Interesting email

[SteveM]

The "advantage" of the dexter to me is that its affordable for the small scale producer.

If the big boys ever get involved the margins will be cut to the extent that no one can afford to keep them. Happened with pigs in the 70s-80s.

looks like "original population" is the new linear classification. and as with the beef scheme, a good idea but not really taking off.

[Jac]

The "advantage" of the dexter to me is that its affordable for the small scale producer.

If the big boys ever get involved the margins will be cut to the extent that no one can afford to keep them. Happened with pigs in the 70s-80s.

And you don't think this isn't happening with 'illicit' beef? Is it any wonder the beef scheme isn't taking off?

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Steve m says "looks like "original population" is the new linear classification. and as with the beef scheme, a good idea but not really taking off."

No it is not like either of these schemes at all. The are for the potential benefit of all members and for the breed as a whole. The Original Population idea is a dream scheme of a few individuals to identify stock which has had no "graded up" or mistakes in the pedigree regardless of how far back any "introgression" has occurred, and place these in a special register and have them treated preferentially to all the vast majority of the breed. I think I would disagree with it in principle but in any case there are so few of these that it would not be a viable proposition anyway. Sadly even some of those which have been put up as "original population" do not stand up to scrutiny of the pedigree anyway. As well as some which have appendix animals in the pedigree some lines have been excluded soley on hearsay evidence of impurity, no possible way to check up on this decades down the line. It is a scandal that DCS council are pursuing this as a project, whilst making life very difficult for a few members with definite breeding projects in mind - just the sort of projects we need for the breed.

My concern in this is for the breed as a whole, we must not have its reputation destroyed by the misguided zeal of a few fanatics.

Duncan

[Kirk- Cascade Herd US]

1. Dexters aren't an ancient old breed.... Instead, they are a relatively new breed developed in the lifetimes of many of our grandparents and great grandparents and they are still under development because so many of them have offspring that don't meet the breed description.

2. Dexters are a concept breed. Kerry and Kerry-cross cattle breeders found that they had some Kerry cattle in their herds that were shorter and thicker than regular Kerry Cattle.... They called these shorter, thick, Kerry cattle, "Dexter-Kerry"... So they had True-Kerry and Dexter-Kerry as two types of Kerry Cattle within the Kerry breed. "Dexter-Kerry" simply meant shorter Kerry. As is often the case with concept breeds, breeders take note of these unique individuals and try to capitalize on their uniqueness by developing a new breed around the features of those individuals.

3. I'm pretty certain that Regular-Kerry cattle and Dexter-Kerry cattle weren't even separated into two separate breeds until the 1900's.

4. The "Original" prototype Dexters simply helped define the concept for the new breed.... Short, Thick, Friendly, Dual Purpose, Hardy. But most "original" members of new concept breeds haven't even gone through a process of purifying them into a true breed. Original members of a concept breed can be seriously flawed prototypes.... Sorta like the "Original" shoe-box sized cell phones were seriously flawed prototypes of today's excellent cellphones. In the case of new cattle breeds, it can take 50 or 100 years to work the kinks out and to purify and stabilize the new breed into true-breeding quality animals that nearly perfectly meet the breed description and have offspring just like themselves.

4. The "Original" Dexters were a mishmash of non-true-breeding shorter Kerry-Mix cattle. Nothing to be proud of. When I see some of today's excellent herds like the Harron Herd and some others, they seem far superior to the original mish-mash of prototype Dexters that couldn't even breed-true. True-breeds must breed true.

5. The ONLY effective way to ensure the future of a breed, is to develop a highly detailed breed description, and select rigorously for quality animals that breed true to type for that standard.

6. Ancient old pedigrees beyond five generations are historically interesting, but mostly useless in selecting for excellent true-breeding cattle that fully meet the breed description. Paying too-much attention to ancient old pedigrees can HARM a breed, because it takes attention away from selecting quality animals that meet a detailed breed description.

[JamsHundred]

Says WHO, Kirk?

I am frankly tired of the " let's breed true" poppycock! Wanna breed true? Then go purchase and breed one of those breeds, whoever or whatever they might be! I've yet to see a breed that has the same height, weight, udders, in their mature bulls and cows. What a bunch of nonsense!

The EARLIEST and glowing description of the Dexter breed was published in the mid 1800's by Professor Low, who wrote one of the earliest and I assume most respected volumes on cattle at that time or for decades. He described dwarf cattle. If you have not read this description published in the first RDS herd book or on the Legacy preservation website, or FB historical pages, perhaps that will take you by surprise.

I am frankly just as weary of "modern" cattle people repeating, over and over, how it is only important to breed for good conformation, and good feet, and good udders. There are a number of breeds out there that may qualify for those criteria. . . why aren't YOU breeding them Kirk? Your stock, in appearance, is quite similar to the red polled cattle. . . . perhaps in some cases a bit smaller, in others perhaps not. Now. . there's an opportunity for you. You can do exactly with red poll what you are doing with Dexters. . . . . you can purchase some of them, line breed them with the same bull in the pedigree 17 times which will miniaturize them and you will have a new market fad! Minaturized red polled cattle which look like upgraded red polled Dexters. There is no end to the possibilities!

