Beef genomic programme’s six-year tie-in too draconian
But — and without in the least minimising last week’s BSE case in Louth and the potential challenges represented — it would be a profound mistake to put long-standing plans on ice, while the implications and responses are worked through.
ICMSA believes that whatever problems are presented by the case that our response and traceability systems are of such a standard that the cause will be rapidly identified and addressed in so comprehensive a manner that the confidence of our domestic and international customers need not be disturbed.
We’ve dealt with BSE before and eradicated it so completely that — ironically — we were effectively designated BSE-free by the veterinary equivalent of WHO just mere weeks ago.
We’re absolutely sure that the same thoroughness and effort will be applied again and we’ll quickly return to that desired status. And now to the broader picture within the beef sector.
We’ve repeated our request to the state agencies responsible to redouble their efforts on live exports of young animals: There has been a surge in births (up almost 100,000 head to date on 2014) and a corresponding fall in live exports (down 25,000 head on last year’s levels), with calf exports (12,800 below 2014 to date) and weanlings (4,300 similarly).
One fact about the Irish beef is undeniable: The price farmers get from the factory is largely a function of the numbers of animals available to the factories.
On the numbers, we can see a problem coming in 2017 unless we export more live cattle this year.
While the new BGDP is a welcome injection of funds into the suckler sector at this time, certain criteria must be altered to ensure the maximum the number of participants in the scheme and to support the suckler sector.
The most unacceptable aspect of the programme is the condition to lock in for six years and the draconian measure of recouping all previous payments if you leave before that time — that’s going to dissuade large numbers of otherwise interested farmers.
An alternative proposal must surely look at a system that allows withdrawal if a reasonable explanation is provided — such as a change of enterprise.
Farmers must have the freedom to farm in any sector of their choice and this scheme restricts that through an onerous commitment of six years and draconian penalties in the event of withdrawal.
Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney consistently tells farmers they must respond to the marketplace, but this restriction will prevent them from doing so.
The requirement for a bull and replacement heifers with four-star or five-star terminal and replacement traits to be purchased or bred over the course of the programme will also eliminate farmers from the scheme.
These conditions are important but the costs will be prohibitive for some suckler farmers who already struggle to make ends meet.
The alternative of using artificial insemination is out of the question, as a lot of suckler herds owners are part-time farmers and simply cannot devote the time to heat detection.
Additionally, where a suckler herd is expanding, that farmer should be allowed movement on the additional suckler cows above 2014 levels.
All these conditions beg the question that will be posed by farmers interested in joining the scheme: “Can I afford to join it or can I afford to be without the income supplement?”
It is a serious, costly commitment for six years for many and only time will tell if the stock improvement repays the investment.
It is clear that improving breeding stock genes is essential but the real profit is derived from the prices received at the ring side and in the factory, and if the prices are depressed at the time of sale the benefits of the beef genomics and data scheme will be entirely lost from a farmer’s perspective.
The scheme certainly has its merits but the detailed rules must be amended if it is to attract the take-up originally envisaged.
