carol d wrote:Everyone agrees the chondro gene affects height, and surely we all know the standard was set for dwarfs (the only type registered at the time)
If the standard (and presumably you mean the old one) was set for chondro animals with no thought of non-shorts, then if there was a standard specifically for non-shorts, then presumably this would be 5-8" higher than (the old) chondro-based standard?
So, the top end of the standard for a non-short bull would be around 54" ?
Duncan MacIntyre wrote:For many years Dexter females were described as having preferred height of 38 to 42", with 36 deemed acceptable. We can do this without bulldog genes, have true breeding animals. If anyone wants larger animals for economic reasons then change to a breed that meets these requirements.
Duncan
The trouble being that the breed already sells itself as being 'economic', by which I take to mean it is cheap, in this context. There is working among some areas of the society and with some members to make it more of a commercial prospect and therefore produce better returns. If height is limited then surely this will result in a stockier, shorter animal that will surely be as removed from what constitutes the Dexter breed as one which is taller (and probably more in proportion)? Either that or it becomes less economic and therefore more of a hobby breed. Having read the steer prices thread it sounds as if most people's experience of Dexters are one of a breed that has many positive attributes, but economical is not one of them (not one I subscribe to, but I have to admit that you have to work harder to get the returns).
maybe we should have a standard that just puts a limit on excessive heights, and leave the small end alone. I'm sure there is a market for teeny tiny animals, and if that's what Duncan has managed to breed, good on'im. Supposedly one of the traits that makes Dexters Dexters is small size, and there's no getting around the fact that as long as people use chondro to artificially reduce height, we are going to have big carriers and very big nons. if there was a recommended upper limit for both (Duncan can suggest the numbers here ) then that would probably resolve the whole issue and have the breed match general expectations? Just thoughts....c.
Duncan MacIntyre wrote:For many years Dexter females were described as having preferred height of 38 to 42", with 36 deemed acceptable. We can do this without bulldog genes, have true breeding animals. If anyone wants larger animals for economic reasons then change to a breed that meets these requirements.
Duncan
The trouble being that the breed already sells itself as being 'economic', by which I take to mean it is cheap, in this context. There is working among some areas of the society and with some members to make it more of a commercial prospect and therefore produce better returns. If height is limited then surely this will result in a stockier, shorter animal that will surely be as removed from what constitutes the Dexter breed as one which is taller (and probably more in proportion)? Either that or it becomes less economic and therefore more of a hobby breed. Having read the steer prices thread it sounds as if most people's experience of Dexters are one of a breed that has many positive attributes, but economical is not one of them (not one I subscribe to, but I have to admit that you have to work harder to get the returns).
Economy doesn't really come into it. No breeder of any breed is raking it in (if EBLEX costings are to be believed) otherwise the govenment wouldn't need to give farmers money in one form or another.
I am reminded here of what I was reliably informed went on before my time .....
When you went to buy a Dexter, if you had money you were shown the shorts if you were a 'scratter' you were directed 'round the back' to select a non short.
With the current move to beef, if you are penny pinching then you are offered the 'runts'.
Economy surely comes into it even more when times are challenging. And if it is an economic breed then such times should be when Dexters gain most ground, as any breed can look good when cash inputs, such as concentrates and straw, are low.
It would make sense to have two height standards, one for short and another for non-short. Currently, the standard would accomodate short cows up to 44 inches or short bulls up to 48 inches, despite such animals having the genetic potential to breed much bigger progeny. These could be way above the meximum height standard, moving away from what we think of as a Dexter (I believe Welsh Black cows start at around 50 inches). That surely fails to address the aims of the maximum height standard. There is a broad church of people keeping Dexters, long may there be so. My view is that having two height standards would be better for the future preservation of the breed's distinctiveness.
Colin wrote:It would make sense to have two height standards, one for short and another for non-short. Currently, the standard would accomodate short cows up to 44 inches or short bulls up to 48 inches, despite such animals having the genetic potential to breed much bigger progeny. These could be way above the meximum height standard, moving away from what we think of as a Dexter (I believe Welsh Black cows start at around 50 inches). That surely fails to address the aims of the maximum height standard. There is a broad church of people keeping Dexters, long may there be so. My view is that having two height standards would be better for the future preservation of the breed's distinctiveness.
Regards,
Colin
Well, they do it with the Welsh Cob. I don't think it is that simple with regard to genetic potential with the Dexter but I suppose until someone tries to categorise we'll never know. Dwarfism aside, the problem is that people do not cull things of an odd size even when they know they are too big. The perfect Dexter is yet to be bred, if an animal is good in all other respects why would they kill it ? (this is not an argument to breed bigger Dexters).
I think a far better (if more expensive) solution would be to test all Dexters at the registration stage for the chrondro gene and print it in the herdbook so everyone knows what they are working with for sure. If you are proposing two distinct height categories would you not have to test anyway? Are we considering splitting the herd book? I think we have been here before....
Wouldn't it be better to have a wider middle band, that would encompass most of the carriers and non-carriers? There will still be some that fall outside the standard at either end, but the majority would be within the bell curve for height.
Most of our herd are within the NZ height standard, yet they are all non-carriers. We have simply chosen bulls that were at the lower or middle end of the standard, to contrast with the taller cows that have been graded up and each generation of heifers has gotten lower in height, until most now fit within the breed standard. It's taken a few years, but it can be down. The good thing about it, is that we don't have the expense of having to test calves of known carriers anymore.
Our last carrier bull gave us three non-carrier heifers, which have been a great addition to our herd. I bought him because of the excellent muscling in his rump, which was passed on to the majority of his calves. His carrier gene and his horn genes were the only parts of him that I didn't want. The rest of his genetics were great and I'm glad of the input he made to our breeding herd. His carrier daughter and steered carrier sons, were sold to people who appreciated them more than me.
) then that would probably resolve the whole issue and have the breed match general expectations? Just thoughts....c.