re registering within 30 days

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Parent verification is very important, and can now be done relatively easily in the majority of cases. If it had been possible to do it in the past we would have avoided several nasty episodes of doubt being thrown on parentage of certain animals and therefore their progeny, We would also have avoided the controversy over the origin of certain polled animals since the bull they were reputedly off would have had DNA on record. It is one of the duties of a breed society to maintain proper pedigree records and the exact definition of that changes with time. We are a 21st century breed society not 19th century.

Registering progeny within a short time of birth makes for greatly reduced mistakes in parentage.

I have every sympathy for those who from time to time have cases which are difficult to sort out, but we must not throw out the system just because there are a few difficulties.

Either you want to register and have the benefits or you don't. If you don't think your stock are worth registering then don't bother. But don't go about dismantling the breed society just to suit yourselves.

Duncan

[Saffy]

Having read Rutherfords post we realise that any calves concieved before our little bulls paperwork arrives may not be eligable for registration, we hadn't realised that, we will have to wait it out.

[monica waltho]

It seems unfair to me that you cannot be allowed to register the bull if the DNA was lost surely exceptions should be made and I can see no argument against birth notifications at 30days but I feel heifers should be allowed to be registered upto 12mths at least and bulls perhaps upto 2years with out incurring higher charges
I also think we need to seriosly look at being able to register all steers as pedigree at a nominal charge of £2 this can include all bull calves with the proviso that an additional fee is paid plus the tests if they want to go onto be used for breeding

[wagra]

In my humble opinion, DNA testing for parent verification is the best thing that ever happened to bloodstock of any kind.
It provides credibility, confidence and integrity for breeders, buyers and the national herd, as well as allowing for foolproof late registration.
Slow learners, we won't be registering any more stock from whom no progeny is kept on as breeding stock, male or female.
Breed societies are essential, for all the reasons they exist, but if it is all made too financially prohibitive and discouraging, there could end up being no breed to manage.
Margaret.

[Rutherford]

I have no objection to DNA profiling all bulls in principle; my only reservation is that the cost may deter registrations. I would support reduction of the registration fee to the point where it simply covers the basic cost to the office in order to subsidise the breeder, although it would stick in my throat to hand the profit on recording the bull going to a Dutch firm instead of our Society!
Referring to selection of good bulls, the Holstein and Belgium Blue are a good illustration of the vanity of man thinking his present knowledge allows him to make a better job than nature can do. The potato breeder would be lost if he couldn’t go back to Mexico in search of genes to be found in the wild varieties. If we wish to maintain our diversity, which is so much greater than that in most other breeds, we need to encourage the small breeder, not lose them to the non-pedigree world. We are not, and never will be on a par with the mainstream breeds. Overheads on our cattle are almost double, but in our own niche, with encouragement to the potential, we should be able to increase our numbers and become a thriving Society
Di is correct, a bull can be registered, but with no parent verification he could not go abroad, and in this case blood typing would be available, but has been refused.
Correct and adequate information to ensure a reliable Herd Book is essential, but we can now make use of the passport system as a back up, which obviates the need for insistence on early registration. If a question of identity does arise, the Society is free to ask for DNA proof, at Society expense if it proves to have been a correct submission.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

It could be argued convincingly that the cost of registering a bull ought to come down the later you leave it, thereby encouraging people to only register carefully and not to register what turns out to be unsuitable later on.

I have left my two bulls till late for the very reason that the last time I registered a bull early, I did it when I wasn't ready just to avoid the penal charge, which is the worst of all reasons. I then sent the bull at 27 months to the abattoir for a reason that didn't really develop till late in the day. I could have bred from him, or I could have sold him for breeding. He was by an Elite bull so would have sold quite nicely.

So the fees were and still are pushing me towards doing precisely what the society should be discouraging, registering on a whim and a prayer. In all cases, all parents are DNA profiled, so what has time got to do with anything?



Edited By Broomcroft on 1211457265

[Peter thornton]

These arguments apply equally to females. If females could be birth notified then registered at 12 months then we would see more unsuitable females entering the food chain rather than being used for breeding just because moiney has been invested in registrations.
Yes I know that you can register late but it costs far too much.
And I know that the figures for 30 day registration are not that high but we should encourage the practice of waiting until an animal is at least half grown until making decisions about breeding.
There are too many unsuitable heifers about and prices are far too low.

[Saffy]

This is not going to be a popular comment but here goes, I shall carefully fit my neck on the block!

Surely registration at whatever age and whatever price in whatever way is not what has made these heifers unsuitable or their prices low. It is something else. Maybe the wrong bull going on the wrong cow, or lack of knowledge of conformation by the owners of these cattle?

Stephanie

[Peter thornton]

The problem is that many of us are inexperienced at the keeping of cows. We tend to assume that males are for eating whilst females are for breeding. And we breed from females that are really not quite good enough. The "gene" doesn't help as it masks the real problems contained in many carrier animals. As a result the Dexter herd contains a wide vartiety of stock (which is good in some ways)
Because we are inexperienced, it's a lot easier to judge animals when they are older than 30 days. And it's also possible to take advice now and again but not possible to ask someone to come out continually to look at new calves.
The current low prices of heifers is an opportunity to pick, say, the best 50% for breeding and eat the rest. Result, a better national herd and better prices for heifers.

[Saffy]

Yes, I see, it must be difficult to work out whether a calf is short or long legged sometimes.

Stephanie

[Peter thornton]

Not really, it's usually fairly obvious.

The problem is that the "gene" gives the cow a certain look which isn't typical of 75% of the calves that the cow will produce. I have a lovely looking cow, a classic Dexter. However her calves don't develop to look the same. They end up as "rangy" looking animals that are really a little too tall. Except for the 25% of carriers who then go on to have the same problem.
As my vet once said, "lovely looking cows but they don't breed true". (Speaking of the carriers only.)

[Saffy]

Surely that isn't a good cow to breed from Peter 25% sounds rather bad odds.

Stephanie

[Peter thornton]

Saffy, you are absolutely right!

When a cow is a carrier then there is a 25% chance that any calf will also be a carrier. If the cow is mated with a carrier bull then there is also a 25% chance that a calf will be born dead (which is why no-one does this)

The DCS needs to have a proper debate about getting rid of the "gene" (I can never spell the proper description!) but I guess it will have to wait until the present hoo hah has died down.

[wagra]

Something not right here. As I understand it, a carrier cow, no matter what she is joined to, will on average have 50% carrier calves.

If she is joined to a carrier she will have on average 25% dead bulldogs, 50% carrier and 25% non-carrier.
If she is joined to a non-carrier she will on average have 50% carrier and 50% non-carrier.

Unless I have it all wrong, which is of course a possibility.

Margaret.



Edited By wagra on 1212020933

[Broomcroft]

I have copied this below off the ADCA (I think) website.

Affected X Normal = 50% Affected, 50% Normal calves
Normal X Normal = 100% Normal calves
Affected X Affected = 50% Affected calves, 25% Normal calves, 25% Severely Affected calves
Severely Affected X Severely Affected (if it were possible) = 100% Severely Affected