned was the low price for Dexters.

The ability to charge more for the same or similar product is often a case of differentiation. There are many ways to do this but cattle rule out a lot of them.

I would be very in favour of some sort of herd health certification, perhaps run by DCS - if they are interested - (not sure why they wouldn't be though) which those interested owners could sign up for as a sort of gold standard of herd health. Stock could be checked periodically for a range of issues (BVD, Johne's etc). These would then be designated as gold standard herds, premiums could be sought for high health stock.

In time, it may be the case that the differential would diminish if a high proportion of the UK dexter herd joined the scheme but by then the overall stock price should have climbed.

I'm sure there are disadvantages to this but at the moment I can't see any other than perhaps cost to the owner, but if the herd health gets certified then the outlay gets recovered.

IMO herd health certification is a valid improvement to make, but I think it should be with the aim of improving herd productivity, which will then trickle down to prices, rather than the other way round.

As far as prices go, 30 mins spent with a brush and another 30 mins getting a decent photo, with the animal clean, trimmed & standing well, preferably sometime before dusk, would greatly improve the saleability (I've just taken a quick look on 'Preloved'...).

Rob, sometimes i think it is nil minutes with a brush and 1 minute with a camera and they wonder why the animal struggles to sell.
Herd health scheme is a good idea, it has been discussed a few times but i am not sure how many herds are professional enough to do it.

Our DCS council rejected my proposal to have a health and welfare committee because...."if we have a health and welfare committee people will think we have problems". They took the same attitude to dismiss the Genetics committee. Not at all constructive.

It is improbable that DCS could run a health scheme solely for Dexters, but we certainly would benefit from a committee looking at how we educate members to appreciate and use the schemes which are out there - I obviously know the Scottish schemes best such as Hi Health, Premier Cattle Health, myhealthyherd and lots more. The value of such a committee would have been to help members to AVOID problems. One of the main tenets of the DCS is to EDUCATE, some council members could do with starting with themselves.

Duncan

Our DCS council rejected my proposal to have a health and welfare committee because...."if we have a health and welfare committee people will think we have problems". They took the same attitude to dismiss the Genetics committee. Not at all constructive.

It is improbable that DCS could run a health scheme solely for Dexters, but we certainly would benefit from a committee looking at how we educate members to appreciate and use the schemes which are out there - I obviously know the Scottish schemes best such as Hi Health, Premier Cattle Health, myhealthyherd and lots more. The value of such a committee would have been to help members to AVOID problems. One of the main tenets of the DCS is to EDUCATE, some council members could do with starting with themselves.

Duncan

Tim Watson wrote:I was going to add this on to an earlier thread but thought, although it's related, perhaps a separate thread would be more appropriate.

In Robin's earlier thread one of his concerned was the low price for Dexters.

The ability to charge more for the same or similar product is often a case of differentiation. There are many ways to do this but cattle rule out a lot of them.

I would be very in favour of some sort of herd health certification, perhaps run by DCS - if they are interested - (not sure why they wouldn't be though) which those interested owners could sign up for as a sort of gold standard of herd health. Stock could be checked periodically for a range of issues (BVD, Johne's etc). These would then be designated as gold standard herds, premiums could be sought for high health stock.

In time, it may be the case that the differential would diminish if a high proportion of the UK dexter herd joined the scheme but by then the overall stock price should have climbed.

I'm sure there are disadvantages to this but at the moment I can't see any other than perhaps cost to the owner, but if the herd health gets certified then the outlay gets recovered.

Three years ago there was an open meeting and presentation at Stoneleigh organised by the DCS for the Linear Scoring Scheme and the Premium Cattle Health Scheme. During the proceedings it was suggested that in order to bring costs down for the Linear Scoring inspections people could bring their cattle together and have them all done at the same time. I can still recall the look of horror on the vet's face who had just spent his afternoon explaining how diseases were transmitted by cattle to cattle contact and via people on their hands and clothes. That aside, there are also many Society members who attend shows and with the added financial burden of isolation and retesting when you return cattle to the farm not many are keen to commit.

I am disappointed that the Society did not embrace the Health scheme especially with the move to promote Dexter beef. Many commercial herds are now 'accredited' and if they were considering running a few Dexters alongside their commercial stock it is not very encouraging - especially with Johne's as it is not so simple as a blood test before they leave the farm of origin.

For those like myself who now have 'Elite' health status sourcing replacement bulls has become such a nightmare that I have had to resort to AI and that is not without its risks. I am sure there must be someone else with the same health status and it would be very helpful if the DCS kept a list of those with accredited stock.

I don't hold out much hope as I'm still awaiting a reply to an enquiry with regard to the TB testing status of an animal advertised on this website. A pretty basic request, I thought.

