[Jacob-list] Fwd: Fw: Emailing: Horak Article, Horak Article 001

[marguerite van beek]

Dan

I agree.  I is a natural selection, we improve the breed by breeding what we
like to see in our Jacobs  or nature does which was evident on the
Island,  it is evolution.

We still have the qualities that make up what is unique about the Jacobs and
I don't think what will change since we have our registry.

Peg





On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Dan Carpenter <Hobsickle at aol.com> wrote:


>  I’m not sure that there is a clear, concise, universally accepted

> definition of “primitive” when it comes to animal breeds—and I am sure that

> there isn’t such a definition of “breed”—but in my mind those two terms are

> somewhat contradictory, as primitive (to me, at least) implies less genetic

> homozygosity (did I make a new word?)  and breed implies more genetic

> homozygosity.  If my understanding of the terms are correct, it would imply

> that (1)primitive breeds should have the capacity to be changed

> significantly using the genes they already possess and (2)since those

> changes would result from an increase in homozygosity they would erode the

> primitiveness of the original breed.

>

>

>

> The implications of these statements are: (1)it is at least possible that

> some of the Jacobs East of the Atlantic could have been “improved” without

> crossbreeding and (2)we could be “improving” the Jacobs on our side of the

> Atlantic without ever crossbreeding.

>

>

>

> -Dan

>

>

>

>

>

> *From:* jacob-list-bounces at jacobsheep.com [mailto:

> jacob-list-bounces at jacobsheep.com] *On Behalf Of *marguerite van beek

> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 11:22 PM

> *To:* jacob-list

> *Subject:* [Jacob-list] Fwd: Fw: Emailing: Horak Article, Horak Article

> 001

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: *marguerite van beek* <mvanbeek7 at gmail.com>

> Date: Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:17 PM

> Subject: Re: Fw: Emailing: Horak Article, Horak Article 001

> To: CARL FOSBRINK <carlfosbrink at yahoo.com>

> Cc: jacob-list at jacobsheep.com

>

>  Carl

>

>

>

> I read your email and the article from Fred.  Just because Ed never saw a

> two horn does not mean it is not in the breed which when I saw his movie at

> the AGM there were four and two horn jacobs.  How can he state that.

>

> Fred does state there is really no difference from the Turner's  or

> Hescock's flock.  Even thou Hescocks said his was an improved stock.  Which

> brings me back to the fact Hescocks and Huntsberger flocks were not deer

> like at all.  And there were two horn and four horn in those flocks.  I

> believe the Jacob has a lot of differences within itself.  To state that one

> is better than the other is a false statement.  They are what they are.

>

> We as a group have culled what we decided was unacceptable from eye

> patches, horn types, etc.  to improve the Jacob breed.  Have we not?

>

> By doing all of the so called improvements (fleece, coloring, leg patches,

> horns) why would it not seem possible that size came into play.

>

> We as breeders breed what we like.  You for instance breed only four horn

> jacobs.  I like four and two.  The only way you can have what you call a

> primitive Jacob was not to cull at all and I think we have passed that

> line.

>

>

>

> Peg

>

>

>

>

>

> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM, CARL FOSBRINK <carlfosbrink at yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>

> *Peggy,*

>

>

>

> *   The attached article by Fred Horak will explain it to you, I hope. I

> will also try to explain it in a little different way.*

>

> *   The earliest Jacobs to come to America were an import to the Chicago

> Zoo from the Isle of Skye around 1954. About 1960 Dr. Fell from Indiana

> bought the first ones released to the public and in 1967 Bill Reynolds

> bought some of these from Dr. Fell. Some of these early imports also went to

> the Winnipeg Zoo. Geoff Hatch bought a large number of sheep from Bill

> Reynolds and Charles Humes had the early imports as well. These Jacobs were

> spread over the country. A large number were sold at the Cape Gerardo sale

> each year. Edd Bissell said they were all four horned and had knee and hock

> spots and Panda faces, meaning round spots around the eyes and black

> muzzles. A lot of them  had freckling. Edd said he never saw a two horned

> Jacob or one with a pigmented muzzle or white legs or badger faces until he

> saw the Hescock Jacobs. In the 1970s Lasseau and Hescock got Jacobs from

> Tony Turner's flock that was quarantined in Canada. A lot of these Jacobs

> had pigmented muzzles, white legs, badger faces and little to no freckling.

> It is not known if the big difference in these two groups was due to them

> originating from a different place or for another reason, but the two groups

> were almost immediately crossed because of the small gene pool of the

> earliest imports and the need for new blood. Hescock wanted an improved

> Jacob for commercial reasons here in the States, but they were not nearly as

> commercialized as today's English Jacob. When the American Jacob was started

> it was decided by the organization to breed for the primitive type of Jacob

> instead of the "improve" English Jacob, but due to the poor quality of some

> of the Jacobs of the day, some were polled and many other

> things, our Standard allowed for a wide variance in the breed so today you

> can find Jacobs in America that represent the Isle of Skye imports and those

> that represent the Turner imports and everywhere in between. I personally

> like the markings and deer-like conformation of the Isle of Skye imports,

> but with a freckle free body like the Turner imports and it is fairly easy

> to obtain due to the fact that freckling can be greatly reduced in one

> generation or done away with in two generations. Other people like the

> pigmented muzzles and white legs. Both are acceptable by the JSBA Standard.

> There is a lot more to the story, but I hope this helps you understand why

> some Jacobs in America don't have deer-like conformation etc.*

>

>

>

> *Carl*

>

>

>

> Carl Fosbrink

>

> www.4hornfarm.com

>

>

>

> --- On *Mon, 9/27/10, Carl Fosbrink <fourhornfarm at frontier.com>* wrote:

>

>

> From: Carl Fosbrink <fourhornfarm at frontier.com>

> Subject: Emailing: Horak Article, Horak Article 001

> To: carlfosbrink at yahoo.com

> Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 8:52 PM

>

>

>

> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link

> attachments:

> Horak Article

> Horak Article 001

>

> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent

> sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail

> security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3162 - Release Date: 09/27/10

> 02:34:00

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/jacob-list/attachments/20100928/7b3d465a/attachment.htm>