SOME COMMENTS by GARRICK BATTEN of CAPRINEX ENTERPRISES on the October 15 message from Graham Culliford to AKGA Members

As it was Culliford who has created the controversy that he refers to, it was appropriate for him to now explain the reasons for doing so. It is a clear attempt to be involved in active identification and registration of Kiko goats in USA despite the restraint clause of the agreement under which he sold the Registry. Cl.19 states “… the vendor agrees that he, his heirs and successors and assigns are restrained from engaging in the registration, identification or genetic fingerprinting of Kiko goats within the geographic confines of the American continent for a period of ten years from the date of this agreement (August 2000)”. It also shows a lack of appreciation and memory of past events.

However it provides the opportunity for contrasting accuracy and truth in response. I apologise for its complexity but there are just so many issues raised in a convoluted and disorganised way that it is difficult to know where to start. An attempt has been made at consolidation, firstly with a Summary, and then with detail relating to his message. There are documents on file to substantiate my statements. It is a pity that no one asked the appropriate questions earlier.

Members and others will see that concerns driven by personal agendas that led to questioning management of the Association and its affairs have been based on false, deliberately misleading, irrelevant and inconsequential grounds.

SUMMARY

*   The current NZ Kiko goat Registry operated by Goatex Group Ltd is a legitimate operational mechanism to register Kiko and Kikonui goats, and is used for clients who require such background.

*   Culliford has no inherent right to be involved in any questioning or discussion about Kiko goat registration or identification in New Zealand, and is specifically restrained from doing so in USA under the terms of the North American (NA) Registry sale agreement.

*   Parentage of embryo and semen donors can be authenticated from the NZ Kiko Goat registry and the Caprinex records that comprise it

* Negative speculation about information in the NZ Kiko goat Registry is only relevant to USA breeders when considered against the AKGA NA Kiko Registry that has proved to be a demonstrably false base.

* Culliford had nothing to do with Kiko goats prior to mid 1994 when he bought into Goatex Group Ltd, despite describing himself as the exclusive Kiko developer in NZ

* Culliford bought tangible assets being goats, when buying the shares of the company. Any breeding records were and are the property of Caprinex. They have been and still are in use in NZ.

* Only one generation of parentage information was supplied by Caprinex about the goats that were sold in 1994, and later two generations about Sesame and Sting. That information was used by Culliford to create the 4 generations North American (NA) Kiko Registry

* There are at least 8 data errors in the pedigrees of the original Kiko goats in the North American Registry

* Of the goats originally imported to USA as Kiko, dozens apparently had no relationship to the Goatex Group Ltd Kiko flock

* The issue of use of the Goatex prefix in the AKGA NA Registry should not be a basis for dispute, but has been resolved by Culliford agreeing to these goats being re-registered with a different prefix.

* There are many areas of muddled thinking and forgetfulness in his discussion about goat age, colour, polledness, semen quality and Genemaster trials, all of which can be adequately and honestly refuted.

In the end you have to question the credibility of a person to make accusations and criticisms that he has, and his reasons for doing so, from his position that you can make up your own mind about.

GOATEX

There are two “goatex “ issues. The use of the word to which he claims ownership as a prefix for a registered goat’s name has now been bypassed by the agreement between us both that reregistering these goats in the AKGA Registry with a different prefix avoids the problem and his concerns. An application to do so was made months ago at the BOD invitation.

The word Goatex was originally in use by the company for exported semen to the USA in 1990, 4 years before it was sold to Culliford, so it was already in play in USA, contrary to his assertions. A trademark protects words, symbols and designs that identify the source of goods or services to distinguish them. The word Goatex has never been trademarked in USA or NZ. Copyright protects original ownership, but not of facts, ideas, systems or methods of operation, and so does not apply to this word. And if it did, it would apply to the original owners that included me and certainly not him.

Culliford claims that Goatex is his herd name. He is not an AKGA member and does not use the name to register goats.

