When is a Dexter not a Dexter? - That is the question...

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:11 pm

When is a Dexter not a Dexter, height-wise I mean? If an animal has been registered, say a bull where the 'max' is 48", when it was young, but since then it has grown to, say, 50", is that registered bull a Dexter? Yes or no. You can't have maybe, or can you!

Let's say another bull was registered and the owner either genuinely thought it would be within standard, or wasn't even aware there was a standard, and it grew to 55" tall....is that one still a Dexter?

I have another question depending upon the answers I get (if any!).

PS. I know that the breed standard was changed from 44" to 48" by a council and I believe without reference to the members, but can we just put that to one side for a moment and just accept that it is 48" for the purposes of my question.

Saffy · Post by **Saffy** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:07 pm

Blimey Clive – you do like to ask difficult questions don’t you.

I suspect that everyone will have a different opinion on this!

The more I think about it the more confused I get – not that that is so unusual!!! Maybe there should be a height measurement at a very early age for heifers and a bit older for bull calves to help owners work it out. If they are between these heights at the right age they can be registered? (I can see a problem could be what if a calf is premature and is going to be bigger at maturity than the age/height measurement suggests it may even throw calves that will ultimately grow bigger than itself.)

Also I can see that it could be said that surely if said bovine has a pure Dexter Sire and Dam, (without going into whether or not there really is such a thing as pure Dexter or if this particular animals parents are really pure but if Mum and Dad are registered,) surely if it was OK for them to be registered how could it not be OK for it to be registered?

At the end of the day though we have to have a height constraint as this IS a SMALL breed and THAT is what makes Dexters - Dexters. The Ford Motor Company called one of their tractors Dexter back in the very early 60s, it was a very small, neat and strong tractor! It would be very silly if those of us lucky enough to have a herd of these delightful animals at the moment were to have hand in losing the defining quality of the breed.

Stephanie

Louise Badcock · Post by **Louise Badcock** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:04 pm

If the animal has a registered sire and dam, then it is a Dexter. If it does not conform to the height constraints then so be it . It is still a Dexter, just too tall for the breed standard and for showing.
I guess that there will be lots of cows falling outside the limits like my old cow was.. Hopefully the main stud bulls which are shown will all be within the breed standard so that cow owners can select bulls that are likely to throw correct size calves like the daughter i have kept.

Woodmagic · Post by **Woodmagic** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:17 pm

If the parents are in the Herd Book, then the offspring should also be eligible. Unfortunately present rulings deny this, and animals are in my view wrongly removed for a variety of reasons.
I believe it should be mandatory for bulls to be measured by the vet at every T.B. test and the resulting measurement should be automatically published whenever a bull is listed or advertised, then buyers could be aware.
The breeding of carriers has often led to the false assumption by Dexter breeders that height is not inherited resulting in the disastrous increase in their size - the chief selling point of the Dexter - ignoring it could kill the breed.
Beryl ( Woodmagic)

Nikola Thompson · Post by **Nikola Thompson** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:23 pm

I think the height issue is always a difficult one. With connemara ponies if a pony is over height regardless whether it has purebred parents it goes into a different section of the stud book or the standard of the breed would go and we would end up with connemara horses rather than ponies.

This what I love about the Woodmagic non short is that they are still small.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:48 am

The way the Connemara society handles this may be the way forward with Dexters. It would give a more commercial edge to those that breed just for beef ie same costs, more beef!
Has anyone eaten any Dexter that is outside the breed standard? If they have, does it taste any different?
Welsh ponies have different grades, A B C & D, the difference being height. Another way forward?
A heated debate is now expected.

Louisa Gidney · Post by **Louisa Gidney** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:55 pm

I'm currently playing with some cattle metrical data from 2 Roman forts. One set gives a mean height of 1.11m with a Standard Deviation of 0.05m, so 95% of the population should fall within the range of 2 SD or 1.01-1.21m. The other gives a mean of 1.12m with a SD of 0.07m so a 2 SD range of 0.98-1.26m. These are biologically normal distributions and one would always expect the remaining 5% of the population to fall at either extreme of the 2 SD range.
Despite the best efforts of breeders to restrict the normal range by selection and the creation of breed standards, the biologically normal range will still be contained within the gene pool.
So, to establish whether your animal is "too big", we really need a programme of measuring the national herd to ascertain what the current mean height and SD are and how these actually relate to the ideal of the breed standard. Then an informed decision could be made on whether the standard accurately reflects the population and whether your animal falls within 2 SD of either the breed standard or the national mean.
Of course, short and non-short add an extra bit of spice to the calculations!

