Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:52 am
Can anyone tell me if Woodmagic Mudstopper and Woodmagic Dormouse where Dun? Just filling in a pedigree. 
Thanks
ThanksWoodmagic Mudstopper was black, Dormouse was dun.
Duncan
Dexter Cattle For Sale Discussion Board
A Community for the like-minded Dexter People
https://dextercattleforsale.co.uk/phpBB3/
More Research - Pedigrees
https://dextercattleforsale.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=647
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:04 pm
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:51 am
Thankyou for that Duncan. Don't suppose you have their birthdates by any chance do you? :;):
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:51 pm
Woodmagic Mudstopper born 04/12/1966
Woodmagic Dormouse (RM) (D) born 28/03/1969
Duncan
Woodmagic Dormouse (RM) (D) born 28/03/1969
Duncan
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:19 am
Thankyou so much Duncan. We'll have you doing all our research for us at this rate. :;): :D I'll try not to be a pest, but if I get stuck, I hope you don't mind if I add a few more requests some time in the future? Thankyou again.
One query though. I've got Dormouse down as a male. Whereas the D you've got says its a female - is that right? What the RM for?
One query though. I've got Dormouse down as a male. Whereas the D you've got says its a female - is that right? What the RM for?
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:43 am
Dormouse was of course a bull, the D is for Dun, not sure why that would make him a her. The RM is Register of Merit. In the good old days of milking Dexters and milk recording if a cow or heifer achieved certain yields at at least 4% butterfat then she was given a Certificate of Merit (CM) If in her next lactation she met the standards, she went on to RM, Register of Merit. From then on if she was successful she was designated RM2, RM3 etc. Sorry I have not got access to the number of KG of milk needed, it changed from a lesser amount for a heifer to a greater amount for a cow in subsequent lactations, I will try to find time to give you the correct figures if no one else puts them up for me. Bulls were awarded RM when they had sired a certain number of registered female offspring gaining the CM or RM. I am talking in UK Dexter Society only of course. There used to be a scheme of bull licencing in UK, nothing to do with breed societies, but subject to veterinary inspection, and at that time there was also a Dairy Bull Licence, usually shown as DBL against the bull's name in the register, the only one I can name amongst Dexters is Canwell Buster, but I am sure there would have been others.
Duncan
Duncan
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:09 am
Thankyou for sorting me out. I was having a duh moment there. I thought the D meant Dam, sorry.
The Register of Merit sounds like a precurser to the Elite Bull scheme that is now in vogue.
The Register of Merit sounds like a precurser to the Elite Bull scheme that is now in vogue.
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 am
I think the yields for CM or RM were for 1st lactation, 1800kg, for 2nd lactation, 2500kg, and for 3rd and subsequent lactation, 2950kg, all to be at 4%butterfat or over.
The first Dexter to bear the Burnside prefix was Burnside Holly, sire Harron Little Joe, dam Harron Erica, who qualified CM in her first lactation with 2399kg at 4.82% BF, and RM in her second at 2948kg at 4.33% BF.
Beryl Rutherford lists some Dexter milk records, including of course some of her own Woodmagic, in her book.
Sorry I can't find a bulletin old enough to have the details of how many daughters a bull had to have at CM to get his own RM, but I think it was 6, hopefully some one else will correct that if I am wrong.
The important difference between this and the elite bull scheme is that this was awarded on production results, not inspection. As far as I know these awards can still be made, if anyone cares to record. Perhaps we could do with some recording officially of weights for beef purposes, but then we would maybe run the risk of assuming the bigger the better. It really takes a balance between looks and performance and breed character to make a good pedigree animal.
Duncan
The first Dexter to bear the Burnside prefix was Burnside Holly, sire Harron Little Joe, dam Harron Erica, who qualified CM in her first lactation with 2399kg at 4.82% BF, and RM in her second at 2948kg at 4.33% BF.
Beryl Rutherford lists some Dexter milk records, including of course some of her own Woodmagic, in her book.
Sorry I can't find a bulletin old enough to have the details of how many daughters a bull had to have at CM to get his own RM, but I think it was 6, hopefully some one else will correct that if I am wrong.
The important difference between this and the elite bull scheme is that this was awarded on production results, not inspection. As far as I know these awards can still be made, if anyone cares to record. Perhaps we could do with some recording officially of weights for beef purposes, but then we would maybe run the risk of assuming the bigger the better. It really takes a balance between looks and performance and breed character to make a good pedigree animal.
Duncan
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:38 am
Well, recording weights of beef growth is useful for comparison between the breeds. If a beef farmer can be assured that a small calf (at birth) will increase its weight as much as a big calf (at birth), then they can get just as much meat per acre out of their farm, assuming that they can run more head of stock with Dexters than the Continental breeds. With the added bonus of them being easier to handle (in general).
Of course I don't know how they compare with the growth rates of the other old UK breeds like Angus, Galloways and Highlands. (Although Golloways aren't that old as a breed are they?)
Of course I don't know how they compare with the growth rates of the other old UK breeds like Angus, Galloways and Highlands. (Although Golloways aren't that old as a breed are they?)
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:25 pm
I thought the Galloway was fairly old breed - from Celtic Black cattle of old now, the Belted Galloway is a different beast altogether I believe - tis bigger too
Jo
Jo
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:14 pm
Galloways are reported to be one of the ancient breeds, though whether they were as we see them now is doubtful, BothCulley in 1793 and Low in 1842 refer to them as ancient, and in fact state that belted ones were not uncommon. One of the earliest references to belted may be from tht Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court Deeds in 1673 "ane black beld quey", A quey being a heifer in Scotland.
