Halter training for auctions - Sale of untrained stock

[Rutherford]

Martin, any breed in the wider commercial world outside, will have an enormous variety of colours, types etc. and breeders can largely breed as they like. The Breed Societies however, will have recommended standards for those who wish to register their cattle, as a Breed Society we should do the same.
At this moment, that would prove very difficult, since no short leg breeder has control over what he can breed. Unfortunately, the ratios mean he will actually produce a preponderance of long, far in excess of the demand, as average prices confirm.
You could open up two Herd Books, but the result would be utter confusion, since the short don’t bred true, they would be hopping in and out of the corresponding Herd Books like yo-yos.
I believe the only logical long term answer is the production of a small true breeder which we now know is possible, and which I am convinced is what the little Celtic cow originally was, before man decided to ‘improve’ it.
Unfortunately bulls are being measured long before maturity, without recognition that an animal only reaches full size at about five years, which confirms the vague and ignorant standards at present being applied in the Elite scheme.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Sylvia]

And then of course there is the 'polled' argument. I've had people turn up their noses at my splendid polled bull despite the fact that the polled calves he produces do not have to go through the trauma of dehorning. So we could have a herd book for short carriers horned, short carriers polled, non short horned, non short polled, short non carriers horned, short non carriers polled, that is 6 for starters. And trying to get that lot registered in the right herd book before 30 days will drive us all to the funny farm.

However I would guess that most of us do not have 50 years left in which to breed back to the short, non-carrier, true breeding, little black cow. I know I don't.

[Martin]

Hi Beryl, my main point is the fact that there is a huge difference in 'type' and that is (I believe) what makes it such an attractive breed. It can be all things to all people (mostly) and I for one am not particularly concerned about a slight increase in size as it would certainly help with slaughter costs.
Cows are not kept as they used to be, nutrition is better and I don't think many Dexter keepers would be able to let their animals 'milk of their backs' or come out of winter in as poor a condition as may have been acceptable years ago and that could be one of the reasons why size is increasing. The debate continues.
Martin. Medway Valley Dexters.

[Rutherford]

It depends on whether you are simply looking for a ‘quick fix’, or whether you are caught up in the fascination of trying to actually breed your perfect animal. Using the recessive will give you an immediate approximation, but has the handicap that the result depends entirely on luck and is utterly unpredictable. It also has the drawback that size cannot be bred for, since your ‘short leg’ gives no indication of its true size. This is undoubtedly the main reason for the increase in size in the modern Dexter, since in chasing beef you are almost certainly inadvertently going for the bigger animal. I have been horrified at the size of some of the bulls used today. It is true that showing encourages some to overfeed, the Dexter has been bred for centuries to survive without, but the genes will remain the overriding influence on size.
The true breeding Dexter today does not require fifty years of breeding. The bulls are there, if you look for them and starting with a herd of all shapes and sizes, ten years should give a fair number of useful breeders.
I cannot understand the prejudice against the polled bull. Very, very few of today’s bulls do not have cross breeding somewhere in their background, whether they are polled or not, and today most want their calves reared without horns.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

Beryl / anyone,

Carriers are larger animals "stunted" by the gene, so don't show their true size, got that bit and it completely explains what I get in my herd with big youngsters from small cows. But is the amount that each animal is reduced by anything like consistent? In other words how much larger would the same animal be if it didn't have the gene? Or is it just all over the place?

I've got one very tiny carrier heifer for example, does that mean her true size would also be small? So if I managed to get a non-carrier out of her, it would be a small non-carrier.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1210262254

[Rutherford]

The size of the ‘short’ animal gives no true idea of the equivalent non-carrier. I would expect your very small animal to produce some of your biggest non- shorts. It is indeed, ‘all over the place’. If the bull and cow are both non-short and fairly close in size, the calves will finish up near enough the same size. If the cow is short the bull will do his part, but if the cow has a gene with a design for a big skeleton, the calf will be a compromise between the two.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Sylvia]

Heaven knows Clive, after breeding Pygmy Goats for 30-odd years I thought I knew a bit about dwarfism as they come in 2 types both of which breed true and neither of which produce unviable kids. A good deal of crossing between the 2 types of dwarf has taken place so the types are now pretty much blurred into one very small goat. However Dexters are another matter altogether and despite the loads of information available on this site I find things getting more difficult to understand by the day.

[Broomcroft]

The use of the words Short and Non-Short causes much confusion I feel. What has been said is that the ideal is a short non-carrier, or in general Dexter terminology, a short non-short, or a short long. Sounds like Donald Rumsfeldt on a bad day.

Presumably a short non-carrier is ideal for everyone because it breeds true and also gets rid of the lethal gene. I prefer the American terminology in their breed standard, "Normal" and "Affected". So what we want is a Normal short animal. That has a better ring to me.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1210270877

[Rutherford]

I don’t really mind what they are called, but over the years there have been criticisms of most terminology. Originally when I came into the breed, the term for the small non-short was medium leg, and I was comfortable with that, but then that term was adopted by the bigger dwarf.
Whatever they are called, the facts remain the same, but it isn’t easy to explain, when folks haven’t knowledge of genetics. I would be perfectly happy with calling them normal short, but I am not sure your dwarf breeders would be as happy; I usually avoid using the word dwarf for the same reason, although it is accurate.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

If my tiny heifer has a gene for a big animal, then if she was put in calf, would the calf try to get to the size it should be, or will it be small and more in line with her physical rather than 'true/genetic' size?

That's why I haven't bred from her. She is now three and just a pet.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1210316331

[Rutherford]

You are very wise, the danger is that she will pass on her gene for her true size to the calf, she may be lucky and have a short leg calf, but it has to be a matter of chance, and ***’s law suggests the worst option will prevail. My advice would be to keep her as a pet! She will make a very labour saving and loveable lawn mower.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

My advice would be to keep her as a pet! She will make a very labour saving and loveable lawn mower. Beryl (Woodmagic)

Now I think about it, she probably isn't very good pet material. What I didn't say was that right from being very young, she was very shy and she doesn't look happy. She doesn't run around like the others. Always very quiet and at the back, and you can't get near her. As I would describe her as extremely dwarfed, or pygmy might describe her best, I am thinking she might be in pain. So I am probably going to eat her instead.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1210328441

[welshdexterboy]

I like your style Clive.:D It is so refreshing to see that there are people who can make the right choices and not keep animals just because they cant choose the kill word. People end up breeding from heifers that should be in the freezer but they choose not to because it is their first heifer or whatever. This usually ends up with poor animals, low prices for them and then people refer to these prices as a guide. Breed the best you can whether it be short, non-short,medium, long or whatever.

[justmalc]

Thanks for all your replies to my query everyone. However, in the words of my old school teachers when preparing for examinations"Focus on the question posed!"

What do we think about selling un-haltered cattle at Melton market?

[Sylvia]

Rob H, your suggestion that the prices achieved for Dexters is affected by people who can't bear to eat their very first heifers is, in my opinion, rubbish. Prices are primarily affected by supply and demand and with Dexters filling a very small niche in the world of cattle there is a very real possibility that over-supply will have a significant effect on the prices for even the best animals. Best prices for Dexters (whatever their quality) will never be achieved in an open, commercial market where most buyers are judging animals by lbs per sq ft. So it is selling privately off the farm, or specialist sales, both of which are heavily reliant on demand being in excess of supply.

Apologies justmalc, I'm a long time out of school and couldn't let the comments preceding yours pass. I have been to auctions where it has been forbidden to use halters or even touch the animal in the ring, so I suppose if the rules are there they have to be obeyed.