I'd certainly go for a health scheme, but not yet. I think you need a critical mass of the breed accredited to make it worthwhile unless you're a closed herd, so I'm working on building up my own critical mass before pretty much closing the herd. A lot of poor doers need taking out of the breed, and I don't think you need to be in a health scheme to spot many of them.

This is a tricky subject and one that many breeds have investigated and taken up.

I would like Duncan's opinion (as his knowledge is probably better than mine), but there are problems with the tests and schemes in my opinion.
1. Neospora - foxes carry this so any contact with infected foxes on your land puts your herd at risk.
2. Johnes - endemic on some farms in rabbits and deer and so the only way to be certain of remaining clear is to zero graze.
3. IBR - vaccination with marker vaccine is possible but that doesn't prevent the animal from carrying the disease, just doesn't manifest it. So you may purchase a Hi-health status animal from a sale which carries the disease home to your herd.

Am I being overly negative here? Obviously the companies that market the tests are keen for us to join, but can they really justify the tests. We were once (other breeds) hi-health, but after three years of no tests, but no cattle coming on, we had an IBR blood test positive and a Johnes positive on blood. We sold all of the cattle and decided not to worry. Now we purchase and keep clinically healthy individuals.

Beechhay raises several interesting points, it would probably need a book to give thorough answers!

Maintaining a herd in good health probably depends on two main things which although they have the same aims are quite different.

First is having a good understanding of biosecurity and tailoring this to your own herd circumstances. Baiscally biosecurity means doing things or not doing things to keep infective agents out of your herd. This means limiting contact between your herd and other herds, only admitting new animals of equal status to your herd, quarantining new additions with specific tests for some diseases at start and end of quarantine period, making sure that yourself and workers do not carry infection in on clothing, boots, machinery etc, limiting visitors and their vehicles especially those who have come from other farms to areas to which livestock do not have access, unless unless they are properly disinfected and clothed. Such persons would include vets, inseminators, postmen, feed delivery vehicles, cattle transporters etc.

Second are the disease control or eradication schemes.

The main diseases currently covered by such schemes are BVD, IBR, Leptospirosis and Johnes disease. Two are viral, two are bacterial, and all behave in different ways so the process to eradicate or control is different.

BVD is a virus which despite being named Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus actually does a huge amount of other damage. This includes abortions, foetal death, respiratory signs, reduced immunity to all other diseases, mucosal disease etc.
Infection with BVD in any age from birth to old age results in a temporary infected stage during which the animal may suffer all sorts of symptoms and most importantly may pass on infection to others. This infection may arise from contact direct with other infected animals, either brought into the herd or across single fences, straying etc. The most important feature of BVD to grasp however is that if a pregnant animal is infected, the foetus may become infected across the placenta, and if this happens then the calf born will be persisantly infected, usually referred to as a PI. These never recognise the virus as foreign, cannot get rid of it, and for the rest of their lives shed huge numbers of virus. They are the main reason for persistance of BVD in a herd, and eradication schemes focus on eliminating PI animals. It is relatively easy given proper controls on reinfection to eradicate it from herds. In eradicating BVD we get rid of all its effects, the most important of which is probably the immunosupression which results in higher levels of other disease in infected herds. Scotland is in the middle of a national eradication scheme and other areas of the UK are following.

IBR is also a virus disease but has very important differences to BVD - any animal which becomes infected will be permanently infected, just like humans with chicken pox and shingles, though the symptoms are different there are similarities in the way the viruses work. It can easily be transferred by carrier animals which had an active infection maybe years ago, carry the virus, and may begin to shed virus after being stressed in some way. So eradication of IBR hinges on identifying infected animals and removing them from the herd. Quite different and can be difficult to do in a pedigree herd in particular. Keeping it out depends on biosecurity and vaccination, and we do have "marker" vaccines which can be distinguished on blood tests from actual virus infection. It can lurk in a herd which has not been tested for years and then re-emerge, which can explain occurance of disease despite closed herd status if the original animals where not all tested.

Leptospirosis is a bacterial disease which can cause abortions, general malaise, and is a zoonosis - ie it can infect humans, so there are potential risks of owners or workers being infected from cattle. It can be carried by sheep and transferred through water courses and can be difficult to eradicate. Vaccines are available which both prevent new infections and reduce shedding of bacteria in urine of already infected animals.

Johnes disease is caused by a bacteria of the same family as TB, but with quite different effects. It results in wasting and diarrhoea, peak age of clinical cases is 2-6yrs, but most infected animals contract the disease as young calves. The long incubation time is a major difference to the other diseases covered by schemes and requires a different approach. No cattle under two years old are likely to give any meaningful result on tests for antibodies, but the disease process may already be under way. Testing involves blood sampling of all animals over 2 years old in the herd, and the result is usually expressed in percentage terms, and results ranked as negative, doubtful, or positive. Doubtful or positive animals should have faeces samples tested by PCR to identify the presence of Johnes disease bacteria in the faeces. For herds in most schemes if the blood is showing antibodies but the bacteria is not present in faeces, that individual should be culled but does not count as a positive animal. Due to the long incubation period it is very difficult to ascertain total freedom from Johnes disease and herd status is usually expressed at "Risk categories", with category 1 being the lowest risk of any animal being infected. The fat that some rabbits sheep and deer have been shown to carry the bacteria is of much less importance than the presence of the disease in cattle and should not allow anyone to be put off trying to eradicate this most damaging and insidious disease.

