Halter training for auctions - Sale of untrained stock

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Sat May 10, 2008 12:42 pm

Justmalc since specialist sales for Dexters are limited, I feel the society should not put obstacles in the way of owners needing to sell. I understand Melton Mowbray has very good penning facilities, so I can see no reason for insisting on haltering.
As far as over supply is concerned, this is partly due to the system of breeding which necessitates churning out a preponderance of unwanted unpredictable animals, in order to obtain the much prized shorts.
I see no reason for not allowing some sentiment in a breed mainly owned by ‘good life’ addicts. Personally, I have pensioned off two cows of around twenty, because I felt I owed them some gratitude for their long service
I simply responded to Clive's suggestion; in this case I would hesitate to keep her, if she was not thriving.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Saffy · Post by **Saffy** » Sat May 10, 2008 1:30 pm

Surely the sale could simply be split into two sections halter trained and not halter trained, to be sold one after the other?

Even with the best intentions, if one becomes ill or something unexpected happens and time isn't on your side and your animal isn't well enough halter trained or you haven't actually touched it, then it can simply be put in the not trained section.

The trained would still be at a premium and could be properly inspected so those that had put in all the work wouldn't loose out.

Or am I over simplifying things?

Stephanie

natmadaboutdexters · Post by **natmadaboutdexters** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:08 pm

Sounds like a sensible idea to me Saffy. I have a heifer that is a bit flighty for halter training but that I would like to take to Melton in September.

Duncan MacIntyre · Post by **Duncan MacIntyre** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:09 pm

I firmly believe that at least one sale should be the DCS "National Show and Sale", with all animals of a high standard of condition, conformation and presentation. Any dilution of this reduces the effect of this type of sale in giving us a top level for prices. I do not have any issue with how animals are presented at minor or regional sales, but there should be at least on top level sale. For many years the price of bulls in the Dexter world has been far too low in relation to females. This is possibly beginning to be addressed by reducing the number of bulls registered, making people think twice before selecting bulls for breeding. But inspection is still needed to make sure that animals presented at the top sale are of top quality. I agree with much of what Beryl says about not relying soly on the physical appearance of a bull, but at the end of the day one which has obvious faults has obvious faults, and should not have a place in top level sales.

The sort of effect that a good inspected sale such as Melton has for me, for example, is that by presenting Burnside Challenger there, selling for 980 gns, I can feel comfortable asking £750 for bulls of similar standard in private sales. After a while I will feel the need to revalidate my prices, but will not be happy to take animals long distance to have them sold with lots of other non inspected unhandleable others which reduce the prices.

Duncan

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:18 pm

£750! I sold my last bull for £1400, in boxes and he wouldn't even have been allowed into a show. Other people would have sold him for more like £1,600 at their higher prices. I like the idea of a National Show and Sale.

Edited By Broomcroft on 1210429279

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Sun May 11, 2008 9:49 am

Duncan, we certainly don’t agree. I wouldn’t dream of buying a bull at auction, with the exception of a herd dispersal. Talk of buying a pig in a poke!! The inspection can only take account of faults displayed, and most undesirables are recessive. If the other member of the mating also carried them, any of a dozen or more could surface in the offspring, to say nothing of the qualities that are not visual. I would never consider such a gamble for my next calf crop. The purchase of females however, is certainly justified, particularly in the case of a beginner. Incidentally, I do feel it wise to halter train any bull from a safety angle.
Most of the commercial breeds back their high prices with performance figures; I don’t believe any of the recent expensive Dexter animals have demonstrated such. Clive’s steer is a totally different case. The price is that obtained on the finished product, through the present vogue for good quality produce from a known source, and exploited by good advertising.
I am uneasy at the sudden escalation of auction prices, while I would welcome a gradual and incremental upsurge, it smacks too much of money brought in artificially, from outside sources, and a crazy fashion that could die, leaving a lot of owners with over priced animals and no sale prospects, only real performance, not show ring, will sustain a long term rise.
I certainly think Saffy’s suggestion has great merit for a breed with very limited demand, where one wants as many potential buyers present as possible. Poor sale prices at out of the way sales, provides a very poor advert for the breed. Haltering an animal doesn’t prove its breeding worth.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Sun May 11, 2008 10:06 am

When traits (undesirable or desirable) are described as recessive, does that mean the trait is not showing in the animal you are looking at, but they are there in it's genetic make-up, so could and probably would re-appear when you bred from it? Or what does it mean?

Edited By Broomcroft on 1210496826

Duncan MacIntyre · Post by **Duncan MacIntyre** » Sun May 11, 2008 10:34 am

For general interest, the last bull I bought at auction was Shilton Pontius. He is 100% Woodmagic blood. I had seen a number of his close relatives though not his parents.

Duncan

Saffy · Post by **Saffy** » Sun May 11, 2008 10:47 am

I can see the problem that unhalter trained animals could cause by bringing down the overall prices but couldn't the prices for the two types be announced seperately and kept seperate as well.

Making it clear to the vendors as well as the buyer that there is a premium to be had for halter training, inspection, preperation and a better class of animal.

Stephanie

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Sun May 11, 2008 12:26 pm

Yes, Clive, you are bang on. The undesirable trait may be masked in the animal you are looking at, by the favourable gene thrown by his other parent, but he may pass on the recessive to his calves instead of his good one.
Meanwhile the animal rejected for some cosmetic factor, may carry for example, the true flavour of Dexter beef that the animal passing inspection has lost. Looking at a bull does not tell you how he will breed.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Sun May 11, 2008 12:41 pm

Duncan, I can take that as a back handed compliment, but I wouldn’t want it suggested that every Woodmagic female was a potential bull breeder. Any prospective buyer who comes to see me would be sent to inpect the dam.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

Sylvia · Post by **Sylvia** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:13 pm

The only halter trained cow in the first lot I bought was a show winner. She looked lovely and I was very pleased to buy her despite being told she may not be a novice's cow (but not being told why !!). When she calved she became, and I do not exagerate, murderously calf proud. She went back when the calf was weaned. Halter trained Dexters may mostly be angelic little darlings but it may also hide all manner of undesirable behaviour traits. Incidently, the other cows in that first batch (not halter trained) have never given me any problems at all. Not unlike recessive genes I suppose. It is all a bit of a gamble.

wagra dexters · Post by **wagra dexters** » Mon May 12, 2008 4:44 am

We don't have access to such sales as are being discussed in this topic unfortunately. Some questions though.
Wouldn't there be undesirable recessives in most animals, and only in pairing the same undesirable would it become an issue?
How would you know if the family carried recessive nasties if they had not been inbred to bring them out?
Obviously asking about truly hidden recessives, not semi-dominants, or whatever it is that describes the phenotypical presentation of the short leg type of gene. Would hydrocephalus be an example of undesirable recessive, and if so, how could you know a carrier simply by inspecting relatives?
Margaret.

Rutherford · Post by **Rutherford** » Mon May 12, 2008 8:32 am

Some recessives are so dangerous that I would not want to introduce them into my stock in the single dose. Hydrocephalus is such a gene, and unfortunately at least two of our A.I. bulls. are known to carry it. Although not a great enthusiast for breeding on pedigrees, this is one instance where I would do so, and advise folks to avoid any animals with these two bulls in their pedigree. It is a blunt instrument, not all their descendents will carry it, but I prefer to play safe. Of course mere inspection cannot safeguard, and there is no DNA test.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

monica waltho · Post by **monica waltho** » Mon May 12, 2008 8:40 am

Who are the two bulls ?