Further, goats registered in the current NZ Registry with the prefix Goatex are not straight line descendants of goats “registered (by Culliford in the NA Registry) under that prefix”. They are straight-line descendants of goats sold to Culliford in 1994 as the assets of Goatex Group Ltd, and denoted with that prefix in the current NZ registry. The Kikonui project had adopted the Goatex prefix name for identifying goats in the group bought back in 2003. That is logical and not illegal. Caprinex is involved with the current Goatex Group Ltd., and the goats had come from what had been the previous Goatex Group, as Culliford pointed out. They were not in the NA Registry that Culliford sold to AKGA and so were not registered by him as Goatex goats.

The second issue is his proposed legal challenge to the formation of a company in New Zealand with the name Goatex Group Limited. This is actually not of concern to USA people. Culliford bought the tangible assets being the goats when they bought the shares of the company. (Click here for proof) There is no mention of assigning the name Goatex to the purchasers or “their heirs and assigns” as he claims. This is another figment of his imagination. The name was not trademarked or tangible. The AKGA attorney has verified all this from the sale document. However Culliford’s comment does raise the strange notion that the original owners of the company and name and using it for their goats could not retain it, but the new owners, despite dissolving the company, could retain the name forever. The world would run out of new names.

It should be understood that the abbreviation LLC (which means limited liability company) is not used in NZ. Goatex Group LLC is the name that Culliford traded under but it has no legal status other than to identify him. On the other hand Goatex Group Limited was the registered NZ company that he bought in 1994 and dissolved in 1996. It was the Goatex Group Ltd that was the exclusive developer of Kiko goats in NZ up until mid 1994, following the earlier activities of Caprinex, and not Goatex Group LLC as written by Culliford and stated in AKGA literature. Neither Goatex Group LLC or Culliford had anything to do with Kiko goats prior to mid 1994.

Culliford does not have a sole right to register Kiko goats in NZ. Anyone can, just as there are several Kiko registries in USA. The point is that ours is operated by Goatex Group Ltd. It has a perfect right to operate a Kiko goat registry in NZ and the current AKGA Registry does not inhibit that. Goats from the NZ Registry are acceptable to the AKGA NA Registry in terms of its rules

CULLIFORD REPURCHASE OF GOATS FOR EUROPEAN SALE

The sale document covering the 2003 purchase of the Kiko goats remaining in NZ, also verified by the AKGA attorney, shows 25 Kiko does, 3 Kiko bucks, 10 KikoxBoer doe yearlings, 7 Kikoxferal doe yearlings. Obviously they were not all Boer cross breeding as he asserts. The photos of the 5 Goatex donor does in our sale catalogue www.caprinex.com that were part of the 25 listed above bought back in 2003, are clearly not Boer cross.

Our memories of his proposed repurchase are distinctly different. At the time that we bought back the goats in 2003 (not 3 years ago in 2005 as he stated) Culliford stated that he had an export enquiry for Slovenia. We agreed that rather than him retaining some goats from sale, Caprinex would buy them all and he would buy back what he wanted at a later date. He identified the goats that he wanted and they were mated to his instruction. They were running on a farm under the care of a young woman who was our manager (not business partner) in the Kikonui Project that was being established. His unawareness of that is because it had nothing to do with him. On the numbers alone that he quoted, he obviously did not see the 25 Kiko does. There were 10 Boer cross young does (not 20 as he claims to have seen.) in “his” group and I certainly have a photo of all the goats at that time unlike his memories. The Kiko does are obviously not Boer cross animals. You can see the “small black buck” that he refers to in a photo of “Survivor” here. He was 75.5kgs (166lbs) at that time. If Culliford really knew about Kiko goats in NZ he would know that they are bred for efficient and profitable meat production, not size.

SEMEN

Premier sire semen was owned by Caprinex, not Goatex, so was not part of the deal for sale of tangible assets of the company, and was offered separately for sale. Culliford’s stated reasons for not purchasing it show ignorance. Some of this semen had already been exported to USA, where its progeny fetch premium prices, so was clearly certified for export to USA. Information about the buffering agent used was not provided to him, so that negative comment is unfounded too. The semen has continued to be used in NZ as recently as 2008 mating with kids now on the ground so viability is not in question, despite his self-alleged expertise in this matter.