Liz D · Post by **Liz D** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:09 am

Well Louisa, that is the 'spice' that a lot of us around the world must be thinking of; height standards and carrier vs non. Raising the general height standard of the breed, as in a bull of 48", as long as it is one standard for both carrier and non will allow for Dexters to keep getting bigger. Therefore should we all actually have dual height standards that truley reflect the Dexter that each of us are breeding? More 'spice'

Liz

Broomcroft · Post by **Broomcroft** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:47 am

Yes, that is what Beryl is saying regarding the standard. The Americans had a discussion recently about the average height differential between a shortie and a non-short and came to the unofficial conclusion that it was somewhere around 6-8" on an animal nearer the upper limits (I repeat, as a rough average). I am monitoring two calves for them born at the same time, one shortie, one non-shortie, who's moms are identical half-sisters who's calfs are normally the same. They are just over a month old now and the difference is a good hands width, i.e. 4", or for younger people amongst you, 101.6 mm give or take a thumb.

Surely, having one standard is a nonsense, simple as that. Which is what the American are suggesting. If you bred from a 48" shortie, wow! The calves would be enormous. The standard has been set and increased without any allowance for the chondro/dwarf gene. Even a shortie at 44" is a big chap. If you want Dexters to get bigger and bigger, then the breed standard is a good way of achieving it

In terms of taste, the beef we supplied for the Great British Menu was from the biggest, or actually tallest steer we have ever seen. The chefs said it was the best beef imaginable. However, it was fillet so it would be good from a bigger animal. I think the flavour just gets slightly gentler as the size goes up. It is the relatively small size that gives the flavour in my opinion, as long as it's properly finished, which is where the main difference will be between big and small I would think.

This steer was slaughtered at just over 2, but he would no doubt have gotten up to say 50" and more. He was out of a normal looking non-short cow who always produces on the big side and his dad was a shortie (under 44" but not by much). Talking about standard deviation, that bull produced some massive steers and some tiny, tiny heifers. Looking at the offspring compared to my non-short bull on the same cows, I would say my shortie bull was genetically about 50" tall, but made physically short by the gene. So to measure him and say he was 4" under the standard of 48" would be very misleading.

I wonder what the standard deviation is amongst shorties Louisa? The average might be say 8", but the variation might be much greater...I wouldn't know.

Edited By Broomcroft on 1231314735

ann · Post by **ann** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:36 pm

one of the reasons Bery's cattle are small and uniformed is because she always breeds form non shorts. when i first came into dexters I remember being told by a non lover of shorts that breeding short to non short would always produce in some cases the extremes at both ends.

Veronica Schofield has followed the same policy as Beryl and she has some cattle that would easily pass for a short at the top end of the range. Many of the Australians have also gone down this route and in many cases they used other breeds to grade up, but because they have many generations of non shorts they have also got some very medium sized cattle which would put some of ours to shame.

ann · Post by **ann** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:42 pm

my post shot of before i had finished, I think Louise's idea of a national measuring session is a great idea, I believe the Australia's measure to the rump, a bit near to the hind feet for my liking is you don't have a crush.

wagra dexters · Post by **wagra dexters** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:28 pm

The reason we measure across the hip bones is because they are more constant than the wither, which can alter to a greater degree with head position and stance.
Bulls would be even more of a problem to get an accurate reading at the wither.
Margaret.

Liz D · Post by **Liz D** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:58 am

Canadian registry measures to the hip also for the same reasons. Liz

Post by **Mark Bowles** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:17 pm

As i see it, if a pedigree animal is 34" or 52" it is still a dexter, end of story. The said animals at those heights unfortunately do not adhere to the breed standard. Anyone can breed from them, anyone can buy them if they wish, but if they then proceed to produce too small or too large offspring then they too will not conform to breed standard, but they are still dexters.
The thing is, it's down to the individual breeder to decide if they are to keep the over or under sized animals and also their decision to breed from them.
I personally would not buy an oversized bull, or cow for that matter, because i wish to work to the breed standard and breed animals that conform, that way i don't have a problem selling them.
In an ideal dexter world we should all be working within the guidlines of the breed standard, to include other things as well as height, that is what the standard is there for.

Liz D · Post by **Liz D** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:04 pm

But Marc I think the question really is that if you buy a 44" carrier bull, who would conform to Canadian standards he could theoretically be a 52" non-carrier who would not conform to our standards. Do my 40" non-carrier cows conform to the standards if they were 35" carriers? Liz