Cattle Size - Breeding Effects

[Peter thornton]

Ken
You ask if this issue puts new owners off?

Just read Anne's post! That's a very accurate description of the issues involved. If I were a small farmer (as opposed to a smallholder with 7 cattle) then that would make me go straight towards something like an Angus.

The lottery is great for a Saturday afternoon, but cattle breeding for profit is something else entirely.

NB Note for Anne - I'm not in any way critical of your post, just the opposite - it's a very good summing up of the whole complexity of the situation. Short/Non Short breeding can be profitable for those who make money from show animals and big figures at the auctions but is (in my very humble opinion) a nonsense for anyone trying to produce a balanced herd for overall profit. Incidentally, I do believe that the breeders who are succesful with the short/non short would probably be the ones who would also lead the field if we ever get round to sorting this issue out.

OK, I hear the answer, why not leave everyone to make up their own mind? Because we are a breed society with a responsibility to the breed. And in my opinion (VH as above!) a breed which relies upon a deformity is never going to be taken seriously by the bulk of the farming profession.

[Ken Hobbs]

yes Peter, I can agree with you on farming for profit,but I would say there are very many people interested in just having one or two for a hobby and fill the freezer and the shorts really appeal to them, i would be intersed to know what the average nuumber of animals per member is, an interesting comparison would be at the Melton Show and Sale, to see which sells the best, long or short. But can anyone say how many bulldog calves have been born in the last five years?

[Broomcroft]

From memory, the average number of registered animals per member is about 15. But I think that is deceiving because there are a small number if bigger herds which distort the figures. If you remove those, I guess the average would be below 10. In other words, most people have less than 10 cattle.

[wagra]

Very few short breeders are going to admit to bulldog calves now that there is no need for guess work in the matings by the use of a tested non-short.
There was an admirable honesty in the earlier UK herd-books where bulldog calves are recorded, but everyone had the same problem and no-one felt discriminated against.
Not all abortions are found anyway, whether it be fox, dingo or eagle that pick up the foetus. Occasional slips will happen even in conventional cattle farming, so I don't know how an estimate could be put on how many bulldogs in the past 5 years.
The one thing we do know is that chondrodysplasia is a lethal deformity, with an average loss to aborted bulldog of 25% if breeding short to short.
The other thing we do know is that, according to Wikipedia, 'a breed is a group of domestic animals with a homogeneous appearance, etc..'

Margaret.

[Broomcroft]

I have heard of people who have had runs of bulldogs. When we started, we knew little about it. Our vet told us, after we had already paired carrier-to-carrier, that 25% would be bulldogs. But we were told by Dexter people this was not the case and that it was rare. Total confusion and lack of understanding. We eventually had a bulldog from a small number of matings, and we then decided to get rid of our carrier bull.

In terms of putting people off, personally I can think nothing more effective than having some lovely little cows in your field and then finding a bulldog one morning when you didn't realise this is what could happen, or thought it was a rare event. Education would help to avoid such unfortunate experiences.

[Mark Bowles]

I admit to 2 bulldogs from my short cows which were registered in the herdbook 2001, i am not ashamed of that.
We were restricted during foot and mouth and had to make a decision to put our cows to a short bull or leave them empty for however long,( we were stuck without a non-short), it was a simple decision to make. The cows that had the bulldogs got over it and got straight back into calf... when we had a non-short bull again.
My current policy is a short legged herd that gives me great pleasure and we use all non-short bulls, its that simple. Any retained non-short heifers/cows go to those same bulls as a result we get non-short offspring, obviously.
With education, which is NOT rocket science, the carrier issue is not a problem, and i would think nationally per year the number of bulldogs born would be a whole lot less than you would all expect.