I am not sure of his point in referring to the photo of Shebang. It was taken at the AI Centre after residence of about a year and collection period required for export quarantine, during which he did not prosper, and that is apparent. Culliford can be as derogatory as he likes about Shebang but progeny are the measure of a sire. His have proved superior to others and confirmed his status. However it should be kept in mind that all the goats that we farm will not look their best, but are still capable of growing out as do the animals that USA members now farm. A good example is the often shown photo of buck #26 owned by Dr An Peischel that was an early direct import of a typical on-farm NZ Kiko at the time he went. That image can be compared in size and development with those of Sesame and Sting at a similar age in typical NZ condition that I showed at the 2007 National Convention, and of Survivor as stated above.

KIKOS NOT SENT TO USA

Culliford’s observation about polled goats is a clear example of muddled thinking that is characteristic of his message, and lack of understanding about goat breeding. He stated that polled goats were not exported, and also that those left in NZ included polled animals. So naturally the gene was present in the animals bought back in 2003. The polled goats in the donor catalogue are young of our own breeding by a polled buck. It is quite logical that there should be polled animals in our flock, and that is a deliberate policy. He may not consider it a desirable trait but then he is not the flockmaster.

The list of originally imported goats has been published by AKGA showing registry ID that denotes colour. That list shows only one non-white goat. From my knowledge and records of goats sold in 1994, it is obvious that there were a significant number of coloured goats left in NZ. Steele advised that coloured Kiko sires were used in his breeding programme. We bought back 2 coloured bucks and these and semen from coloured bucks and their progeny have been used subsequently. One of the reasons for this is that there is a sub-programme to breed Indigoats that are black for a speciality market. Culliford’s snide scepticism about our coloured donor does is unfounded.

From our extensive knowledge of age, colour, characteristics, records and intrinsic knowledge of the animals sold in 1994, from the age, colour and parentage record of animals sent to USA, from breeding information from Steele, our ability to trace animals through by age groups for example, and from events subsequently, we are able to determine those that we bought back from information supplied and from extrapolation. Better people than Culliford can see how the dots are joined.

Quality assessment of goats sent or retained is of course a matter of personal judgement, but I would back my judgement against his, given that he had nothing to do with these animals prior to purchase in mid 1994, and I am the original developer of the breed and had farmed them, and then later as the Goatex Group flockmaster, for over 15 years. We do not agree with his assessment that the animals not exported were of lesser quality.

The reference to the Texas Genemaster trials in NZ is a further example of his confusion. The results are reported for the 1993/4 season, yet it would have been impossible to have mated the Kikos to Boer before 1994 which is when Boer bucks were first available, and mated Kiko does bought in 1994 could not have kidded to Boer bucks until later in 1995, because they were either pregnant or too young when he acquired them in winter 1994. Yearling progeny would not have been available for evaluation until 1996.

Discarding animals from shipment to USA in the mid 90s using criteria of age, colour and polling shows a poor appreciation of production merit factors and quality. Substituting and supplementing them with dozens of goats that were not from the Goatex Group Kiko flock should not have been an option.

GOATS SENT TO USA

From the age of goats sent to USA, from numbers sold and from herd prefixes, it is clear that there were goats imported to USA that were not from the Goatex Group Ltd flock. For example, there were 9 goats born 1990 that were sold in 1994, and 26 born 1990 in the imported list. Click here for a list of goats originally sold, and here for a comparison with the goats Culliford imported.

The only herd prefixes used for animals born in the Goatex Group Ltd flock were Heslington, Caprinex and Goatex for within-flock breeding and management reasons. At the time of the 1994 sale of the Goatex Group Ltd Kiko flock those were the only prefix names in use. Only some of the original import list with those prefixes. Apparently the other animals with different prefixes are those with no connection to the Goatex Group Ltd flock, and not of Kiko breeding. Why would Culliford give different and completely unrelated herd prefixes to animals from the Goatex flock? Either for some marketing reason but that fails as a reason because of age discrepencies shown above OR because they were from completely different Kiko flocks, which did not exist OR they were from non-Kiko flocks.

Pre 1994,Goatex Group Ltd basically sold bucks in NZ, as well as exporting animals. So it would have been not difficult to “scour NZ to buy back any Kiko goats that might have been (previously) sold” as he claimed. There were very few. Only 2 lots of breeding does totalling 10, were ever sold by Goatex Group Ltd. in NZ. We knew where they went and he did not. Draw your own conclusions.