So maybe Galloways black, brindle, riggit, red, dun, white, brocket-faced and belted can give Dexters a good run for their money in the antiquity stakes. The white and odd colours began to be eliminated after the herdbook was formed, I think the Dexter colours would have a similar story. Source of info mainly "An Illustrated History of Belted Cattle" by Lord David Stuart, 1970. Lord David would have been an uncle of the current Marquess of Bute.
Duncan
So maybe Galloways black, brindle, riggit, red, dun, white, brocket-faced and belted can give Dexters a good run for their money in the antiquity stakes. The white and odd colours began to be eliminated after the herdbook was formed, I think the Dexter colours would have a similar story. Source of info mainly "An Illustrated History of Belted Cattle" by Lord David Stuart, 1970. Lord David would have been an uncle of the current Marquess of Bute.
Duncan
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:54 pm
Duncan is correct in the yields necessary to gain CM’s or RM’s. The R.M. was won when they had three C.M’s, and a bull gained his, after three of his daughters had qualified` for a C.M. Licensing was dropped by the government when they realised that inspecting a bull’s appearance, could not give any indication of what his progeny would look like - when genetics had begun to take over.
The majority of beef breeders will admit, that the arrangements for weight performance are wide open to abuse. In the case of milk records the question mark is only in the management and nutrition, but there is likely to be a much nearer accurate assessment of true ability. Persuading the cow to drink a lot of water, just before weighing her milk yield would not give much advantage!
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Dexter for beef is that it costs twice as much per pound of meat to slaughter, I know of no one that slaughters a Dexter for less than a Simmental. It is a big penalty when costing, although the quality is there when it comes to selling, it is difficult to obtain a premium to cover double slaughter costs.
When looking at your pedigrees, remember that apart from the two parents, there is no certainty that any other particular animal on that pedigree will have contributed any genes to the animal covered by the pedigree. If the pedigree shows a large percentage of animals that you personally know and like, there is good chance that your animal will have inherited some of those genes- that is the most you can hope for. Milk is highly inherited, i.e. it is governed by a lot of genes, so if the pedigree is peppered with R.M.’s the chances are your animal will also carry a good number of genes for milk. Nevertheless, it would be possible for two full sisters to share no common genes.
The majority of beef breeders will admit, that the arrangements for weight performance are wide open to abuse. In the case of milk records the question mark is only in the management and nutrition, but there is likely to be a much nearer accurate assessment of true ability. Persuading the cow to drink a lot of water, just before weighing her milk yield would not give much advantage!
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Dexter for beef is that it costs twice as much per pound of meat to slaughter, I know of no one that slaughters a Dexter for less than a Simmental. It is a big penalty when costing, although the quality is there when it comes to selling, it is difficult to obtain a premium to cover double slaughter costs.
When looking at your pedigrees, remember that apart from the two parents, there is no certainty that any other particular animal on that pedigree will have contributed any genes to the animal covered by the pedigree. If the pedigree shows a large percentage of animals that you personally know and like, there is good chance that your animal will have inherited some of those genes- that is the most you can hope for. Milk is highly inherited, i.e. it is governed by a lot of genes, so if the pedigree is peppered with R.M.’s the chances are your animal will also carry a good number of genes for milk. Nevertheless, it would be possible for two full sisters to share no common genes.
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:50 am
So much knowledge! But I guess it all takes a while to absorb. I'm such a beginner.
We're lucky in NZ that we can have a beast home-killed and taken to a butcher after. Our butcher charges by the kilo, so we only pay for the size of the animal.
We're lucky in NZ that we can have a beast home-killed and taken to a butcher after. Our butcher charges by the kilo, so we only pay for the size of the animal.
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:03 am
Inger, are you then allowed to sell that home-killed animal to someone else? By September of next year, all animals sold for meat in British Columbia, will have to be slaughtered in a federally-inspected facility. This means many small communities will either lose their small farms or folks will go underground.
Kathy
Kathy
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:09 am
No we may not sell or give the meat to anyone else. It is for our own family's use. All meat traded has to go through the meat works, otherwise it would put our export meat at risk. As you may know, New Zealand depends on the export meat trade for its main source of income. Wool is next and then comes Tourism, forestry and horticultural products. We are still a predominantly primary producer, which is why our government is so keen to keep out as many insect and bacterial pests as possible.
Its a pity that you won't be able to have your meat processed by your local butchery though. Home killed meat is nicer, in that the animal has no stress on it before it is killed. Its hard to understand how your government can take away your right to kill your own meat? If the meat is not to be exported, I can't see how Villagers eating animals from a local farm is going to be damaging to the UK economy. I know the F&M experience was really horrible for you all, but surely killing animals close to where they are grown, has got to be better for the fight against the spread of any possible diseases, than trucking them for miles to a big killing works? ???
Its a pity that you won't be able to have your meat processed by your local butchery though. Home killed meat is nicer, in that the animal has no stress on it before it is killed. Its hard to understand how your government can take away your right to kill your own meat? If the meat is not to be exported, I can't see how Villagers eating animals from a local farm is going to be damaging to the UK economy. I know the F&M experience was really horrible for you all, but surely killing animals close to where they are grown, has got to be better for the fight against the spread of any possible diseases, than trucking them for miles to a big killing works? ???