To:  Jane Faul 

Dear Jane, 

I doubt if I am the right person to comment on the perceived wisdom currently being traded on the genetics of Belted markings or mis-markings. I just happen to think that our current beliefs on the inheritance of 'marking' are poorly founded and have been for generations. I can think of no other explanation for the failure of many dedicated and competent breeders to eliminate 'mismarkings' and fix the 'proper markings'. 

Most breeders will find it a bizarre hypotheses that Belties are white animals with black markings and that the ability of a developing cell to become pigmented and the subsequent expression of a white middle is dependent on a series of morphogenetic gradients. The idea is a relatively simple one. But the model it builds becomes increasingly complex as development proceeds. For the most part it is of academic interest only: in practical commercial breeding it doesn't really matter whether they are 'black on white' or 'white on black'. But it provides a better basis for understanding why numerous anomalies still occur in the markings. 

... I enclose an initial statement sent to the members of the Teleconference held on 8th May together with a suggested draft followup which was sent as a private correspondence for discussion prior to making any definitive statement. It needs considerable cross references and acknowledgements to published research papers to be meaningful. 

Kind Regards. 
 
Wm. Storrie. 

Tel. 0506/52967. or 636270. 
Fax 0506/634320. 
CompuServe Email 100136,2402 NSANET 
Email SIBCAS_1. or RURTEL SIBCAS_2

Regrettably, I will be away from home and unable to take part in this conference, which may well be an historic event and a turning point in the fortunes of the Belted Galloway Breed. 

Since this will largely be concerned with introductions I hope that the following will serve in my absence. 

I am principally concerned with the conservation of the genetic endowment of the 'original' Beltie and operate within a closed nucleus founded on six foundation dams (two lines since discarded) and one bull line. The mature weight of the retained females is above 560Kgs (1230 lbs.). The seventeen and fifteen yr. old, weighed on the 27th. of this month were 510 & 520 at their mid lactation (end of winter weighing). That bull's lowest weighing, when standing at AI was 1020 Kga. Some of the US members have walked the herd and have handled the present stock bull who is his son. He weighed 940Kgs (2070 lbs) on the 27th (160 Kgs less than his full condition weight). So my idea of 'original' is on the heavy side of average. 

Conservation of genetic endowment in a small (40 females/4 lines) nucleus cannot conserve the genetic variation of the breed. It is simply a snapshot at one particular moment of time from one specific viewpoint. It is simply a reference point, not unlike the original Hereford Angus controls used in the Germ Plasm evaluation Program at Clay centre in the US, without the variation inherent in the vastly larger sample numbers. Determining more than one reference point, is crucial.  I can only provide one reference point, one specific set of genetic endowment interacting with one particular environment. We could charge into increasing the numbers on the ground and get it disastrously wrong ! 

Conservation by MOET?  In my initial program I collected 70 embryo. 56 are gene banked. All the original dam lines, bred back one generation to Firth King Henry and some semen from his son Burnside David (my original foundation bull). 

To round off the 'hands on' experience Dr. Butson agreed to take four embryos into Canada and now has three calves on the ground and one to come. Mr. Chatfield has three and Mr. Randy Hadden in Georgia has two. They all came from a single flush from one donor (Netherwood Nan). Simply in number terms this donor, now six and a half and nursing her fourth natural calf, has already contributed 7 additions to the breed, banked 2, and probably another four in utero. Her fifteen year old dam is currently nursing her thirteenth calf and looks good for a few years yet. But, even if I never flush her again, she has already exceeded her dam's lifetime production. 

Conservation by IVM/F (Invitro Maturation & Fertilisation). During the program the team assisting in the work (Edinburgh Genetics, Dr J. Mylne) salvaged ovarian tissue, post mortem, from a seventeen year old, put down because of aged arthritis. From this tissue we recovered 32 oocytes, matured and fertilised 28, all of which graded as embryos but I elected (mistakenly) to limit the storage to 11 of the grade 1. With fourteen natural calves behind her, the extra eleven embryos was a considerable bonus. 

Although I did it from a conservation aspect it has enormous potential to increase numbers. Much has still to be learned of breed specific problems, optimal donor and recipient criteria, etc. It still has significant cost penalties when used locally: somewhat less when used as a means of genetic exchange internationally. But improved demand for Belties would shift the balance and improved techniques will also bring costs down eventually. It is worth encouraging. 

I consider an Embryo and Semen Register, in some form, essential. I grossly over-recorded my embryos for my conservation records. ... A much simpler record would be perfectly adequate for all other purposes. Here the IETS might be the best advisors. 

Our common ground is to prevent the Belted Galloway from disappearing from the World's cattle population, even though our methods differ considerably. I am totally opposed to the introduction of alien genetics without the filter of a full five generation grading up register. I have the greatest respect for the finely tuned judgement of practical breeders who depend on cattle for their livelihood. The Herefords have hit the right button with their Baldy Beef initiative. We have an equally prepotent marker to stamp on Fl crossbreds and exploit in the same way. And retrieve from that crossbred pool the new damline contributions from a few outstanding females being bred back to a Beltie for another four generations. We shouldn't sacrifice the existing Beltie dams to produce the slaughter generations: we need to hold on to them where they are and breed them pure ! ! 

I might as well take this opportunity to set my stall out. 