GOAT AGE

It is now some years since Culliford lived in NZ and his faded memory can be expected on all sorts of facts. For example, to state that no ewes are kept past their fifth birthday is plainly wrong. There is a whole sector of the NZ sheep industry that buys 5-year-old ewes at special annual ewe fairs, from hill country farmers to run on flat and downland country to produce lambs for 2 or 3 years before they are culled to slaughter. That was a system that I ran on one of my farms.

Similarly the statement about goat age. AKGA members have goats older than 10 years. We have several goats older than 10 years and once had a goat of 17 years of age. Kiko and Kikonui goats are specifically developed for survival and productive life, and his statement about goat age shows just how much he knows about them. It is interesting to note that according to Culliford’s entry in the North American Registry, original 1994 import 4K592SET4 Seventrees Assessor was born in either 1994 or 1984. So she was either a 10-year-old, which is impossible according to him, or was sired by a buck that had died several years before but yet no AI was used for the 1994 mating.

AKGA REGISTRY MATTERS

To address the specific examples quoted. The detailed examination of Goatex Chic is interesting in its irrelevancy. There are several reasons for his confusion in his own mind from dates and his pedigree constructions. Of course Solstice bred by Caprinex was “never in possession of Steele in 1998”, as he was not in the goats sold in 1994, and Steele did not receive goats until 1996. Solstice who was born in 1988 appears at the grandsire level in the Chic pedigree so of course he would not be present. Similarly Steele did not have any Bardon goats and neither did Caprinex. The Registry information about Goatex Solstice comes from AKGA published pedigrees that uses information provided by Culliford to create the Registry. As he did for Sinatra.

The information supplied by Caprinex at the time of sale included a buck 91/4 out of 152 Esther by Sting. This is clearly the animal identified in the AKGA Registry as 1K914GGL4 Goatex Goliath by 9K143HSL Heslington Sting out of K152GGL4 Goatex 152/88(Esther).

Similarly with Goatex Sinatra that Culliford discussed at length. Caprinex supplied information that showed 91/1 Sinatra was by Sting out of doe 46. The AKGA Registry shows 1K001GGL1 Goatex Sinatra by 9K143HSL Heslington Sting out of 0K046CPR Caprinex 46/90.

Consider a couple of doe examples. Culliford bought doe tag # 164.85 born 1991 by Whitey out of Y0096. There is a doe in the original import list identified as Goatex Gemdale 1K164GGL3 by Whitey. It appears in a NA Registry published pedigree as Goatex Gemdale 1K164GGL3 by 0K419GGL Goatex Whitey out of 9K096CPR8 Goatex 96/89. Again, Culliford bought doe tag # 188 born 1983 by Sinatra out of YR50. There is a doe in the original import list identified as Goatex Gemini 3K188CPR5 by Sinatra. It appears in a published NA Registry pedigree as Goatex Gemini 3K188CPR5 by 1K001GGL1 Goatex Sinatra out of 8K050GGL7 Goatex Gesture.

These are published pedigrees that do not require Registrar co-operation, collusion or some skullduggery to obtain, and the slur on the Registrar should be treated with the disdain it justifies.

In the same way it is possible to link records of other goats sold, to the renumbering used by Culliford using age, colour, parentage and tag numbers. Does sold were age tagged such as the 14 imported does with Goatex and Caprinex prefixes sired by Sinatra and born in 1993. They were obviously from the group of 15 yearling does born 1993, sold in 1994.

Despite his claim, there is no duplication in the file copy of the tag numbers of the goats that he bought.

Do you believe from the above examples that Culliford used information on tag numbers and parentage that was supplied to him to produce his ID system for the NA Registry? Then you can believe that is part of the reason that we are able to track through and identify our donor animals and their Kiko breeding. Or do you believe that Culliford’s explanation of how he created his Registry would have produced different results. If so, how do you explain the results of the numbering system used?

Goatex Sid was registered by our NZ Registry, not by Culliford’s NA Registry, so of course was not recorded there as he stated. References to being white with blue eyes are a further example of imagination.