[Ken Hobbs]

Clive your comment on putting peoplle off by finding a bulldog calf in the field is a little bit over the top, if, as we are supposed to be a dedicated and friendly society. Individuals who sell animals, I am sure will advise the purchasers of the long/short, short/long principle which has been followed over many years.I personaly have not heard of anyone recently using the above method as having bulldog calves. I like my shorts,and my longs go in the freezer.my family bring cool boxes and not much in the way of suitcases when they come to stay.
Graham / Margret not many dingos or eagles over here but we do have foxes.

[Rutherford]

It is not so much the number of bulldogs notified as the perception. Today, few folks with a glimmering of genetics will contemplate a breed that relies on a lethal recessive to produce the desired effect. Moreover, those that do may well be pitch-forked out of the breed if one of the two lovely little cows that they recently acquired, produces a monstrosity, instead of the miniature calf that they had been eagerly anticipating. Their recounted experiences can put others off before they even own a Dexter.
Serious livestock breeders recognise that to qualify as a breed means ‘like breeds like’. Many vets would steer folks away from the breed for the same reasons. It is essential that the Society informs newcomers of the problem, and how to avoid it but even then, it is not a good advertisement. Established breeders will cling to their ‘short leg’, but eventually I believe the trend is going to be towards a small genetically sound Dexter that provides straightforward breeding, and I believe is much closer to the Celtic cow from which it is descended. King Canute couldn’t turn back the tide.
Beryl (Woodmagic)

[Duncan MacIntyre]

I very much agree with Beryl's last post. The bulldog gene has been part of the breed for so long and so necessary for the traditional show animal that it is difficult for many breeders to see the breed without it. But like Beryl I think there will be a slow movement away from it. Fortunately we now have the means to test whether animals are carriers or not, and this makes it much easier to try to produce a smaller true breeding Dexter. I am sure this can be done, and though first attempts such as my current herd would not win many show classes, if enough are produced then there is plenty scope for selection and we will see true breeding traditional size dexters which are of show quality and do not carry the bulldog gene. We really needed the test to let us do this, as it is very difficult to distinguish long and short if the shorts are getting big and the longs are getting short. My own bulldog storm was the result of thinking that a bull was probably long when in fact he was short, and putting him to cows which were similar. I had 4 bulldogs in less than a year from 3 females.

Clive's tale of not realising what bulldogs were all about till it was too late is all too common, and should not happen now that we know the exact genetic cause and can test our breeding stock. It was understandable that some breeders had heads in the sand up till the gene was identified, and Andrew Sheppey drew together the figures for short to short matings in a number of herds over a long period to give us the true statistical proof of how it was inherited. This was presented to us at the 1st World Dexter Congress, but maybe its significance got lost amongst a lot of other issues. Even after that some breeders were suggesting that there were several different genes involved, that it was all very complicated and that there were 64 types of Dexter. There were also those who blamed the time of year, poisonous plants, being frightened by dogs, or eating too much rhubarb for causing bulldogs. It is sad to think that there are still those who minimise the effect of the bulldog. Carrying one can seriously damage a cow and many take a long time to recover. Some never conceive again.

It is important to allow things to happen slowly, building up good non carrier cows as we go which are the size dexters are meant to be. To divide the breed into two camps at the moment would be a disaster. Tolerance is the answer to a lot of Dexter problems.

Duncan

[Peter thornton]

Beryl is right;
"Many vets would steer folks away from the breed for the same reasons."

When I got my Dexters, my vet told me that they were nice little cows but Dexters did not "breed true".

[Rebecca]

The debate on short versus non-short is likely to be one of the things that puts people off buying Dexters. Unfortunately so many people are so adamant in their opinions that they can be quite off-putting to people new to the breed.

I am in Oz and because we have to parent verify, via DNA, all animals prior to registration it is relatively easy to also send the DNA off for testing for chondrodysplasia (committee have recently made it even easier - only one sample is needed). We bit the bullet last year and tested our entire herd - at the time over 30 breeding animals (now considerably more - as we are increasing our herd size). Costly yes, but I know exactly which animals are carriers and have the proof to back me up - OK the only animals that tested positive where the ones I knew were carriers anyway, but sometimes it can be tricky to tell. As we now run a relatively closed herd, producing new stud bulls via AI using semen from tested non-carriers when needed, the only animals that need to be checked are those from our carrier cows. All others are free by inheritence. So very easy for us. Peace of mind for people buying from us as they know exactly what they are getting and are informed of the consequences of breeding their carrier cows to bulls who they are not sure about. However, I have found that most people decide that it is easier to buy a non-carrier.

