Dr. Andrew Cromie:

I will pick up on the 40% accuracy question and genotyping and genomics. I note to Deputy Fitzmaurice that the accuracy of genotyping is 100%. That is the first point. When we think about accuracy, how accurate is the process of taking the DNA and establishing a genotype? That is 100% accurate. The next question, which is in essence the one Deputy FItzmaurice is asking, is how confident we are in converting that genotype data into a star evaluation. This is where one has that figure of 40%. In effect, that is the reliability, which is what Deputy Ó Cuív also adverted to, of the Euro-Star evaluation. In many ways, these questions are at the nub of one of the issues. We are dealing here with Euro-Star evaluations which by their nature are based on data and more data. As a consequence, the evaluations will change over time. As my colleague, Mr. Coughlan, has indicated, we are absolutely confident at a high level when one looks at it based on lots of data that these four and five-star animals will lead to more profitability for farmers. People are generally acknowledging that right across the board, but that does not get away from the issue that at the individual animal level, some will go up and some will go down. In the case of an AI bull or a stock bull, that can, as Deputy Ó Cuív indicated, have a profound impact, particularly when it relates to potential progeny. That is why education and training is such a core part of the beef data and genomics programme. It is covered as a cost associated with the scheme and is going to start in February.

There are approximately 27,500 herds in the scheme. We have done the initial analysis of how many four and five-star cows there are and farmers have received the reports. While they are generally happy, there are some herd owners who are in a more challenging place. This is where we need to have a discussion with them regarding their replacement strategy to ensure they meet the 2018 and 2020 requirements. In those circumstances, their options will include the use of artificial insemination. At the information meetings, we saw that while 20% of the progeny from the suckler herd or the cows in the scheme were from AI, almost 60% of herd owners in the scheme were using some level of AI. That is a very interesting and relevant statistic. It tells us that guys are engaged with using AI but we need to get them to use it more.

The next advice we must give those individuals who are going to use AI is that it is not one AI bull. I take Deputy Fitzmaurice's point about what would happen where a bull dropped. If they use a very reliable AI bull, the likelihood of that bull dropping is very small.

The accuracy figure alluded to by Deputy Fitzmaurice is like a confidence interval. How confident are we that this index is going to change? Certainly for an AI bull with 90% reliability, we would be very confident that the index will not change. However, for a young AI bull who is down at 40% or 45% reliability, the same as a stock bull, the index could change. The advice to herd owners in that regard is they need to use a team of AI bulls. They will need three or four AI bulls. Generally if one looks at the herds that are involved, in Gene Ireland or the various AI-based initiatives, they would use three or four different beef bulls across different breeds. Using a team of bulls has worked very effectively in the context of the dairy herd. The benefit is that one mitigates against the risk of any one individual falling. One could go up, one could go down but the average of the group stays the same. Using four young AI bulls is the equivalent of using a very well-proven stock bull. That is work that Teagasc would have done in the context of strategies that herd owners can use to try to offset the risk around reliability or the potential fall in reliability. We are always talking about the bull that goes down, but for every bull that goes down, there is another bull that goes up.

The issue of drops in proof will only affect a proportion of herd owners. The advice is that if they are using AI bulls, they should use a team. The other piece of advice from Teagasc and the AI companies and which is a core part of the education and replacement exercise is that if they want to guard against this issue and if the cut-off is €74 - the four and five-star cut-off on the replacement index is €74 - then, on average, the progeny on a €74 cow will be €74 and they will be fine. However, that is not good advice if they want to cover off some risk. In that case, they should go higher than that because the bull could potentially fall. The advice is that if herd owners are going to buy a stock bull, they should look at one at €120 to €150 in terms of the replacement index to give them some ability to offset this potential risk.

We have spoken about the information meetings and Pearse Kelly and Aidan Murray from Teagasc would have presented much of this material at those meetings. More than 5,000 farmers attended 12 information meetings and they understand this. They understand that this issue is a part of the Euro-Star indexes. At an individual level, this is how one guards against a problem with an individual animal. The key point is that it applies across many animals, whether they are buying in heifers, breeding on their cows or using AI. Over the course of the six years of the scheme, these issues dissipate. They also dissipate across the 27,500 herds in the scheme. That is why, at the high level, from the point of view of the ICBF, Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we are confident that the genomic base and the science behind it will take us to where we need to be at the end of this scheme, which is delivering €150 per cow in terms of additional profitability.