I am not persuaded that EPD, BLUP or other methods of objective measurements, on their own and commonly used in breeds with large numbers, is appropriate for Belties at this time. We obviously, and urgently, need some easily measured traits of high heritability and commercial significance. Some "index of merit" of the Beltie's other importance characteristics bolted on to EPD might serve us better initially. Too many variables slows progress considerably. But relying on too few can be a disaster. 

Some of the suggested EPDs without their related parameters would be meaningless to me. E.g., Height. Would a two year old bull 52 inches in height who was showing more than 16" of daylight under his ribs meet the criteria of chest depth? Or if he was 36" from shoulder to pins, 12" pins to pelvis and 24" shoulder to poll would these be appropriate length relationships for a Beltie? And weight? 1500 lbs in weight and at least 80" in girth. Knowing his EPD based on height and weight doesn't mean a lot without the others. 

Testes mass without knowing the scrotal attachment poses a similar problem. The correlation between mass and fertility is soundly based. But the last thing anyone needs in a stock bull is testicles dangling like balls on a piece of string, knocking against his hocks. They need to be in a thick skinned scrotum with a broad firm attachment. 

As far as characteristics are concerned, the following are what I think a typical Beltie should have. Not necessarily what they should be, or what breed standards say. 

Polling characteristics? Belties are polled. Full stop. 

Belties are Black or Dun if they are homozygous, carrying the Galloway dilution recessive. Anything else is a belted variant of another breed. 

A full belt. Nice to see it about 14" wide across the back and not too wide on the underside but not critical. Other mismarks? Personally I wouldn't sacrifice an excellent or above average pureblood female from the breeding pool for a minor mismark. Simply move her out into the third or fourth generation of a grading up register, and use a bull excelling in marking on her. Slightly different with a bull. A slightly mismarked bull with a high 'commercial' EPD isn't going to harm the breed's reputation out working in a commercial beef herd. (That demand should almost be an automatic bonus if we get the pure blood criteria right). What do the Herefords do, nowadays, with a bull slightly mismarked about the head? 

The only baircoat a Beltie should have is a survival coat. One that sheds rapidly in the spring upwards and forward from the hindquarters; and takes any buildup of lice nits with it before they hatch. The replacement summer coat should be short, shiny and smooth: it later thickens to form the winter undercoat. The undercoat should start to grease up in the autumn when the guard hairs start to show and lengthen: the function of the guard hairs is simply to gather rain and melting snow and channel it down the body quickly 

I haven't seen or heard of any of those mentioned in Belties. I do a lot of sib test mating in my nucleus; son to mother, sire to daughter, full brother sister. So far I haven't turned up any serious deleterious recessives. 

I test annually for TB, Brucella, EBL, IBR, Lepto Hardjo, BVD, an IPX for hidden virus and every three years for Johnes. But it has no commercial value whatsoever. Disease priority will vary from country to country and herd to herd. Belties are relatively disease (and parasite) resistant. Disease susceptible animals are probably culled, anyway, for other reasons. 

Occasionally I have an animal with sunstroke. Never fatal and usually in a wide belted animal. 

I select positively for dam longevity (the associated traits fall into place almost automatically -- feet, thrift, milk, survival coat, head protection, udder attachment, teat placement, mothering ability etc.). I discriminate punitively against poor teat placement or loose udder attachment. 

Bulls are selected on the basis of their performance within their yearling peer group. Any male that isn't steered gets the chance to be a bull. (Usually four or five.) A bull that fights his way to the top of the heap gets the rosette. Invariably that means he's the heaviest, develops the best bone & muscle structure, has the right kind of head and feet and is cocksure and masculine. The top two are mated to four of the worst heifers (two each) and the rest are fattened and killed as young bull beef (21 months and around 560 Kgs). 

I select very positively for placid temperament in both sexes, simply because fighting with an ill-natured beast is now beyond me. 

There is a broad measure of support within the UK for this kind of initiative. Inevitably it must be US led, because of the numbers, and that will mean compromise and give and take from all sides. Smaller societies will want to retain their autonomy within a framework of co-operation rather than compliance. 

I hope there is something on the stall that may be of value. This initiative is exciting and has great promise. But it's a big league we're entering. This isn't the ornamental market. Someone has to be the devil's advocate and spell out just exactly what we're up against. 

I am online to host computer networks in the US and Europe and can act as an Email postbox in the UK. The conference forums and bulletin boards are not connected with Belties but there is no reason why an attempt couldn't be made to set one up. One significant advantage (in addition to instantaneous transmission of files) is that a log of the proceedings is automatically kept and down loaded at the end of a session. I'm normally on to the US on CompuServe CB simulator (Handle 'Wooden Spoon') for an hour most Sundays from 11 pm GMT. Mostly trivial chat but no reason why it shouldn't be serious. It's relatively inexpensive. ... If any member is online it might be helpful to establish a communication link to start with. The user software is simplicity itself. No special computer knowledge is needed. 

Kind Regards to all. I hope we can make it a success. 
 
Wm. Storrie 

Tel. 0506/52967. or 636270 
Fax 0506/634320. 
CompuServe Email ID Wm Storrie 100136,2402 (US) 
NSANET SIBCAS_1. RURTEL SIBCAS_2 (UK)