Measuring Height

[wagra]

Having trouble again. Just testing.

[wagra]

It would work now that I have lost my letter. Anyway, I will be most gratified if Clive's chart can be of help, justifying my obsession of earlier years.
Margaret



Edited By wagra on 1211194792

[Broomcroft]

It's your chart Margaret, I just did the maths. I have put an acknowledgement on to Wagra Dexters and a message saying that if anyone wants the Excel file just email me.

It does show that measuring at 3, which is what everyone seems to do, doesn't work if you're already near the limit. You have to look ahead.

[Duncan MacIntyre]

I think we are very lazy generally about recording our Dexters performance be it height, weight, milk yield or whatever, and I very much include myself in that. Having said that it is important if we are going to do it to have set ages and methods otherwise there is little point in drawing comparisons. Clive's little table is an excellent thing, and maybe if we had some sort of on-line database we could feed into it could grow into a valuable record.

Whilst I am very aware of the difficulty of when to consider an animal full grown I would make the point that if a bull is over height at 2 or 2 and 6 months or whatever then he is not going to shrink. Maybe DCS should consider a subsidy or other incentive to regularly record a significant number of bulls for several years. As it built up we would have a reliable early warning sign that a bull was really going to go over height.


Weight concerns me just as much - Dexter bulls historically were considered to be "not above 900lbs (about 400kg) in working condition". That was not an average, that was a maximum. Where are we now? Ilsington Bramble, who I was persuaded to put on AI because he was such a good bull according to various Council members at the time, weighed 552kg when he came back from the AI station. Some well known bulls on the show circuit recently are over 600kg. That is 50% more than the 900lbs of the mid 20th Century.

Duncan

[Saffy]

Duncan,

You mention that weight of bulls has gone up considerably over the years. Is that in your opinion due to the more recently produced bulls being better or over fed, having a more beef like shape, being taller or some other reason?

Stephanie

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Stephanie,

On the weight front, I think there will be both a genetic drift and a nutritional effect on the average weight. But the 900lb bull weight used to be stated as a top weight, not an average. We have to remember that even though in recent years AVERAGE nutrition has improved in almost all branches of farming, we are talking about upper limits. The top show animals for almost two centuries in lots of breeds of livestock have been fed like fighting cocks if I am allowed the expression. So it seems logical to me that we should not have allowed the TOP weight and height to rise significantly. But we have.

Duncan

[Rutherford]

Weight and size are of course linked, and a number of breeders feel the recent increase in size licensed by our Society in contravention to the guidelines drawn up at the 1998 Congress was a mistake, it was not submitted for membership approval.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

I wonder if anyone has data on the effect on growth on cattle with improved feed values. I have changed over the past 4 years gradually from old fields seeded probably 30 or more years ago, through to new grasses, and then new grasses with masses of large white clover (medium size technically). The effect on size I think I can see. I have purchased steers from successful show herds, and they were almost of a size that I didn't want them, but they seem to shoot up and out when they get here. Two have just gone to the butcher and I think the breeder would have been surprised to have seen them when finished.

Put it another way, I can now finish a "large" steer to a fairly well-marbled finish at 24 months 100% totally off grass/clover.

I had a sirloin steak last night and it reminded me of why I was running my farm and why I do Dexter. It was awesome. To be producing something that it so good it stops conversations at the table is a pleasure. Dexter has turned my almost totally vegetarian wife into someone who goes on tele cooking beef pie! And it seems to have the same effect on my cholestoral levels and blood pressure as wild game, which previously was the only meat that I could eat with good effect, including the leanest of the lean. It can only be those fatty acids.

The unique flavour, I feel certain, is 90% or more due to the relatively small size, but not the very small sizes you mention above. All evidence shows that if you go much bigger, you lose that amazing / powerful flavour and I would say, also the inherent health benefits for humans of our beef. According to vastly experienced farmers, you cannot finish steers from anything bigger than a 1000 lb cow on grass, and I would say, slightly smaller is better, but not very small.

So there is a conundrum there in that I want small cattle but bigger than you mention, and others want quite a lot smaller. Maybe there should be Dexters and Beef Dexters?

I don't know whether the raising of the standard has increased the size or whether the size increase was there and the standard was altered to accommodate the new sizes. Also, wasn't the old standard "measure at three", and the new one "measure at maturity". That would bring the two standards nearer together by an inch or two were it not for the apparent fact that people still measure at three but use the figure from the new standard which was meant for maturity, not three!!!



Edited By Broomcroft on 1211526318

[Broomcroft]

Just found this study which is full of information http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstre....882.pdf

[Rutherford]

The old argument of nurture versus nature has been in existence since genetics first began. The general consensus is that while nurture has an effect it cannot belie nature.
In the case of the Dexter I believe the increase in size is largely due to the habit of using a long leg bull to produce short leg cows, and the size of the bull tends to be ignored. If the carrier is the result of an original cross with a bigger breed, continual breeding to it must eventually raise the size to the original cross. True mountain species are usually small.
In your case you sell before maturity, but the high feeding standard may well bring on development at an earlier age.
It is good to hear you boosting the beef once again. I have had three enquiries as to where Dexter beef could be bought recently, I think largely due to your advertising efforts.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Broomcroft]

I've only skipped through the above study, because it's massive. But it is basically backing up what you say Beryl as far as I can tell. It also goes about scientifically indentifying that what makes the difference between a well-shaped animal in the ring and an apparently poorer but similar one, is (in their tests) just a layer of fat. They say that the beef industry has been wasting it's time, and still is, where they use just visual inspection/appraisal (apart from obvious faults). I am now totally convinced by what I have read and my own limited experience, that the best cattle are not the best looking ones. And the best beef cattle aren't the beefiest ones. They're the best overall, low-cost, hardy breeders that produce ample good quality beef and are milky.

The study highlights a return / look at the dual purpose breeds as providing a better solution than the man-made monstrosities that have to have CS just to give birth and/or can't raise their calves properly. It's fascinating stuff.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1211564607

[Kathleen]

Dear Louisa Gidney,

I found you comments about epiphysial fusion interesting - I would be interested to have a look at the data you refer to in your post - if that is possible. I am also willing to discuss this off site if you would prefer to do it that way.

[natmadaboutdexters]

I too have an 8 month old bull who measures 35inches tall. When he was born he seemed quite tall so I thought he was a non-short but recently he has not grown much in height and I am now wondering if he is a short. I have a heifer who is only a couple of months older than him but a lot taller. I am trying to sell him and don't want to mislead potential buyers into thinking he is non-short when perhaps he isn't. phew it just seems so complicated. He has fairly short legs so I guess that he is non-short.

Should I measure him again at a year old to see if he has grown and by how much?

Natasha Lewis

[Pennielea]

Natasha
Your conclusion that because he has fairly short legs therefore he is non-short seems odd. As you will have to send off a hair sample to have him parentage proven before you can register him and sell him why not have the chondro. test done at the same time? Then your conscience will be clear when you sell him whether he is a carrier or not and the purchaser knows what they have got.

Ian

[Rutherford]

I agree with Pennielea, if you are proposing to sell him as a bull, you should do the chondro test. He is not particularly small for eight months, but measurements will not give you a definitive answer, general conformation may enable a guess, but there is no point when the test is available. In the case of a bull it is essential to know what you are using.
Beryl (Woodmagic)