Will we get rid of our carrier animals? Probably, eventually. We currently keep the girls we have because of the traits they pass on - namely temperament, beautiful udders, and conformation. OK - I know conformation seems odd, but our carriers are all animals with good feet and very sound -no signs of arthritis in the older animals. We have our original 3 carriers, of these 1 is a grade animal the others are purebreds. The 2 purebreds both throw small non-carriers (although one has given me carrier daughters for the last 2 years, which we have kept, I am waiting for a non-carrier daughter), so are not carrying genes for height. The grade cow throws calves a bit larger but still where I want them in a graded animal. The reality is that we will get rid of the graded animals before we get rid of the carriers because our herd is predominantly pure and we are not interested in "grading-up". The carrier gene is something I can work around and I am not going to through out the good genes my girls carry and lose them from the herd.

Everyone has different reasons for breeding and I constantly read on this forum that the dexter can be all things for all people, yet when the debate of short versus non-short happens suddenly it can't be. The genes is just one of the pecularities of the breed, managed properly it is not a problem. For people who don't like carrier animals it is simple - don't breed them - just try not to preach to those who do like their carriers. To those people who breed and sell carriers - PLEASE make sure that anyone buying one is told the truth about breeding from them. This is the biggest problem that I see - not just when they are sold from the breeder, who in most cases will give the needed info, but then when they are sold on after that.

A simple way to help prevent bull-dogs would be to have all bulls tested prior to registration and any carriers are not registered. Only registering non-carriers bulls would no doubt be controversial but at least people breeding shorts could still keep their cows and you don't lose thier valuable gentic material. This is what we do within our own herd - I am never going to keep or register a carrier bull - but this is my choice!

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth!! :laugh:



Edited By Rebecca on 1214796105

[Broomcroft]

I actually see quite a lot of common ground. It seems there are a couple of key things that I think everyone who has posted agrees on, even though they have a different way of looking at the issue:

1. Breeding carrier-to-carrier and risking bulldogs is bad.

2. There is a lack of understanding about the issue.

Also, it has also been suggested by a number of people that more should be done to educate. I didn't realise, until Duncan said it, that the cow can be affected by a bulldog and may not ever conceive again.



Edited By Broomcroft on 1214811854

[Peter thornton]

Duncan has put his finger upon one of the main issues:

"The bulldog gene has been part of the breed for so long and so necessary for the traditional show animal"

I believe that the DCS should ensure that a non carrier has as much (if not better) chance of winning a major show as a carrier animal. If carriers have better chances in the ring then the Society is helping to perpetuate them.

I also think that the Society should at least consider banning carriers from shows. I know that's controversial and that's why I'm being a little cautious but a case could be made from banning carriers (from shows only) from, say, 2015.

One of the Societies main functions is to manage show standards and thereby encourage breeders along certain paths. It's a debate that needs to be held - eventually.

[Saffy]

A long while back someone mentioned the idea of changing the ratio of judges as apparently at the moment most judges prefer short as this is what they themselves breed.

Also I noticed that a short breeder said that it is at shows that new people see their Dexters and therefore get into Dexters and so it is through the short type that we get new members - well in that case it would be wouldn't it so I assume that the judging is weighted toward the short.

So if this really is the case surely something should be done as otherwise the non short isn't getting its fair share of promotion that is being handed mostly to the short.

Perhaps it is time to build a level playing field?

Stephanie

[Martin]

What most short breeders seem to forget is that without non shorts the Dexter as a breed would probably have died out long before now.