The current NZ Registry is used for registering Kiko and Kikonui goats in NZ to meet customers’ requirements. The data for the donor animals was reformatted by using the same layout as the North American Registry to facilitate AKGA registration. (In a similar manner to way that the original animals were allocated ID and for the same reasons as Culliford described in his “Origins of the NZ registry”, which in fact was the NA Registry). And from using information currently in that Registry. That is being helpful, not underhand, and can hardly be criticised by him for using a practice similar to his own.

With our knowledge of the goats and their subsequent breeding it was perfectly possible to describe their pedigrees for 3 generations, which is what the NZ Registry has. The decision to accept that is an AKGA matter. It was the AKGA requirement to register these donor goats, not our request.

The check digit procedure operated by Culliford is not part of the operations of the current NZ Kiko Registry.

ORIGINS OF USA REGISTRY

Ownership of the Registry is not really relevant to AKGA members and Kiko goat breeders. It is the credibility of the information in it that is important. Caprinex developed, maintained and still has the records of the Kiko programme from the late 70s.

Caprinex as flock master for Goatex Group Ltd kept the breeding records. At the time of sale Caprinex provided information on only the immediate sire and dam of animals sold. This was provided in a typed printout, but not of a single IBM punch card type as has been stated. I have a copy of that information and also the data used to develop it. No goats were ever tattooed. No assurance was made about any other records. (I certainly have not got out of the goat business on account of age and not only am continuing with a burgeoning Kikonui Project but continued to maintain a national profile in the industry). Information enabling 4 generations of pedigrees was certainly not made available. Any breeding information was not part of Goatex Group Ltd tangible assets. Culliford created a NA registry of numbers and names, not a NZ registry, from the information provided by Caprinex. How can you generate 4 generations or even 3 generations of parentage from information of only one generation?

As an example of the spurious nature of the North American Registry, the certificate issued in 1996 for 6K930HSL Heslington Sesame shows 3 generations of parentage (not 4 as Culliford claims). It is based on information supplied to him of 2 generations only, and was extended by him as noted in a covering letter to me. Further, that extension includes prefix BAR for a breeder and farm not known to me, for animals that certainly were not in the flock at the dates shown or ever. An Peischel could not have presented 4 generation pedigrees for goats sired by semen from Sesame or Sting as he claimed.

There are at least 8 identifiable breeding data errors in the NA Registry description of the Goatex, Caprinex and Heslington goats originally imported into USA. I have no comment on the integrity of the information about the dozens of non-Kiko imported animals without those prefixes.

The goats bought back in 2003 were not tattooed or micro-chipped by Culliford because they were not born at the time of the original imports to USA, and Culliford was not in control of them during their lifetime.

The NZ Kiko Registry does not require goats to be tattooed or microchipped because the shareholders of the Goatex Group Ltd know all the goats from existing ID. It will accept names and does so, even if Culliford has the effrontery to think that it shouldn’t. Names can be attached at any time prior to and during the registration process, as did Culliford originally. We were advised that AKGA did not require donor goats to have been previously tattooed or microchipped as it was applying current policy.

The detailed exposition about how the NA registration system works is interesting but irrelevant. Goats were born in NZ from 1994 through to 2007 that do not appear in the AKGA NA Registry and speculating about them is non-productive.

Culliford’s detailed comment about integrity of the North American Registry and our alleged attack on that pales in the face of the knowledge that it was constructed of breeding information of one generation only. To suggest that Culliford’s knowledge of the Kiko goats in that Registry is greater than mine, given my background with these goats is risible. To claim that the NA Registry of Kiko goats that he sold for $40,000 is of greater integrity than the one that we are now operating in NZ is based on false grounds.

The validity and credibility of the information that we have supplied from the NZ Kiko Registry for the Kiko embryo and semen donors that we are offering to US breeders to supplement their genetics, has to be compared with the Culliford NA Registry information of parentage depth, and parentage detail for Kiko goats, and that also includes goats with no Kiko background. It will be clear to breeders who understand such matters that our information is greatly superior. Negative speculation about the NZ Registry information is only relevant to USA breeders when considered against that of questionable pre-2000 AKGA NA Registry information created by Culliford. But then, he had nothing to do with Kiko goats before he bought them in 1994, so what would he know anyway.

Click here for the next section