WHAT we NEED in the Dexter breed are breeders who recognize the orignal phenotype, ( which was extraordinarily unique), the treasured characteristics of the breed, which included milk quality and quantity, superior immune systems, ability to convert forage, personalities which endeared owners of all levels of wealth and pedigree, and to the joy of many of us, the ease of calving with strong mothering. The package which houses these valued traits should not matter beyond functional. If the breed is losing these traits, ( and it IS!) while owners try to bolster their egos by developing "true" anything. . . . than it matters not the appearance of the darn cow. What was treasured in this breed were these invaluable traits, which flowed from the dwarf cattle. When you remove the dwarf cattle you lose at least one characteristic immediately, and a second one has a noticeable difference. As a breeder of dwarf cattle, I have over the course of nearly a decade recognized and experienced the differences.

It is the breed characteristics of which we should concern ourselves and not how "perfect" or "true" the package that houses them. The external means not a whit if we lose the important and valuable internal ! ! !

Nearly every existing breed in the US has lost valued characteristics and laments it, and has in some degree strived in recent modern decades to regain some of the loss. As you breed out the treasured qualities of this breed. . .. . . . what will you have left? Well, the closest ancestor, and comparison would be the Kerry. . .. . and they struggle to survive. So will the Dexters as modern breeders cost them the unique qualities that increased their numbers as the Kerry numbers declined. Speaking only for the US market. . . . . . the Dexter cannot and will not ever enter the commercial markets. . . . . UNLESS. . . .so drastically changed as to be a Dexter in spelling only.
Dexters are a unique and special breed, and it is a niche market they serve. . . and trying to make them otherwise will seal their fate . . . same as the Kerry cattle.

As to the Original Population Project or the preservation of early bloodlines in the US. The effort is no less important than the farmers who preserve heirloom seeds. It is the same. In the US there was and still is. . NO. . . .upgrading program permitted . . . yet we are now registering 90% minimum of ALL animals from ONE . . .. .. non-purebred. . . .bloodline. And we have those breeders out on the talk circuit who are singularly responsible for the elimination of "true" spouting nonsense in an effort to legitimize what is an absolute crisis and tragedy in this breed.

I will assume that the English market must be diminishing in numbers since the American registry, ADCA has it spread across their website pages and the internet that they are the biggest and best registry in the breed in the world! ! If this is the case. . .. why did the English herds, the basis for all herds across the world, go into decline?

Judy
USA

[Duncan MacIntyre]

Dexters in the United Kingdom and in Ireland are very far from declining.

Judy Sponaugle is welcome to visit the Burnside herd any time.

Duncan

[Rob R]

Likewise the Rosewood herd.

The dwarf type is not a breed feature unless you want a breed that produces 25% dead calves when bred true, other than that I recognise pretty much all of the desirable traits you mention. The horns might be an exception in some examples, but as I'm yet to hear why they are an essential trait it remains an aesthetic preference.

[JohnnyP]

Just checked the diary for when Judy Sponaugle could visit my herd...

...Never.

[Kirk- Cascade Herd US]

Judy has a valid concern about preserving the essential features of heritage breeds... Our small family farm in Oregon, USA is home to several heritage breeds and those heritage traits are essential to our farm's survival... We have no vet and little or no vet care, and our Dexters, Icelandic Sheep, American Guinea Hogs, and Speckled Sussex chickens thrive. Essential heritage traits aren't just for historical fun, they are for very practical purposes.

We chose our heritage breeds to play important roles on our heritage farm. We work hard to maintain the essential-traits that define our heritage breeds. In the case of Dexters those essential heritage traits are:

1. Friendliness and un-intimidating
2. Compactness
3. Multi-purpose (excellent productive beef and dairy)
4. Super-easy calving
5. Hardy, efficient and trouble-free
6. Rugged and long-lived
7. Personable
8. Solid black, red, or dun, some white near udder

Horns are lovely to look at, but for many people, they are intimidating.

You can have 100% compactness without the chondro lethal gene. There have always been some naturally shorter Dexters without chondrodysplasia. The chondro gene greatly complicates things and isn't trouble free and can shorten the lives of Dexters.

The trend toward red, hornless Dexters in the US can certainly make it look like Dexters are changing... But there have always been some red Dexters and always been some dehorned Dexters. The huge popularity of red and polled Dexters has helped the popularity of black and horned Dexters. There are more black horned Dexters registered in the US now, than ever in the past.

I consider myself to be a very effective and practical heritage breed preservationist and a rational purebreeding purist.

I challenge other purists to look at my list of essential heritage Dexter traits and tell me exactly what I am missing.

[Kirk- Cascade Herd US]

Concerning Professor Low's 1845 description of Dexters he simply said:

"a remarkable roundness of form and shortness of legs."

"short legs, and a small space from the knee and hock to the hoofs"

"roundness and depth of carcase"

Here's an excellent non-chondro True Breeding Dexter bull (ADCA: Brightlea Benjamin) that perfectly meets Professor Low's description.



Professor Low never said anything about Chondro at all, or he would have said 25% are born horribly deformed and dead, and 25% are born tall and with long legs. How could a professor miss that?


.