Neospora is still a poorly understood disease and although it is billed as the most common diagnosis for abortion in cattle today we need to be wary of what is defined as diagnostic. The presence of antibodies to any disease at the time of an abortion does not necessarily mean that that disease is the cause of the abortion. It is also true that many antibody levels take time to rise after infection so a negative result to antibody tests does not necessarily mean that the agent did not cause the abortion. A minefield in other words.

BUT please look positively at health schemes.

this all written off the cuff at 23.34pm, when you all really need a text book!

Duncan

I'd also recommend joining The Moredun Foundation - a very useful organisation & well worth supporting.

Duncan,

As always a great answer, so full of accurate and unbiased information - the DCS and Forum are lucky to have your input.

I am still however concerned that people can lose genetically important animals, thinking they are going to eradicate the disease, only to find that vectors on the farm re-introduce the conditions as fast as the culling removes them.

And the SAC will tell you that the test is only relevant for the day the animal was tested, it does not mean the animal is clear afterwards. Particularly relevant for Neospora which may test negative if they haven't aborted recently, even though they may be carriers.

We spent about £500 per year for three years becoming clear, but as I have said above, on investigation later we were told the tests were only relevant on the day due to the risk from carriers and vectors.

It is complicated and not just a matter of entering a scheme in my opinion.

Rob

We've recently had a draft Health Plan prepared by our vet with a view to adding Red Tractor Standard Beef designation to our arable quality assurance, but if we implement the Plan I imagine it will pretty well wipe out any small profit we might make on our 20 head/10 breeding female herd - given the number of vet visits, tests, vaccinations, the isolation and testing of the annual hire bull etc etc that the plan proposes.

We are in the Cambridgeshire Fens, an almost entirely arable farming area. The nearest cattle to us are 3 miles away and they are indoors at all times. I can't think of any grazing herds for miles around. We're in a 4 year TB testing area, and annual tests for worms so far continue to show no treatment required. The cattle do not have access to wet or boggy areas from the fluke point of view.

Other than hiring a bull once per year, we have not brought in cattle for three years - we are keeping our own replacements.

Are the sort of actions that are being advocated above against Johnnes, BVD etc a matter of doing our part to reduce spread of these diseases nationally, or are they really going to hit me hard financially if I get them?

I would hope that our Dexters, like most peoples', are kept in good robust health in systems mimicking as closely as possible the natural cycles of nature.

I assume that my main risk of infection given our circumstances is purely from the hire bull each year, and that our Plan should really revolve around best management of his visit, and/or careful choice of hire bull?

Roger

beechhay wrote:It is complicated and not just a matter of entering a scheme in my opinion.

Rob

Certainly not, and mostly importantly, IMHO, is to select & maintain animals with strong immune systems. We're surrounded by possible sources of basic infection but relying too much on one particular aspect can mask genetic susceptibility. We always seem to see that in sheep, rarely trimming and never footbathing, but we never have issues with footrot and rarely any lameness, despite the wet conditions of floodplain grazing, but any bought in stock is usually a mixed bag that needs careful selection for future breeding.

Relying on genetic resistance to different diseases may sound ideal, but in practice would take many years to select or even identify resistance genes. It would also create a whole new hierarchy of breeding priorities. With the government scheme for scrapie genetics in sheep a great many sheep breeders felt their best lines were being selected out because the scrapie genes did not suit. In the end the scheme was abandoned. There is some evidence of genetic resistance to footrot in sheep and to some parasite infestations, but it is by no means easy or clear cut.

Far better to use the well developed tools to test and eradicate such serious diseases as BVD - As I said earlier it has profound effects on occurence of other diseases and its effect in a herd is not always appreciated. In the year 2000 I took part in a study tour of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. There was overwhelming evidence of the benefits of BVD erdadication then. SAC produced figures for the economic effect of BVD on a 100 cow commercial suckler herd about the, and the cost will not be any less now. At that time it was £46000 over a ten year period after introduction of BVD infection into a naive herd. I know there are very few Dexter herds with that number of cows but losses will be proportionate.

It may sound as though I am being dismissive of genetic resistance, it would be ideal if it could all be quickly achieved, but I doubt if enough progress will be made for a few years yet.

I agree with Rob that the Moredun institute is well worth subscribing to. It gives regular reliable info on diseases and research. It has always, since its inception, been heavily reliant on farmer membership and support.

Duncan